[  1|off_duty_cri|EMP  |2019|2017-14260] Baird Ellan determined that the penalties imposed by the Discipline Authority at the discipline proceeding would not bring the administration of police discipline in disrepute, noting that the member had made efforts at rehabilitation since the incident, that the prior decisions on this matter appeared to have considered the relevant factors and that the Discipline Authority had the benefit of seeing both the member’s testimony and his genuineness.
[  2|improper_acc|EMP  |2019|2017-14249] The conduct undermined public confidence in the police and the disciplinary process due to the fact that the member was aware that he would be contravening law and policy, yet used sensitive databases for personal reasons on two separate occasions.
[  3|investigativ|light|2020|2019-17046] The OPCC determined that there were no public trust issues and that no complaint has been received by the OPCC.
[  4|unlawful_arr|EMP  |2018|2016-11796] It was determined that due to the member’s experience, they ought to have known that their conduct would bring discredit on the reputation of the police department and that the member demonstrated poor judgement and a weak sense of professional responsibility.
[  5|unlawful_arr|EMP  |2018|2016-11796] Upon reviewing the prehearing conference report, the OPCC noted that the intent of the Act is to consider an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member concerned as long as that approach does not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
[  6|improper_acc|light|2017|2016-12824] The OPCC determined there were no public trust concerns that required investigation.
[  7|workplace_ha|light|2018|2017-14001] The OPCC determined there were no public trust concerns that required further investigation.
[  8|off_duty_cri|light|2019|2018-15160] Following an investigation, the Discipline Authority determined the evidence appeared to substantiate the allegations of Discreditable Conduct and offered a prehearing conference.
[  9|off_duty_cri|light|2019|2018-15160] An agreement was reached with respect to the proposed discipline of a written reprimand for two counts of Discreditable Conduct.
[ 10|firearms_han|light|2019|2018-15271] The intent of the Act is to consider an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member as long as the approach does not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
[ 11|deceit_and_f|FIRED|2018|2015-10543] The Discipline Authority found the officer’s conduct in relation to these allegations to be inexcusable and put the public at risk, the public confidence in the Saanich police at risk, the reputation of the Saanich police at risk and, in their totality, were grounds for dismissal.
[ 12|firearms_han|light|2018|2018-14885] In this case, the Commissioner determined that since that since the member was properly at a location where a police officer is supposed to prepare one's rifle for deployment and that there were no injuries or potential for injury, the Commissioner would not order a public trust investigation and the matter could proceed by way of internal discipline.
[ 13|property_and|light|2019|2018-14537] The OPCC recognized that an attempt by a police officer to seek advantage or favour on account of his or her status as a police officer was a serious misconduct that would bring disrepute to the police department in the eyes of the public.
[ 14|property_and|light|2019|2018-14537] The OPCC believed that the goals of correcting and educating the special constable had been achieved and that the discipline imposed would not undermine public confidence in the police or the disciplinary process.
[ 15|off_duty_cri|EMP  |2017|2015-10992] This internal investigation arose out of a public trust investigation that was requested by the Abbotsford Police Department (see OPCC file no.
[ 16|off_duty_cri|EMP  |2017|2015-10992] The public trust investigation involved several allegations of misconduct which included a public trust offence pursuant to section 77(2) of the Police Act.
[ 17|off_duty_cri|EMP  |2017|2015-10992] Although the internal discipline investigation was completed in March of 2016, the public trust matter was still proceeding.
[ 18|off_duty_cri|EMP  |2017|2015-10992] As a result, the Discipline Authority reserved his findings for the internal investigation until the completion of the public trust matter as the potential outcome for the allegations considered in the public trust matter included dismissal.
[ 19|off_duty_cri|EMP  |2017|2015-10992] The outcome of the public trust matter resulted in the member being dismissed from the police department.
[ 20|firearms_han|FIRED|2021|2020-17796] The member removed their firearm from its holster on two separate occasions under circumstances that would, if known by a reasonable and dispassionate member of the community, bring discredit to the VPD.
