Discredit passages from 35 decisions whose text signals GBV

### public-hearings/12210-2020-03-12-Ruling-on-Application-under-Section-144.pdf
  * He submitted that additional parties are not required in order to achieve the statutory objectives of determining the truth and upholding public confidence in police administration.

### public-hearings/12210-2021-06-11-Adjudicators-Reasons-on-Disciplinary-or-Corrective-Measures.pdf
  * Section 126(3) provides, as a paramount principle, that if I find one or more of the specified measures under Section 126(1) to be necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Consistent with /the broader public interest objectives of Part 11 of the Police Act, this general principle is subject to considerations of workability and public confidence in the administration of police discipline… 8.
  * 126(3), whether less punitive measures would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute, is answered from the perspective of a “reasonable person, dispassionate and fully apprised of the circumstances of the case”.
  * The question at this point is whether for either officer a less onerous measure than demotion would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute, when considered from the perspective of an informed public.
  * While I do not see demotion as necessary or proportionate for him, I have concerns about his judgement and leadership ability that dictate restrictions on his advancement in policing for a specified period or until he has completed his retraining, in order to maintain public confidence.

### public-hearings/13492-2018-03-29-Notice-of-Public-Hearing-s137-Member-Request.pdf
  * Specifically, the misconduct alleged was as follows: i) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * On December 12, 2017, following his review of the FIR, the Discipline Authority notified Inspector de Haas that a discipline proceeding would be held in relation to the substantiated allegation, namely Discreditable Conduct.
  * On February 21, 2018, following the discipline proceeding, and after considering the available evidence and submissions, the Discipline Authority made the following determinations in relation to the allegations: (i) That on April 4, 2017, Inspector John de Haas, committed the disciplinary default of Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on a municipal police department.
  * erson’s dignity, privacy, or other rights recognized by law; c) There is a reasonable prospect that a Public Hearing will assist in determining the truth; d) There is an arguable case that can be made that the discipline or corrective measures proposed are inappropriate or inadequate; e) A Public Hearing is required to reserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.
  * It is therefore alleged that Inspector de Haas committed the following disciplinary default, pursuant to section 77 of the Police Act: (i) That on April 4, 2017, Inspector de Haas, committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.

### public-hearings/13492-2018-08-02_PHC_-Submissions-on-the-Evidence_Hickfoird_Redacted2.pdf
  * The allegations against Inspector de Haas are set out as follows: (i) that on April 4, 2017, Inspector de Haas, committed discreditable conduct pursuant to s.
  * 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.

### public-hearings/13492-2018-08-10_CC_Submissions-on-Evidence_Underhill_Redacted.pdf
  * The Commissioner says that Inspector de Haas’ conduct, which he knew or ought to have known would bring discredit to the VPD, falls well short of the standards expected of a reasonable police officer, and constitutes misconduct for the purposes of the Police Act.
  * 77 of the Police Act to mean, inter alia, a disciplinary breach of public trust described in s.
  * Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty conducting oneself in a manner that the members knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * On February 21, 2018, following the discipline proceeding, the Discipline Authority determined that Inspector de Haas committed the disciplinary default of discreditable conduct, specifically, by slapping a female special constable on the buttock with an open palm at an official VPD event.
  * 77(3)(h) asks whether Inspector de Haas, when on or off duty, conducted himself in a manner that he knew or ought to have known would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * The questions are: (1) what Inspector de Haas did, (2) whether what was done would bring discredit to the department, and (3) whether Inspector de Haas knew or ought to have known it would bring that discredit.
  * Non-consensual touching, particularly when exacerbated by a slap to a buttock, is highly improper, and is the type of behaviour that would bring discredit to the VPD.
  * 12 The fact that Canada was willing to agree to such a settlement demonstrates the public importance of ensuring public confidence in police forces, and how that public confidence is undermined by a culture of discrimination and harassment.
  * Given the widespread public concern with a culture in police forces where women are not treated with appropriate respect, there should be no question that Inspector de Haas’ behaviour would bring discredit to the VPD.
  * However, the fact that the public may have been present makes it all the more likely to bring discredit to the VPD through the eyes of any members of the public who viewed it.
  * Given his very senior position, Inspector de Haas knew, or ought to have known, that the non-consensual touching, including the slap, could bring disrepute to the VPD.
  * It falls far short of community standards, and is conduct that he knew, or ought to have known, would bring discredit to the VPD.
  * The sending of the June 9 Email posed a serious risk of bringing the administration of police discipline into disrepute, and falls far short of the standard of behaviour expected of (particularly senior) police officers.
  * His attempt to avoid liability instead of allowing the investigation to run its (confidential) course brings disrepute to his senior position and the VPD as a whole.
  * He knew or ought to have known his behaviour would bring the VPD into disrepute.
  * All of the non-consensual touching, including the slap and the subsequent June 9 Email, constitute conduct that Inspector de Haas knew or ought to have known would likely bring the VPD into disrepute.

