[{"id":1,"file":"2021-20526","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2022,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"the member, while off duty, sent an email to a civilian staff member that violated the Respectful Workplace Policy.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An internal investigation was initiated into the conduct of a Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP) member for a breach of Respectful Workplace Policy. According to the MVTP, the member, while off duty, sent an email to a civilian staff member that violated the Respectful Workplace Policy. The member sent an e-mail communication containing comments that were contrary to the Respectful Workplace policy.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":2,"file":"2019-16763","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - CEW","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The force used by the member in discharging his CEW towards the complainant was unreasonable, premature, and reckless.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The complainant reported that police arrested him while at a hotel on East Hastings Street in Vancouver and that police used inappropriate force on him, including the use of a CEW and batons, and was kicked and punched and was ultimately hospitalized. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The force used by the member in discharging his CEW towards the complainant was unreasonable, premature, and reckless. The Discipline Authority (DA) did not find that the member committed misconduct. The Commissioner reviewed this decision and determined there was a reasonable basis to disagree with the DA’s decision as there were concerns in relation to the appropriate use of a CEW in these circumstances, particularly when the complainant appeared to be in distress and that the member did not appear to have exhausted communication efforts or attempts to de-escalate the matter. The Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge, the Honourable Mr. Brian Neal, K.C., to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Mr. Neal issued his decision where he determined that it appeared that the display and discharge of the CEW by the member was unwarranted and that the member appeared to have intentionally used force against the complainant without lawful authority during the course of his arrest. Disciplinary Process A prehearing conference was offered but not accepted by the member. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where Mr. Neal, K.C., as the Discipline Authority found that the member “owed a duty of care to the complainant to properly assess the risk” and “also had a duty to properly consider the applicability of de-escalation techniques and reduced use of force options.” In arriving at a decision, Mr. Neal referenced the late Justice Braidwood’s3 cautions that “real harm can result from the premature discharge and use of CEWs particularly in situations where mental health issues are likely in issue.” In arriving at a decision on appropriate disciplinary and corrective measures, Mr. Neal noted the extraordinary powers and authorities police have and the importance of training in developing appropriate decision making by police. The measures imposed in this case supported the need for further education to enhance and reinforce a number of important skills relating to situation awareness and de-escalation. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":3,"file":"2013-8788","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Unsafe Storage of Firearm","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"left a firearm at a training site","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer left a firearm at a training site.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":4,"file":"2019-15972","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Improvised Weapon","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"the member released the police vehicle's brake slightly and trapped the male between the police vehicle's bumper and the planter box","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"According to the Victoria Police Department (VicPD), two groups of young people engaged in an argument and physical fight in downtown Victoria at approximately midnight. The member was responding to the incident when he noticed a male, dressed in black, running west on the south sidewalk. The member yelled at the male to stop and put his police vehicle's front wheels up onto the sidewalk in order to block the path of the male, leaving only a small space between the building, the planter box touching the building, and the police vehicle's front bumper. When the male attempted to squeeze between the planter box and the police vehicle’s front bumper, the member released the police vehicle's brake slightly and trapped the male between the police vehicle's bumper and the planter box. A patrol sergeant attended the member’s location and confirmed that the male was the same male who ran from him. The male complained that he suffered an injury to his leg from contact with the police vehicle which presented as some scratches on his left leg. The male was transported to hospital for assessment and was later released. Using a police vehicle to apprehend a suspect. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference where the Discipline Authority noted that any deployment of a police vehicle as a use of force carries risk and potential serious harm to individuals, and should only be reserved for instances to prevent death or serious bodily harm. In this case, the motivation for the force was to apprehend a suspect and the inappropriate use of the police vehicle only occurred for approximately one to three seconds at low speed, slower than walking. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed discipline.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":5,"file":"2017-14260","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Immediate Roadside Prohibition/Impaired Operation of a Motor Vehicle","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"Operating a motor vehicle while his ability to do so was impaired by alcohol.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"In December 2017, a member of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) was involved in a single motor vehicle accident in Delta, BC. Members of the Delta Police Department (DPD) attended the scene and observed a vehicle on its roof. The driver was subsequently identified as an off-duty VPD member. The Delta police officers observed the driver to be unsteady on his feet, to have slurred speech, and to have an odour of liquor emanating from his breath. The driver provided a breath sample into an Approved Screening Device (ASD) which resulted in two “Fail” readings. While the Delta police officers were conducting their investigation, the driver made several attempts with different members to persuade them from proceeding with their investigation. The driver was issued a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) and the vehicle was impounded. Operating a motor vehicle while his ability to do so was impaired by alcohol. The OPCC disagreed with the Discipline Authority’s decision on discipline noting the multiple attempts by the member to obtain special treatment. The OPCC determined it was in the public interest that a retired judge review the matter to arrive at their own determination and appointed Retired Provincial Court Judge, Carol Baird Ellan. As the Adjudicator, Ms. 