[ 21|GBV         |FIRED|2023|2019-16842] Additionally, the Discipline Authority noted that the level of professional misconduct and impact to organizational reputation was large.
[ 22|off_duty_cri|light|2023|2019-16527] After reviewing the prehearing conference report, the Commissioner did not approve the proposed disciplinary or corrective measures and as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where Member B admitted to the allegation of Discreditable Conduct.
[ 23|off_duty_cri|EMP  |2017|2016-12722] The DA did not substantiate two additional allegations of Discreditable Conduct which related to the member displaying their police badge to the investigating officer and for interfering with an impaired investigation by lying to the investigating officer about their consumption of alcohol.
[ 24|GBV         |EMP  |2018|2017-13492] The Adjudicator concluded that the member committed Discreditable Conduct under the Police Act.
[ 25|investigativ|FIRED|2020|2018-14889] By neglecting to ensure that the mandated standards for DRE recertification were met, it resulted in nine police officers being recertified without meeting the standards, and thus bringing the professional integrity of the national program into disrepute.
[ 26|workplace_ha|EMP  |2018|2017-13969] The OPCC determined there were no additional public trust matters that required investigation.
[ 27|excessive_or|light|2023|2020-18945] Arnold-Bailey determined that a reasonable member of the public, fully apprised of the circumstances and disposition of the criminal charge, the member’s admission of misconduct, the member’s exemplary record of service, and the member’s workplace reputation, would not find the disposition of a verbal reprimand to bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
[ 28|investigativ|light|2020|2019-17136] In arriving at the appropriate corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the requirement to document and justify the use of force on members of the public is crucial to maintaining public confidence in policing.
[ 29|off_duty_cri|FIRED|2019|2017-13591] In arriving at his decision to dismiss the officer, the Discipline Authority stated that as this was the member’s second substantiated allegation for failing an approved screening device, that an approach to correct or educate would be unworkable and would harm the reputation of the VicPD and would harm public confidence in policing in general.
[ 30|GBV         |EMP  |2020|2017-14017] Among his findings, Chief Officer Jones determined that Sergeant Van Patten committed Discreditable Conduct by entering into an inappropriate relationship with Constable Chan who was under his supervision.
[ 31|GBV         |EMP  |2020|2017-14017] ” He found that this conduct would bring discredit on the reputation of the VPD.
[ 32|workplace_ha|FIRED|2019|2018-15040] The OPCC determined that there were no public trust issues and no complaint had been received.
[ 33|workplace_ha|FIRED|2019|2018-15040] Following the investigation, the Discipline Authority substantiated the allegation of Discreditable Conduct and reviewed the aggravating and mitigating factors.
[ 34|unlawful_arr|EMP  |2016|2015-11276] Following an investigation, the Discipline Authority determined the evidence did not appear to substantiate the allegations of Discreditable Conduct or Abuse of Authority against the police officer.
[ 35|unlawful_arr|EMP  |2016|2015-11276] Lazar issued her Notice of Adjudicator’s Decision where she determined that the evidence appeared to substantiate the allegations of Discreditable Conduct and Abuse of Authority.
[ 36|corruption_a|FIRED|2023|2020-17935] In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority noted that the former member’s actions were serious, if not egregious, in nature, that the conduct was “an affront to the reasonable expectations of a police officer as defined by the community” and that the former member ought to have known their actions and related criminal convictions “would erode the public’s confidence in the VPD and the profession of policing in general.
[ 37|discourtesy |light|2023|2019-16855] Upon review of the matter, the Commissioner determined that there was a reasonable basis to believe that the decision of the Discipline Authority, related to the allegation of Discreditable Conduct, was incorrect and appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge David Pendleton to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence.
[ 38|discourtesy |light|2023|2019-16855] In addition, a reasonable member of the public may, given the member’s conduct, question their training and understanding of police policies and practices, which in turn could reflect negatively on the department and could bring discredit to the VPD.