### public-hearings/13492-2018-08-27_Adjudicators-Written-Decision_Part-1_Final_Baird-Ellan.pdf
  * 18-01, Inspector John De Haas page 2 of 19 Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty conducting oneself in a manner that the Member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * To summarize, the issues centre on credibility and reliability in relation to the nature of the alleged incident; whether any aspect of the incident constitutes discreditable conduct; and whether, in addition, a communication sent by the Member following the incident constitutes a separate incident of discreditable conduct.
  * [4] The nature of the misconduct contained in the allegation is described in Section 77(3)(h) as follows: 77… (3) Subject to subsection (4), any of the conduct described in the following paragraphs constitutes a disciplinary breach of public trust, when committed by a member: … Public Hearing No.
  * Nor do I believe that any Member of the public would perceive the events as bringing discredit to the [department].
  * Commission Counsel pointed to the department’s Respectful Workplace Policy prohibiting unwanted touching of “a person’s body” and submitted that all of the Member’s conduct in connection with the incident constituted discreditable conduct.
  * He pointed to other cases dealing with workplace misconduct and harassment and the effect of those issues on public confidence.
  * He submitted that if the Member’s contact with the Complainant after the removal of her hands from her pockets was inadvertent tap, it was not discreditable conduct.
  * He noted that the Member agreed that if he had intentionally contacted the Complainant it would be discreditable conduct.
  * [57] In reply Public Hearing Counsel took issue with the use of the term scandalized which he submitted is not the test under Section 77(3)(h), rather it is whether the conduct would be likely to bring discredit to the department.
  * If it is not obstruction of justice, I agree that it comes close, and in my view it establishes discreditable conduct.
  * By inference, the suggestion is that a member cannot be taken to have known or ought to have known that his actions would likely bring discredit to his department where they do not occur in a public context.
  * It is akin to an argument that if a member’s actions, however dishonourable, do not become known to the public they cannot be discreditable.
  * The element of intent in relation to the nature of discreditable conduct is an objective one: if the behaviour is of a nature that, if known to the public, would be considered dishonourable, it is discreditable.
  * [73] The test is whether the public would consider the behaviour likely to bring discredit on the department.
  * [74] I find that the Member committed discreditable conduct under Section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act in physically disciplining the Complainant by removing her hands from her pockets, and also by smacking or slapping her on the buttocks, conduct which he knew or ought to have known would likely bring discredit on his department.
  * [75] I also find that the Member committed discreditable conduct by disseminating an email in which he identified and contradicted the Complainant when he knew there was a Police Act investigation pertaining to her complaint, conduct which he knew or ought to have known would likely bring discredit on his department.

### public-hearings/13492-2018-09-19_Adjudicators-Decision_Disciplinary_Corrective-Masures_d....pdf
  * Introduction [1] On August 27, 2018, following a public hearing, I found two allegations of discreditable conduct to have been proven against the Member.
  * (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * [7] Commission Counsel submits that the appropriate penalty is permanent demotion to the rank of constable, and that the approach prescribed by Section 126(3) of correcting and educating the Member would not be workable and would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Counsel for the Member points to the fact that no similar cases have been cited, and that those in which demotion was imposed dealt with criminal breaches of the public trust and/or members with prior incidents of misconduct.
  * Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances (a) Seriousness of the Misconduct [12] I found that the Member committed discreditable conduct when he physically disciplined the Complainant by removing her hands from her pockets, and smacking or slapping her on the buttocks.
  * [23] As I noted in my earlier reasons, it is alarming that an experienced superior officer could fail to recognize the potentially discreditable nature of the conduct about which the original allegation was concerned.
  * The Member has now had the additional experience of a public hearing in which still other professionals involved in the disciplinary process have characterized the physical misconduct as a serious breach of public trust under the Act, and yet his only expressed regret is at having been disbelieved.
  * The Member’s continued failure to acknowledge or at least recognize the discreditable nature of his misconduct raises concerns about his ability to accept responsibility.
  * 126(3) is broad enough to require consideration of the effect of any sanction on organizational effectiveness and consideration of its effect on public confidence in the administration of police discipline.
  * ” He observed that “the overriding principle under the Act remains the imposition of a sanction that corrects and educates the member unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * [33] I am not convinced in all the circumstances that an approach short of demotion would have been unworkable or bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### public-hearings/14861-2020-02-19-Notice-of-Public-Hearing.pdf
  * Specifically, the Discipline Authority identified one allegation of Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act against the off-duty member and determined that this allegation did not appear to be substantiated.
  * On August 20, 2019, retired Judge Threlfall determined that the evidence was sufficient to substantiate that the member appeared to have committed Discreditable Conduct.
  * On December 19, 2019, following the Discipline Proceeding, and after considering the available evidence and submissions the Discipline Authority determined that the allegation of Discreditable Conduct against the member was not substantiated.
  * In arriving at a determination, the Discipline Authority analyzed the Discreditable Conduct allegation in terms of whether or not a sexual assault occurred and concluded that, The evidence as a whole does not provide clear, cogent and convincing evidence of the proof required to establish the elements of sexual assault.
  * Constable Martin Courage, OCCPS #04-09 and widely applied by Discipline Authorities in BC, “the concept of Discreditable Conduct covers a wide range of potential behaviours.
  * That on May 12, 2018, the member committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off-duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.

### public-hearings/14861-2022-08-12-Decision-of-Adjudicator-Oppal.pdf
  * Sergeant Brent Keleher of the Victoria Police Department is alleged to have committed discreditable conduct pursuant to Section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act R.
  * The specific allegation reads as follows: That on May 12, 2018 the member committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to Section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, on or off duty, conducting himself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would likely bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * On August 20, 2019 retired Judge Threlfall determined that the evidence was sufficient that the member appeared to have committed discreditable conduct.
  * These specific allegation reads as follows: "That on May 12, 2018 the member committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to Section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, on or off duty, conducting himself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would likely bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * ) at 1187: "The measure used to determine whether or not conduct is discreditable is the extent of the potential damage to the reputation and image of the service should the action become public knowledge.