[ 39|GBV         |light|2021|2019-16571] This matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the Discipline Authority (DA) found that the cumulative effect and progression of the member’s actions between 2018 and 2019 amounted to misconduct and that the member ought to have known that the behaviour towards the other officer would bring discredit to the VPD as the conduct was repetitive, unwanted and inappropriate.
[ 40|off_duty_cri|EMP  |2017|2017-13143] The OPCC did not believe that the discipline imposed here for the badging allegations, while on the low end of acceptability, would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
[ 41|corruption_a|light|2017|2017-13143] The Discipline Authority reviewed the investigation and determined there was sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation of Discreditable Conduct in relation to the police officer acting in a manner that prompted police attendance and for being intoxicated in public to the point that there were grounds for arrest for Causing a Disturbance.
[ 42|corruption_a|light|2017|2017-13143] The Discipline Authority did not find that there was sufficient evidence to support a second finding of Discreditable Conduct for producing their police badge to the responding police officers and for stating they were a police officer.
[ 43|corruption_a|light|2017|2017-13143] This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference in relation to the first allegation of Discreditable Conduct where an agreement was reached with respect to the proposed discipline of a one day suspension.
[ 44|corruption_a|light|2017|2017-13143] Adjudicative Review: In relation to the second allegation of Discreditable Conduct against the police officer, the Police Complaint Commissioner disagreed with the Discipline Authority’s findings and, on October 17, 2017, appointed retired Provincial Court Judge Carol Baird Ellan to review the evidence pursuant to section 117 of the Police Act.
[ 45|corruption_a|light|2017|2017-13143] Baird Ellan issued her Notice of Discipline Authority’s decision where she determined that the evidence appeared to substantiate the second allegation of Discreditable Conduct, but also a third allegation of Corrupt Practice in relation to the alleged badging incident.
[ 46|GBV         |EMP  |2017|2015-10950] Having reviewed the investigation, the discipline proceeding and associated determinations, pursuant to section 138 of the Police Act , the Police Complaint Commissioner determined that a Review on the Record was necessary for the following reasons: the complaint was serious in nature as the allegations involved a significant breach of the public trust; the disciplinary or corrective measures proposed were inappropriate and/or inadequate; and a Review on the Record was required to preserve or restore public confidence in the administration of police discipline.
[ 47|GBV         |EMP  |2017|2015-10950] At the completion of the Review on the Record, Adjudicator Oppal determined that the conduct of the police officer was “egregious” and that the allegation of Discreditable Conduct “border[ed] on dismissal” due to the member’s position of trust.
[ 48|GBV         |EMP  |2017|2015-10950] Adjudicator Oppal determined that the member ought to serve a suspension of 18 days for the allegation of Discreditable Conduct and a suspension of five days for the allegation of Improper Disclosure of Information.
[ 49|improper_acc|EMP  |2017|2015-10950] The Discipline Authority proposed a 12 day suspension and ethics based training for the allegation of Discreditable Conduct and a written reprimand and training related to VPD disclosure of information for the allegation of Improper Disclosure of Information.
[ 50|GBV         |FIRED|2021|2017-13965] Neal ultimately determined that the officer committed Discreditable Conduct by shattering the front windshield of the vehicle and by repeatedly assaulting the Complainant.
[ 51|corruption_a|light|2021|2018-14770] Pendleton issued his decision where he determined that the Discreditable Conduct and Neglect of Duty allegations appeared to be substantiated.
[ 52|off_duty_cri|EMP  |2019|2018-15584] Acting in a discreditable manner, refusing to provide his name and “name dropping” an acquaintance from the RCMP following the initiation of a police investigation for which he was identified as the subject of investigation.
[ 53|corruption_a|EMP  |2020|2018-15625] The Discipline Authority noted the that the misconduct committed by the member was “extremely serious,” and that there is no question that the member’s actions brought discredit to the VPD.
[ 54|corruption_a|EMP  |2020|2018-15625] The Discipline Authority further determined that conduct of the member at the scene was a marked departure from what would reasonably be expected from a police officer, that his behavior served to further bring the VPD and CFSEU into disrepute, and that his statements were damaging to the reputation of the VPD.
[ 55|deceit_and_f|EMP  |2018|2015-11249] This matter proceeded to a disciplinary proceeding where the Discipline Authority substantiated all 10 allegations of Discreditable Conduct in relation to the altering and presenting forged prescriptions by proposing a written reprimand and outlining a number of conditions for drug abuse counselling and monitoring as the disciplinary/corrective measures.
[ 56|deceit_and_f|EMP  |2018|2015-11249] The Discipline Authority also substantiated the allegation of Discreditable Conduct for providing false information to members of the RCMP during a criminal investigation and proposed a 4 day suspension without pay.
[ 57|GBV         |EMP  |2021|2021-19272] Upon request from the Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a member for Discreditable Conduct.
[ 58|deceit_and_f|EMP  |2020|2019-15876] The Discipline Authority also determined that making derogatory and disrespectful comments about the direction provided by a supervising officer could “serve to undermine the authority of the senior officer giving valid operational direction.
[ 59|vehicle_oper|EMP  |2020|2014-9474] Acting in a manner that this constable knew, or ought to have known, would be likely to bring discredit to the Abbotsford Police Department by excessive speeding on several occasions.
[ 60|corruption_a|FIRED|2020|2014-9474] Constable Christopher Nicholson committed the disciplinary default of a Public Trust Offence, contrary to s.
[ 61|deceit_and_f|EMP  |2018|2016-12506] However, subject to section 137(2) the Police Complaint Commissioner may arrange a Review of the Record instead of a Public Hearing if he is satisfied that it is not necessary to cross-examine witnesses, receive evidence that was not part of the record of the disciplinary decision, and that a public hearing was not required to preserve or restore public confidence in the investigation of misconduct and the administration of police discipline.
[ 62|off_duty_cri|EMP  |2017|2016-12502] However, the OPCC did not believe that the discipline imposed would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
[ 63|GBV         |EMP  |2021|2017-13521] ” The Adjudicator agreed with the Discipline Authority that suspensions without pay were the appropriate penalty but that those suspensions should be for a longer period of time given a number of factors including, the seriousness of the misconduct, the need to denounce and to send a message to others, and to maintain public confidence.
[ 64|off_duty_cri|light|2024|2023-23622] At the discipline proceeding, the member admitted to directing profanity and sarcasm towards the other members amounting to discreditable conduct.
[ 65|vehicle_oper|light|2019|2018-15450] The matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the member admitted to the allegation of Discreditable Conduct.
[ 66|corruption_a|EMP  |2020|2018-14679] Chief Constable Jones, as the Discipline Authority, reviewed the investigation and identified an allegation of Discreditable Conduct based on the manner in which the search of the residence was conducted and the statement made by the member where he indicated that he intended to play a practical joke with evidence while at the residence.
[ 67|off_duty_cri|light|2018|2017-14184] The police officer agreed that his actions brought discredit to the department and made no attempt to mislead or minimize his actions.
[ 68|corruption_a|light|2020|2019-16226] Retired Judge Neal issued his decision as the Discipline Authority, substantiating the allegations of Corrupt Practice, Discreditable Conduct, and Discourtesy.
[ 69|deceit_and_f|FIRED|2020|2019-17025] The Discipline Authority found that the member’s conduct spanned three years, and noted that the breach of the public and department’s trust was so severe that anything short of dismissal would be unworkable and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
[ 70|workplace_ha|light|2019|2018-15350] The OPCC determined there no public trust concerns and no complaint was received.
[ 71|deceit_and_f|FIRED|2018|2015-11048-05] The Police Complaint Commissioner was also of the view that the (former) Chief Constable’s conduct would undoubtedly undermine public confidence in the police.
[ 72|deceit_and_f|FIRED|2018|2015-11048-05] The (former) Chief Constable’s lack of acceptance of responsibility and his efforts to escape liability, as described by the retired judge, would similarly undermine public confidence.