### public-hearings/14861-2022-10-05-Decision-of-Adjudicator-Oppal-on-Disposition.pdf
  * 126(1) and (2)of the Act to determine disciplinary or corrective measures in relation to the discreditable conduct.
  * Public Hearing Counsel has argued that based on the seriousness of the discreditable conduct, the appropriate remedy is one of dismissal.
  * 126(3) states "If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable, or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### public-hearings/2025-03-24-Adjudicator-Baird-Ellan-Reasons-for-Section-150-Order.pdf
  * unsel Marilyn Sandford, KC, and Katrina Purcell Commission Counsel Brian Smith Counsel for the Member Anila Srivastava and Cait Fleck Public Hearing Dates March 31 – April 10, April 29 to May 12, 2025 Date of Ruling March 24, 2025 RULING ON SECTION 150 APPLICATION Overview [1] Sergeant McConnell faces a public hearing into allegations of discreditable conduct in the nature of sexual harassment of seven individuals in two different settings over a period of five years.

### public-hearings/2025-04-08-Submissions-of-Police-Complaint-Commissioner.pdf
  * At issue are allegations that Sergeant McConnell committed discreditable conduct by sexually harassing female VPD members and current or former female students he met while teaching at colleges and universities on topics relating to policing.
  * After extensive discussions with Public Hearing Counsel and counsel for the Commissioner (“Commission Counsel”), Sergeant McConnell has accepted responsibility by admitting to certain allegations of discreditable conduct.
  * The ordered investigation came to encompass seven allegations of discreditable conduct involving seven different women.
  * He admits his actions were unwanted and inappropriate in the circumstances and in each case amount to discreditable conduct.
  * He admits his actions were unwanted and inappropriate in the circumstances and amount to discreditable conduct.
  * He admits his actions were unwanted and inappropriate in the circumstances and amount to discreditable conduct.
  * He admits the messages he sent to Student 3 about her physical appearance were inappropriate and not consensual and amount to discreditable conduct.
  * Under this test, a judge is not to depart from the joint submission unless the proposed sentence “…would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, or is otherwise contrary to the public interest.
  * However, in a recent review on the record, Commission and member counsel made a joint submission to Adjudicator Arnold-Bailey about disciplinary and corrective measures based on admitted allegations of discreditable conduct.
  * 126(3) of the Police Act says that an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member takes precedence – unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * When considering whether a measure would bring the system into disrepute, an adjudicator should ask whether a reasonable person, dispassionate and fully informed of the circumstances of the case, would hold the system in lower regard if a different measure was not imposed.
  * File Concluded 2019-17187 Central Saanich PS Nov 2022 2019-16598 VPD 2020-17355 VPD 2020-18809 MVTP Misconduct Measures Taken Discreditable.

### public-hearings/2025-04-14-Submissions-of-Respondent-Member.pdf
  * Keiron McConnell of the Vancouver Police Department (“VPD”) admits to five counts of Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting himself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * 126(3) of the Act, which provides: If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * McConnell’s conduct requires a combination of disciplinary and corrective measures, the latter in part to achieve deterrence of other police officers and maintenance of public confidence.
  * All counsel submit that this joint submission is not contrary to the public interest and will not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * The question is whether the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, or would otherwise be contrary to the public interest (at para.
  * McConnell submits that the joint submission clearly meets the public interest test and will not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * 126(2) factors to assure herself that the measures are sound, accord with the statutory scheme, and will not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * In sum, and borrowing from the language of the SCC, at the stage of a joint submission including an agreed statement of facts when there has been no evidentiary phase, all that is required is a consideration of whether the joint submission fails the “public interest” test in that it is so "egregious” or “unhinged” that it would undermine public confidence in the system.
  * In the statutory language, the Page 8 of 9 assessment required is whether the joint submission would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### public-hearings/2026-01-27-OPCC-Statement-PH-2024-02.pdf
  * I agreed with counsel for the respondent police officers that the appointment of new public hearing counsel was both necessary and appropriate to ensure the fairness and integrity of the public hearing and maintain public confidence in this process.

### public-hearings/21398-2024-06-19-Notice-of-Public-Hearing.pdf
  * Sergeant McConnell also disputed Student A’s version of events in certain respects and, in general, denied that he had engaged in discreditable conduct with respect to the allegations made by the seven women.
  * On April 8, 2024, the assigned Investigator(s) from the VPD Professional Standards Section submitted the Final Investigation Report to the Discipline Authority recommending that allegations of Discreditable Conduct involving five of the seven women be substantiated.
  * On April 23, 2024, the Discipline Authority determined that allegations of Discreditable Conduct involving six of the seven women appeared to be substantiated.
  * I have considered these factors, including, but not limited to, the nature and seriousness of the complaint or alleged misconduct, whether the conduct has caused emotional or psychological harm to a person or violated their dignity, whether the conduct has undermined, or would be likely to undermine, public confidence in police, and whether there is a reasonable prospect that a public hearing or review on the record would assist in determining the truth.
  * Sergeant McConnell’s alleged sexualized conduct, if proven, would likely undermine public confidence in the police.
  * The particulars of the alleged misconduct are contained in the investigative materials, and the alleged misconduct is characterized as follows: a) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * b) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * c) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * d) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * e) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * f) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * g) Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.