[ 73|workplace_ha|light|2023|2021-19733] In addition, he assessed that the member was motivated in part to write the letter to preserve the reputation of their former police agency, rather than preserving their reputation alone.
[ 74|workplace_ha|light|2019|2018-15080] The OPCC did not identify any public trust concerns and no complaint was received at the OPCC.
[ 75|deceit_and_f|FIRED|2019|2018-14566] It undermines the reputation of the police department and the profession itself.
[ 76|deceit_and_f|FIRED|2019|2018-14566] It also undermines and has a significant and adverse impact on public trust and confidence in the police to do their jobs with honour and integrity.
[ 77|workplace_ha|EMP  |2017|2017-13144] The OPCC reviewed the Internal Discipline Record of Decision and determined there were no public trust issues.
[ 78|property_and|light|2018|2017-13765] Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC was of the view that the disciplinary or corrective measures imposed fell within the acceptable range for appropriate discipline in the circumstances and would not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
[ 79|off_duty_cri|light|2019|2019-15763] Oppal concluded that taken individually, these actions may not appear to be discreditable conduct, however, taken cumulatively, they appear to constitute misconduct within the meaning of the Police Act.
[ 80|off_duty_cri|light|2019|2019-15763] A prehearing conference was held during which the member accepted full responsibility for his actions and admitted to the allegation of Discreditable Conduct.
[ 81|deceit_and_f|EMP  |2020|2019-16783] Providing a positive employment reference for a member who had been dismissed from the DPD and which negatively impacted the reputation of the police department.
[ 82|workplace_ha|light|2020|2019-16220] The OPCC determined there were no public trust issues and no complaint had been filed.
[ 83|deceit_and_f|FIRED|2020|2019-17113] Coaching hockey on days that he had called in sick to work (25 counts of Discreditable Conduct).
[ 84|vehicle_oper|FIRED|2019|2019-16542] The OPCC did not identify any public trust concerns and no complaint regarding this conduct was received.
[ 85|corruption_a|FIRED|2018|2015-10452] As a result of an Internal Discipline Investigation/Criminal Investigation (See OPCC 2015-10319 in 2015/2016 OPCC Annual Report for further information), a further public trust investigation was initiated to investigate allegations of misconduct.
[ 86|deceit_and_f|light|2014|2014-9798] The discipline authority substantiated the allegation of discreditable conduct and noted that there was a relaxing of standards in relation to the writing of this exam.
[ 87|deceit_and_f|FIRED|2016|2016-11822] On April 8, 2016, the probationary police officer made several statements to the Police Act investigator in relation to the Discreditable Conduct allegation that were later determined to be untrue.
[ 88|GBV         |EMP  |2019|2018-15224] As the VPD was of the view that this matter should be handled as an internal discipline investigation rather than a public trust investigation, the OPCC determined that it was in the public interest that an external agency conduct the investigation.
[ 89|deceit_and_f|EMP  |2019|2018-15374] No public trust issues were identified and no complaint was received.
[ 90|off_duty_cri|light|2016|2015-10899] The content of the video was found to have discredited the department in that it did not meet the reasonable expectations of the public.
[ 91|deceit_and_f|light|2016|2015-11274] On November 23, 2015, a police officer included information in an affidavit that would likely bring discredit to the reputation of the police department.
[ 92|workplace_ha|light|2023|2021-20136] The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member’s use of police databases to query the civilian was serious as it undermined the public’s expectations that information contained in PRIME and other databases be used only for legitimate police purposes.
[ 93|improper_acc|light|2018|2016-11891] The Police Complaint Commissioner was of the view that the discipline imposed was at the lowest end of the range of acceptable discipline but determined that it should be accepted as it would not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
[ 94|excessive_or|light|2018|2016-11867] Further, the Police Complaint Commissioner agreed that the discipline/corrective measures imposed were appropriate and would not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
[ 95|GBV         |EMP  |2018|2015-11048-03] Based on the Final Investigation Report, Retired BC Supreme Court Judge Pitfield, in his role as Discipline Authority, substantiated three counts of Discreditable Conduct and directed the (former) Chief Constable to a discipline proceeding.
[ 96|discourtesy |light|2023|2022-22263] The Prehearing Conference Authority further noted that the member had made themselves available for opportunities to enhance their cultural awareness as it relates to the history, language, culture, and spiritual aspects of the First Nation and had demonstrated a commitment to strengthening their relationship with the First Nation and repairing any damage to public confidence.
[ 97|insufficient|FIRED|2012|2011-6162] The actions of the member discredited the Delta Police Department.
[ 98|GBV         |FIRED|2018|2017-13349] The police officer knew or ought to have known that engaging in a personal relationship with a vulnerable domestic violence unit client and the alleged victim in a harassment investigation that he assisted investigating would bring discredit to the department.
[ 99|improper_acc|EMP  |2018|2017-13349] Eleven (11) allegations of Discreditable Conduct (collectively) - dismissal.
[100|improper_acc|EMP  |2018|2017-13349] The Discipline Authority advised in his decision that eleven of the Discreditable Conduct allegations were associated to women that he met while on duty.
[101|improper_acc|EMP  |2018|2017-13349] The police officer breached the trust of the public and police department to such a degree that anything short of dismissal would be unworkable, would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute, would significantly harm the reputation of the police department and policing in general, and would not serve the public interest.
[102|workplace_ha|EMP  |2018|2014-9512] ” Due to the seriousness of the breaches and the damage to the reputation of the department (and policing in general) the Discipline Authority indicated that the discipline proposed reflected the degree of seriousness of the conduct.
[103|workplace_ha|EMP  |2018|2014-9512] In relation to the Discreditable Conduct finding, this had several aspects.
[104|GBV         |EMP  |2022|2018-14861] The Commissioner determined that a Public Hearing was required and necessary in the public interest as the Commissioner was of the view that the allegation of Discreditable Conduct could not be restricted to the discrete question of whether a sexual assault occurred.
[105|property_and|light|2019|2018-15312] The OPCC reviewed this matter and determined that there were no public trust issues and no complaint was received about this conduct.
[106|GBV         |EMP  |2021|2020-18455] An internal investigation was initiated into the conduct of a Saanich Police Department member for Discreditable Conduct.
[107|off_duty_cri|FIRED|2015|2014-9930] Accordingly, in considering the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures for the allegation of Neglect of Duty and one of the allegations of Discreditable Conduct, the discipline authority was guided in part by the fact that the officer was no longer serving as a police officer and the officer’s Service Record of Discipline would indicate that the officer was dismissed as a result of disciplinary action.
[108|off_duty_cri|FIRED|2015|2014-9930] Having regard to the unique and complicated factors in this case, the discipline authority was satisfied that in totality the measures noted above were an appropriate way to ensure that the officer had been corrected and educated and such a disposition would not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute.
[109|GBV         |EMP  |2021|2018-14547] At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority (DA) found that the member’s conduct appeared to constitute Discreditable Conduct.
[110|deceit_and_f|FIRED|2022|2021-19619] ” The Discipline Authority ultimately determined that “anything other than dismissal would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute and [would be] contrary to the public interest.
[111|investigativ|light|2023|2022-21618] The Discipline Authority found that the member had a duty according to department policy to document their use of force within their written reports and that documentation of all use of force interactions involving the police is necessary to maintain public trust and confidence.
[112|off_duty_cri|EMP  |2016|2015-10904] Following an investigation, the Discipline Authority determined on October 30, 2015, that the Discreditable Conduct allegation related to operating a motor vehicle while impaired was substantiated and offered the police officer a prehearing conference.
[113|off_duty_cri|EMP  |2016|2015-10904] The Discipline Authority did not find that two other Discreditable Conduct allegations had been substantiated.
[114|off_duty_cri|EMP  |2016|2015-10904] The Police Complaint Commissioner disagreed with the Discipline Authority’s findings that the two remaining Discreditable Conduct allegations were not substantiated and, on November 26, 2015, appointed retired BC Supreme Court Judge Ian Pitfield to review the evidence pursuant to section 117 of the Police Act.