### public-hearings/8138-2023-06-20-Decision-on-Disciplinary-and-Corrective-Measures.pdf
  * [1 O] Section 126(3) provides that "if the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * " [16] The issue of whether proposed measures would "bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute" under s.
  * Diaz should be suspended without pay for 20-30 days, and that anything less would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Diaz would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * " Instead, "the impact 5 of Officer Diaz's conduct upon racialized communities, and upon the mistrust that racialized communities have towards the police, is relevant to determining what is just and appropriate and what would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Diaz's conduct on racialized communities, and the mistrust that racialized communities have towards the police, in determining what measures are just and appropriate and whether a corrective and educative approach would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * [53] In my view, in deciding whether an approach that seeks to correct and educate would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute, it is appropriate to recognize the nature of the relationship between the police and racialized communities, including Black Canadians.
  * [60] After much uneasy deliberation, I find that to impose no disciplinary or corrective measures at all would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute, even after accounting for the delay in this matter and its effect on Cst.

### public-hearings/PH24-01-2025-05-06-Decision-of-Adjudicator-Baird-Ellan_Redacted.pdf
  * Overview [1] Sergeant Keiron McConnell of the Vancouver Police Department [“the Member”] faced a public hearing into allegations of discreditable conduct in the nature of sexual McConnell Public Hearing, OPCC No.
  * Each consists of Discreditable Conduct pursuant to Section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act, which is defined as “conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * PH 24-01 Page 19 of 32 his misconduct and take steps to better understand where he went wrong and why this behaviour was inappropriate and discreditable.
  * He accepts that his communications, and in one case, actions, were unsolicited, unwanted, inappropriate, and discreditable.
  * In accepting the characterization of “discreditable”, the Member admits that he knew or ought to have known that his conduct would likely bring discredit on the police department.
  * Section 126(3) [84] Section 126(3) mandates that an adjudicator prioritize measures that emphasize correction and education unless they are deemed unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * The foregoing consideration of the Section 126(2) factors assists in establishing that the proposed disposition will not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute, which to my mind is a very similar analysis to that recommended in Thaper.

### reviews-on-the-record/13521-2020-06-23-Notice-of-Review-on-the-Record.pdf
  * That on May 2, 2017, the member committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is conducting oneself in a manner that the member knew, or ought to have known, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * Between approximately January and May of 2017, the member committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is conducting oneself in a manner that the member knew, or ought to have known, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * Between approximately January and June of 2017, the member committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is conducting oneself in a manner that the member knew, or ought to have known, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * On December 30, 2016, the member committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is conducting oneself in a manner that the member knew, or ought to have known, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * f) The member accepted responsibility for the actions for both the criminal charges and the public trust allegations.
  * While I do not challenge the sincerity of these comments, the discipline penalty imposed does not sufficiently acknowledge the trauma and erosion of public trust among victims of relationship violence caused by this officer’s actions and the potential chilling effect on future reporting of intimate-partner violence given that the officer remains an Abbotsford Police Officer.
  * This in my view may be reasonably seen to bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute and undermine public confidence in the Abbotsford Police Department.
  * Further, a Public Hearing is not required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.
  * evant factors, including but not limited to the following: a) The nature and seriousness of the complaint or alleged misconduct, especially considering the broader concern of the seriousness of domestic violence and the sustained time period over which this conduct occurred; b) The conduct has undermined, or would be likely to undermine, public confidence in the police, the handling of complaints, or the disciplinary process; c) The disciplinary or corrective measures proposed are inappropriate or inadequate.
  * That on May 2, 2017, the member committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is conducting oneself in a manner that the member knew, or ought to have known, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * Between approximately January and May of 2017, the member committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is conducting oneself in a manner that the member knew, or ought to have known, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * Between approximately January and June of 2017, the member committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is conducting oneself in a manner that the member knew, or ought to have known, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.
  * On December 30, 2016, the member committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is conducting oneself in a manner that the member knew, or ought to have known, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department.