[115|off_duty_cri|EMP  |2016|2015-10904] Pitfield issued his Notice of Adjudicator’s Decision where he determined that the evidence appeared to substantiate one further allegation of Discreditable Conduct for failing to cooperate with an impaired driving investigation.
[116|deceit_and_f|EMP  |2021|2018-15600] At the conclusion of the discipline proceeding, the Discipline Authority found that one member appeared to have committed two allegations of misconduct, Discreditable Conduct for failing to provide fulsome information on a submitted Report to Crown Counsel regarding force used on an arrested subject and Deceit for knowingly providing false and misleading information to investigators in relation to this matter.
[117|off_duty_cri|EMP  |2014|2013-9281] Following an investigation, the discipline authority determined that the officer had behaved in a discreditable manner in that when the member was approached by security staff, he identified himself as a police officer.
[118|discourtesy |light|2021|2020-18167] In arriving at a decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member had taken full responsibility for these actions and regretted the impact on the reputation of both the department and the member personally.
[119|workplace_ha|light|2021|2019-16399] The Discipline Authority found that the member’s conduct as a whole would discredit the reputation of the VPD.
[120|excessive_or|light|2018|2013-8522] The Police Complaint Commissioner ordered a public trust investigation and directed that the alleged misconduct be investigated by an external police force, pursuant to section 93(1)(a) and section 93(1)(b)(ii) of the Police Act .
[121|excessive_or|light|2018|2013-8522] The Police Complaint Commissioner initiated a public trust investigation and directed these further misconduct allegations be investigated by the RCMP/VPD investigators and appointed Retired BC Supreme Court Judge Pitfield to act as the Discipline Authority.
[122|GBV         |EMP  |2023|2022-22012] The member sent inappropriate text messages to the complainant that would bring discredit to the Vancouver Police Department.
[123|off_duty_cri|EMP  |2018|2017-13291] A prehearing conference was held where the special municipal constable admitted the misconduct of Discreditable Conduct and agreed to the imposition of a written reprimand as a corrective measure.
[124|off_duty_cri|light|2022|2020-18635] As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the member admitted the allegation of Discreditable Conduct.
[125|GBV         |FIRED|2024|2019-16234] The Commissioner noted that the proposed disciplinary or corrective measures would potentially allow the member to re-enter the workplace, which could have the potential to bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute given the Discipline Authority had found the member used their rank, position, and seniority to facilitate a pattern of predatory behaviour.
[126|GBV         |FIRED|2024|2019-16234] ” She further noted that discreditable conduct that meets the definition of workplace sexual harassment constitutes serious misconduct, and that three of the four recipients had experienced unwanted physical contact.
[127|improper_acc|light|2025|2021-20921] The Discipline Authority found that, while the member did not author the text messages, their distribution of the text messages which contained running commentary that was disrespectful of a victim of alleged sexual violence would likely discredit the reputation of the police force.
[128|workplace_ha|FIRED|2024|2022-21613] The Discipline Authority noted the member was an experienced member in a supervisory position, with power and influence within the department, and that a corrective approach would be insufficient to address the misconduct, deter others from committing similar misconduct, and safeguard public trust and confidence in the police disciplinary process.
[129|deceit_and_f|EMP  |2025|2022-22122] The Discipline Authority imposed a 5-day suspension without pay for the admitted discreditable conduct.
[130|unlawful_arr|EMP  |2025|2023-23532] While recognizing the member had no disciplinary record and exemplary performance evaluations, Adjudicator Takahashi found that failing to provide a significant consequence would bring the reputation of the police complaints process and bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
[131|GBV         |light|2024|2023-24402] At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have made one comment to the complainant that amounted to discreditable conduct, when he said words to the effect of, “It must feel really nice to take your bra off after a shift.
[132|corruption_a|EMP  |2024|2024-25323] In arriving at the decision on disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member’s actions of using their position as a police officer to influence the public and a police investigation could significantly impact the reputation of the VPD.

TOTAL: 132