### reviews-on-the-record/13521-2021-04-16-Adjudicator-Pendleton-Review-on-Record-Decision.pdf
  * On April 9, 2020, at the conclusion of the Discipline Proceeding, the Discipline Authority, Chief Constable Michael Serr (the Discipline Authority), made the following determinations in relation to the five allegations of misconduct which the member admitted to: a) That on May 2, 2017, the member committed discreditable conduct by assaulting his estranged spouse.
  * b) Between approximately January and May of 2017, the member committed discreditable conduct by placing GPS tracking devices on 4 two family vehicles driven by his estranged spouse.
  * c) Between approximately January and June of 2017, the member committed discreditable conduct by following his estranged spouse and subjecting his spouse to unwanted communication via text, emails, notes and telephone calls and entering the spouse’s residence when the spouse was not present.
  * Briefly summarized they are as follows: a) That on May 2, 2017, the member committed discreditable conduct by assaulting his estranged spouse.
  * At his sentencing on the Honorable Judge follows: summarized the assault as 6 b) Between January and May of 2017, the member committed discreditable conduct by placing GPS tracking devices on two family vehicles driven by his estranged spouse.
  * c) Between approximately January and June of 2017, the member committed discreditable conduct by following his estranged spouse and subjecting her to unwanted communication via text, emails, notes and telephone calls and entering the spouse’s residence when she was not present.
  * The effect of sustained deliberate discreditable conduct over approximately six months by Constable ______ is a significant barrier to maintaining public confidence in policing and the justice system in British Columbia which reflects the seriousness of his misconduct.
  * After referring to a number of police misconduct cases from other provinces where the officer was dismissed, he submitted: “the Canadian national trend is to take a strong stand against intimate partner violence and other police conduct in order to maintain public confidence in police officers.
  * Considine submitted that a corrective approach to disciplining the member would be unworkable and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
  * He said the primary goal in this review is the maintenance of public confidence in light of the misconduct.
  * Considine submitted: 13 “ultimately, the oversight process under the Police Act, as with oversight processes which apply to other members of the justice system, is designed to ensure public confidence in policing, police officers and police departments in British Columbia.
  * The willful misconduct by Constable __ when one considers all the section 126 factors, cannot be condoned and must merit dismissal in order to retain public confidence.
  * He argued that the member’s violence would not be condoned by suspending him without pay and that to dismiss the member would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Therefore, in the context of the abuse of authority by way of assault of a civilian, I must decide whether the imposition of a lesser sanction directed at correcting or educating the officer would undermine organizational effectiveness, or public confidence in the administration of police discipline.
  * If not, then a lesser sanction should be considered provided the sanction that is selected does not undermine public confidence in the administration of police discipline.
  * Similarly, there is nothing that deems any 16 particular assault to undermine organizational effectiveness or public confidence in the administration of police discipline.
  * Rather, as so well stated by Adjudicator Clancy In the Matter of Constables Gemmel and Kojima, PH 2004-01, the question to be considered is whether a reasonable man or woman aware of all the relevant circumstances would regard the omission to impose a sanction of dismissal in the circumstances of the assault would undermine public confidence in the administration of police discipline, and whether, from the Abbotsford Police Department’s perspective the omission would undermine organizational effectiveness.
  * To do anything less than dismiss the member, he says, would essentially condone the misconduct, would bring the credibility of the police and justice system into disrepute, would undermine public trust and public confidence, and would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * s in this case, including that the member has a year career of public service which was marred by a six-month period of misconduct during which he was dealing with PTSD and struggling to make sense of his marriage breaking down, would not conclude that failing to dismiss the member would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Lengthier suspensions without pay will have a very significant financial impact on the member, will denounce the misconduct and send a message that this misconduct will not be condoned and will maintain public confidence in the administration of police discipline.
  * and (c) I determine that the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures are the following: a) Discreditable Conduct – Assault on his spouse – 15 days suspension without pay b) Discreditable Conduct – GPS tracker – 15 days suspension without pay 21 c) Discreditable Conduct – Unwanted communications – 15 days suspension without pay d) Discreditable Conduct – Viewing CCTV – 15 days suspension without pay (e) Neglect of Duty – Accessing database – 15 days suspension without pay Each act of misconduct is separate and distinct and justifies a suspension without pay.

### reviews-on-the-record/13965-2020-06-01-Notice-of-Review-on-the-Record-.pdf
  * fter considering the available evidence and submissions, the Discipline Authority, Superintendent Steve Eely, made the following determinations in relation to the allegation: Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner British Columbia, Canada Page 3 June 1, 2020 OPCC 2017-13965 That on September 23, 2017, Constable Neil Logan, committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act regarding the circumstances by which damage was caused to the front windshield of Constable Logan’s vehicle.
  * 1, 2020 OPCC 2017-13965 b) The conduct has caused, or would be likely to cause, physical, emotional or psychological harm or financial loss to a person; c) The conduct has violated or would be likely to violate, a person’s dignity, privacy or other rights recognized by law; d) The conduct has undermined, or would be likely to undermine, public confidence in the police, the handling of complaints or disciplinary process; and e) There is a reasonable prospect that a Public Hearing or Review will assist in determining the truth.
  * It is therefore alleged that Constable Logan committed the following disciplinary default, pursuant to section 77 of the Police Act: (i) That on September 23, 2017, Constable Logan committed Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act when he was belligerent and/or obnoxious in public due to intoxication; damaged his car windshield; had verbal arguments with Ms.

### reviews-on-the-record/13965-2020-11-10-Adjudicator-Neal-Decision_Redacted.pdf
  * (6) In reviewing the Complaint, the Commissioner determined that the alleged misconduct by the Member in repeatedly striking and restraining the Complainant, if proven, could support a finding of Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3) (h) of the Police Act.
  * ons of the Member were characterized by intoxication, frustration, extreme anger and an apparent inability to control that anger resulting in the assaults on the Complainant; and (c) When properly considered, the totality of the evidence presents a clear, cogent and convincing basis upon which to find that the allegations of assault, and discreditable conduct on that basis, have been substantiated.
  * XIV Misconduct Analysis (190) In completing this part of the Review of the Record, I will examine the four components of Discreditable Conduct set out in the Misconduct Allegations relating to the Member.
  * were clearly intoxicated, absent the report by the Complainant that the group was “cut off” from alcohol sales at the second pub they had visited, there is no substantive evidence of actions by the Member at the pubs rising to discreditable conduct.
  * were likely loud, animated and at times obnoxious at the two pubs in Oregon, I cannot find that the actions of the Member rose to the level of discreditable conduct.
  * (196) I therefore conclude that the Discipline Decision is correct in not finding that the Member committed Discreditable Conduct on the first component of the Misconduct Allegations.
  * XVI Damage to the Member’s Vehicle Windshield (197) The Discipline Decision concluded that the Member’s actions in repeatedly striking his windshield to the point of breaking the same rose to the level of Discreditable Conduct.
  * 36 (199) The intentional actions of the Member in breaking the windshield of his vehicle was, without doubt, conduct that the Member, and any objective independent observer, would know, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the VPD, and, of course, the Member.
  * (200) It is patently obvious to anyone knowing of the Member’s status as a VPD officer, seeing the windshield damage and knowing of the circumstances associated with that damage, that the Member’s role in creating such damage would bring discredit to the VPD.
  * (201) At a minimum, all of those factors were known to the Complainant, a member of the public, and hence the actions of the Member have unquestionably brought discredit on VPD.
  * (212) The actions of the Member without doubt evidenced conduct that the Member, and any objective independent observer, would know, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the VPD, and the Member.
  * (213) As such, I find that the Discipline Decision was incorrect in concluding that an allegation of Discreditable Conduct in relation to the assault allegations was not substantiated on the evidence in the Record by clear, convincing and cogent evidence and beyond a balance of probabilities.

### reviews-on-the-record/13965-2021-06-17-Notice-of-Adjudicators-Decision-Regarding-Disciplinary-or-Corrective-Measures.pdf
  * I have determined that a corrective approach to discipline would, in all of the circumstances, bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * II History of Proceedings: (5) On November 10, 2020 my decision (the “Discipline Decision”)with respect to the review of this matter was delivered to the relevant parties, substantiating the two allegations of misconduct concerning the Member: Discreditable Conduct on September 23, 2017 by intentionally: (i) Shattering his vehicle windshield while being driven by the Complainant; and (ii) Assaulting the Complainant on five occasions over several hours while in Seaside, Oregon.
  * (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * 126(3) of the Police Act provides that “an approach that seeks to correct and educate the Member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute”.
  * me frustration demonstrated in the company of the Complainant, the reliability and credibility of his evidence had been seriously affected (57) Finally, I concluded that the actions of the Member without doubt evidenced conduct that the Member, and any objective independent observer, would know, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the VPD, and the Member.
  * Counsel specifically submits that disciplinary measures must take precedence to avoid bringing the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Specifically, it is argued that: “ the question to be considered is whether a reasonable man or woman, aware of all of the relevant circumstances, would regard the omission to impose the sanction of dismissal in the circumstances of the case as undermining public confidence in the administration of police discipline.
  * There are only two exceptions: (1) where a corrective or educational approach would be “unworkable”; and (2) where such an approach would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * The Complainant’s specific submission is that the only disciplinary action that will promote police accountability, deterrence and ensure public confidence in policing is the dismissal of the Member (74) I will reference the specific submissions of the Complainant later in this decision as I consider the various factors under section 126 of the Police Act.
  * The current Service Record of Discipline confirms a substantiated allegation of misconduct by way of a Public Trust breach characterized as an abuse of authority.
  * Specifically, the Complainant comments that she believes that the Member’s lack of remorse, failure to accept responsibility, continued attempt to blame and discredit the victim’s reputation show that the Member is at a very high risk of future misconduct.
  * unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Therefore, in the context of the abuse of authority by way of assault of a civilian, I must decide whether the imposition of a lesser sanction directed at correcting or educating the officer would undermine organizational effectiveness, or public confidence in the administration of police discipline.
  * If not, then a lesser sanction should be considered provided the sanction that is selected does not undermine public confidence in the administration of police discipline.
  * Similarly, there is nothing that deems any particular assault to undermine organizational effectiveness or public confidence in the administration of police discipline.
  * Rather, as so well stated by Adjudicator Clancy In the Matter of Constables Gemmel and Kojima, PH 2004-01, the question to be - 10 - considered is whether a reasonable man or woman aware of all the relevant circumstances would regard the omission to impose a sanction of dismissal in the circumstances of the assault would undermine public confidence in the administration of police discipline, and whether, from the Abbotsford Police Department’s perspective the omission would undermine organizational effectiveness.
  * 126(3): (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless [i] it is unworkable or [ii] would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Therefore, in the context of the abuse of authority by way of assault of a civilian, I must decide whether the imposition of a lesser sanction directed at correcting or educating the officer would undermine organizational effectiveness, or public confidence in the administration of police discipline.
  * If not, then a lesser sanction should be considered provided the sanction that is selected does not undermine public confidence in the administration of police discipline.
  * Similarly, there is nothing that deems any particular assault to undermine organizational effectiveness or public confidence in the administration of police discipline.
  * Rather, as so well stated by Adjudicator Clancy In the Matter of Constables Gemmel and Kojima, PH 2004-01, the question to be - 10 - considered is whether a reasonable man or woman aware of all the relevant circumstances would regard the omission to impose a sanction of dismissal in the circumstances of the assault would undermine public confidence in the administration of police discipline, and whether, from the Abbotsford Police Department’s perspective the omission would undermine organizational effectiveness.
  * nciple that correction and education must precedence over punishment; or the second principle that measures other than those directed to education and correction may be considered only where correction and education are “unworkable”, or giving precedence to correction and education would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * It is submitted that it supports the proposition that a lengthy suspension would not be unworkable, and would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, for a single incident of violence in a relationship, for a police officer who has an otherwise creditable record as a police officer.
  * (140) I am also satisfied that although dismissal is a rare disciplinary sanction, it is properly reserved for cases evidencing serious misconduct that results in a breach of public confidence in the officer concerned.
  * IX Analysis (142) As noted above, section 126(3) of the Police Act provides that if I consider that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, I should prioritize an approach that seeks to correct and educate the Member, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * 35 (144) I am also satisfied that an approach that seeks to correct or educate the Member would clearly bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * It would do so because such an approach would not provide the appropriate denunciation of the Member’s actions or address the very high likelihood of a loss of public trust in the Member, and the administration of police discipline.
  * (149) It is my finding that a reasonable person, aware of all of the circumstances of the Member’s misconduct, and all other relevant factors, would conclude that a failure to dismiss the Member would unquestionably undermine public confidence in the administration of police discipline.
  * (150) I find that there is an unequivocal public expectation that police officers will not engage in intimate partner violence in any form if public trust in policing is to be maintained.
  * In that regard, I agree with the submission of Counsel for the Commissioner that “public trust in policing rests on the confidence in knowing that an officer will exercise his/her authority within the bounds of the law” : OPCC submissions para 29.

### reviews-on-the-record/16234-2024-07-25-Adjudicator-Baird-Ellan-Decision.pdf
  * )If the Discipline Authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member Adjudicator’s Decision on Review on the Record, RR 24-01 page 4 concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * The submissions centred on the monetary effect of the member’s suspension combined with the proposed demotion length, and the cases filed by counsel involved reduction in rank or lower measures for discreditable conduct.
  * ” This has the potential to bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute as contemplated by section 126(3).
  * In highlighting the seriousness of the misconduct, Counsel notes that Adjudicator’s Decision on Review on the Record, RR 24-01 page 14 discreditable conduct under the Police Act entails conduct that an officer knows or ought to know would be likely to bring discredit on the department.
  * She points to this mental element combined with the fact that the Former Member’s discreditable conduct was of a sexual nature, both physically and verbally.
  * Counsel notes the Discipline Authority’s finding that engaging subordinates in a pattern of non-consensual behaviour “can never be justified and is likely to bring discredit to the department.
  * Counsel notes as well that the Discipline Authority does not appear to have considered the impact of the Former Member’s return to the workplace on the recipients of his discreditable advances.
  * Counsel concedes that dismissal is the most serious form of discipline and does not allow of education or correction, but submits that it applies in cases of serious misconduct involving a Adjudicator’s Decision on Review on the Record, RR 24-01 page 16 high risk to public confidence in relation to police discipline and the member, and serves to denounce conduct and deter others.
  * [64] I see no need to import another layer of analysis as to whether employment or human rights law dictates or overrides a particular response under the Police Act, although those cases may serve as a backdrop in assessing the potential effect on public confidence in the administration of police discipline.
  * That sequence of events, and his approach of “C” on a subsequent occasion, amply demonstrate a lack of insight and an inability to understand or curtail his discreditable behaviour.
  * Section 126(3) [98] This section addresses the need to consider whether, given the applicability of more than one measure under Section 126(1), an approach that seeks to correct or educate the member would be unworkable or bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### reviews-on-the-record/22761-2025-09-10-Notice-of-Review-on-the-Record.pdf
  * As explained further below, I believe that a 10-day unpaid suspension does not adequately reflect the seriousness of the admitted misconduct in this case, or the recent public hearing decision finding that Former Constable McConnell had engaged in Discreditable Conduct in the nature of sexual harassment with respect to five other women.
  * 93 of the Act into whether Former Constable McConnell had committed Discreditable Conduct.
  * On April 30, 2024, based on information obtained during the investigation, I issued an Amended Order for Investigation that added a second allegation of Discreditable Conduct relating to sexual content in messages Former Constable McConnell exchanged with the Affected Person.
  * The Discipline Authority found that the evidence appeared to substantiate two counts of Discreditable Conduct and one count of Corrupt Practice.
  * The Public Hearing Allegations consisted of seven allegations of Discreditable Conduct in the nature of sexual harassment.
  * In the circumstances, a full public hearing is not required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.

### reviews-on-the-record/23476-2025-01-27-Adjudicator-Threlfall-Decision-Part-2.pdf
  * Brown submitted that the 2019 FIR was a confidential document and its disclosure to the media (disclosure of a Police Act document) could amount to the offence of Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act as the disclosed 2019 FIR contained serious allegations, some of which were not substantiated by the Discipline Authority.
  * (3) If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * When considering whether a measure would bring the system into disrepute, an adjudicator should ask whether a reasonable person, dispassionate and fully informed of the 10 circumstances of the case, would hold the system in lower regard if a different measure was not imposed.
  * Section 126(3) requires me to give precedence to an approach that seeks to correct and educate unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * Brown submitted that the 2019 FIR was a confidential document and its disclosure to the media (disclosure of a Police Act document) could amount to the offence of Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act as the disclosed FIR contained serious allegations, some of which were not 19 substantiated by the Discipline Authority.

### reviews-on-the-record/9836-2018-01-22-Adjudicator-Decision-and-Reasons-Review-on-the-Record.._.pdf
  * As well, the spirit of the Act favours “an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member”, as long as that approach is workable and does not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute: s.
  * It goes without saying that unreasonable delays bring the administration of justice in disrepute.

### section-117-reviews/15276-2021-05-05-Discipline-Authoritys-Decision-on-Disciplinary-or-Corrective-Measures.pdf
  * (3)If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * measures under the Police Act is Section 126(3), which states, “If the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### section-117-reviews/16869-2021-05-17-Adjudicator-Neal-Decision.pdf
  * ublic trust offence described in subsection (2), or (b) conduct that constitutes (i) an offence under section 86 [offence to harass, coerce or intimidate anyone questioning or reporting police conduct or making complaint] or 106 [offence to hinder, delay, obstruct or interfere with investigating officer], or (ii) a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section.
  * An important overall limitation to the definitions of misconduct in section 77 of the Police Act is found is subsection 77(4) as follows: 77(4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.

### section-117-reviews/18123-2023-12-27-Discipline-Authoritys-Reasons-on-Disciplinary-or-Corrective-Measures.pdf
  * As an overriding factor, Section 126(3) of the Act states that if the discipline authority considers that one or more disciplinary or corrective measures are necessary, an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member takes precedence, unless it is unworkable or would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
  * 20-18123, Section 128 Reasons Page 17 of 21 bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute may disciplinary measures be taken, and they are nevertheless unlikely to be proportionate to the impact on a complainant.
  * I have come to the view, however, that the nature of the misconduct here can be addressed by further correction and education; that suspension would be disproportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct; and a failure to impose it would not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.

### section-117-reviews/18960-2021-09-21-Adjudicator-Pendleton-Decision.pdf
  * I am mindful of the limitation to the definitions of misconduct found in Section 77(4): Section 77(4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.

### section-117-reviews/20310-2022-07-26-Adjudicator-Neal-Decision.pdf
  * lic trust offence described in subsection (2), or (b) conduct that constitutes (i) an offence under section 86 [offence to harass, coerce or intimidate anyone questioning or reporting police conduct or making complaint] or 106 [offence to hinder, delay, obstruct or interfere with investigating officer], or 7 (ii) a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section.
  * An important overall limitation to the definitions of misconduct in section 77 of the Police Act is found is subsection 77(4) as follows: 77(4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.

### section-117-reviews/21634-2024-03-11-Findings-of-Discipline-Authority.pdf
  * Misconduct: Deceit arising under section 77(3)(f)(i)(B) of the Police Act, particulars of which are that the Member, on March 30, 2022, is alleged to have committed a disciplinary breach of public trust, deceit, involving writing in an official report and notes that the Complainant did not want access to counsel when the Complainant did want counsel.
  * r], or 5 (ii) a disciplinary breach of public trust described in subsection (3) of this section… (2) A public trust offence is an offence under an enactment of Canada, or of any province or territory in Canada, a conviction in respect of which does or would likely (a) render a member unfit to perform her or his duties as a member, or (b) discredit the reputation of the municipal police department with which the member is employed.
  * An important overall limitation to the definition of misconduct in section 77 of the Police Act is found in subsection 77(4) as follows: 77(4) It is not a disciplinary breach of public trust for a member to engage in conduct that is necessary in the proper performance of authorized police work.

### section-117-reviews/23872-2024-04-02-Notice-of-Section-117-Appointment.pdf
  * Specifically, the Discipline Authority identified one allegation of Discreditable Conduct 5th Floor, 947 Fort Street PO Box 9895 Stn Prov Govt Victoria, British Columbia V8W 9T8 Tel: (250) 356-7458 Fax: (250) 356-6503 Prabhu Rajan Police Complaint Commissioner Toll Free 1 877-999-8707 OPCC ID 1301-20191113  Website: www.
  * The Discipline Authority determined that the allegation of Discreditable Conduct did not appear to be substantiated.
  * OPCC Decision, Section 117 of the Police Act Based on a review of the available evidence, I have a reasonable basis to believe that the decision of the Discipline Authority is incorrect with respect to the determination that the Member’s conduct does not constitute Discreditable Conduct.

### section-117-reviews/23872-2024-05-21-Adjudicator-Arnold-Bailey-Decision.pdf
  * The misconduct alleged against the Member is one instance of Discreditable Conduct, pursuant to s.
  * Section 77(3)(h) of the Act sets out the misconduct regarded as a disciplinary breach of trust by engaging in “discreditable conduct”, which is defined as “when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows, or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal police department…” 59.
  * To find that conduct amount to “discreditable conduct” one must consider: 1) Was the member on or off duty when the alleged misconduct occurred? 2) What did the member do or fail to do? 3) Was the conduct of the member such that it brings or is likely to bring discredit to the VPD in some way? 4) If so, did the member know or ought to have known his actions would likely bring discredit to the VPD? 60.
  * However, I find the evidence of what the Member actually said to the Complainant in relation to the example he put forward appears insufficient to substantiate an allegation of discreditable conduct.
  * Therefore, I find the allegation of misconduct against the Member that he acted in such a way as to bring discredit to the VPD is unsubstantiated.

### section-117-reviews/Notice-of-Section-117-Appointment.pdf
  * Specifically, the Discipline Authority identified one allegation of misconduct of Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act against Constable and determined that this allegation did not appear to be substantiated.
  * In arriving at his decision, the Discipline Authority relied on an objective test for assessing the Discreditable Conduct allegation.
  * The Discipline Authority identified two objective standards arising from two separate cases in Ontario and Alberta: Silverman and Ontario Provincial Police (1997) 1181 at 1187 OCCPS “The measure used to determine whether conduct has been discreditable is the extent of the potential damage to the reputation and image of the service should the action become public knowledge.
  * The Discipline Authority determined on a balance of probabilities that the allegation of Discreditable Conduct against Constable pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act was not substantiated.
  * OPCC Decision – Section 117 of the Police Act In my view, the Discipline Authority did not correctly apply the test for assessing Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act.
  * Constable Martin Courage, OCCPS #04-09, the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services adopted the following definition of Discreditable Conduct: “The concept of discreditable conduct covers a wide range of potential behaviours.
  * The above test has been consistently applied by Discipline Authorities and adjudicators to assess allegations of Discreditable Conduct.
  * ntimate partner violence continues to be a significant social problem in Canada and awareness of the behavioral precursors and dynamics is a matter well understood by police officers An arguable case can be made that when measured against the reasonable expectations of the community, Constable while off duty, did commit the misconduct of Discreditable Conduct pursuant to section 77(3)(h) of the Police Act which is, when on or off duty, conducting oneself in a manner that the member knows or ought to know, would be likely to bring discredit on the municipal department.