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. *The suspensions were to be served consecutively. For more information on this review, visit the OPCC website at https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/reviews-on-the-record/Summary","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":6,"file":"2017-14260","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Badging/Identifying as a Police Officer","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"Attempting to receive special consideration during the impaired driving investigation due to his status as an off-duty police officer.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"In December 2017, a member of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) was involved in a single motor vehicle accident in Delta, BC. Members of the Delta Police Department (DPD) attended the scene and observed a vehicle on its roof. The driver was subsequently identified as an off-duty VPD member. The Delta police officers observed the driver to be unsteady on his feet, to have slurred speech, and to have an odour of liquor emanating from his breath. The driver provided a breath sample into an Approved Screening Device (ASD) which resulted in two “Fail” readings. While the Delta police officers were conducting their investigation, the driver made several attempts with different members to persuade them from proceeding with their investigation. The driver was issued a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) and the vehicle was impounded. Attempting to receive special consideration during the impaired driving investigation due to his status as an off-duty police officer. A prehearing conference was offered to the member where discipline was proposed for operating a motor vehicle while being impaired by alcohol and for seeking preferential treatment. The OPCC reviewed the proposed discipline and determined the discipline did not reflect the seriousness of the conduct and more specifically, the egregious conduct of the member’s attempts to seek special consideration. The matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the discipline increased to a six-day suspension for the impaired driving and a three-day suspension for seeking preferential treatment. The OPCC disagreed with the Discipline Authority’s decision on discipline noting the multiple attempts by the member to obtain special treatment. The OPCC determined it was in the public interest that a retired judge review the matter to arrive at their own determination and appointed Retired Provincial Court Judge, Carol Baird Ellan. As the Adjudicator, Ms. 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. *The suspensions were to be served consecutively. For more information on this review, visit the OPCC website at https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/reviews-on-the-record/Summary","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":7,"file":"2017-14249","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"Conducted a CPIC and/or PRIME search of a member of the public for a purpose unrelated to his duties as a police officer.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a Vancouver Police officer following information that he had accessed police databases to search for records related to a young person and may have disclosed confidential information. Conducted a CPIC and/or PRIME search of a member of the public for a purpose unrelated to his duties as a police officer. Upon review of this matter, the OPCC considered that the disciplinary measures imposed did not reflect the seriousness of the breaches of privacy and the use of sensitive information for personal purposes. This was out of step with the public’s expectations and the standards expected by professions entrusted with protecting private and sensitive personal information. 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. The Commissioner arranged an adjudicative review to be held before Retired Provincial Court Judge, Brian Neal, Q.C. As the Adjudicator, Mr. Neal reviewed this matter and determined that the conduct required discipline that would serve as a deterrence to other members. He imposed a penalty of 5-day suspensions without pay for each allegation of misconduct. In his decision, Mr. Neal noted the seriousness, particularly as this was a case of data that was protected by the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA). Mr. Neal also made a recommendation to the Chief Constable that a renewed focus be applied to the training of all VPD members. The renewed focus should reinforce the importance of complying with policy and statutory obligations of all members arising in connection with access to police databases, disclosure of information on those databases and privacy obligations of members with respect to such data, particularly data governed by the YCJA. *The suspensions were to be served concurrently. For more information on this review, visit the OPCC website at https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":8,"file":"2017-14249","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Improper Disclosure of Information","sublabel":"Disclosing Information Acquired as a Police Officer","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"Improperly disclosed confidential information to a member of the public that he acquired from a CPIC and/or PRIME search.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a Vancouver Police officer following information that he had accessed police databases to search for records related to a young person and may have disclosed confidential information. Improperly disclosed confidential information to a member of the public that he acquired from a CPIC and/or PRIME search. Upon review of this matter, the OPCC considered that the disciplinary measures imposed did not reflect the seriousness of the breaches of privacy and the use of sensitive information for personal purposes. This was out of step with the public’s expectations and the standards expected by professions entrusted with protecting private and sensitive personal information. 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. The Commissioner arranged an adjudicative review to be held before Retired Provincial Court Judge, Brian Neal, Q.C. As the Adjudicator, Mr. Neal reviewed this matter and determined that the conduct required discipline that would serve as a deterrence to other members. He imposed a penalty of 5-day suspensions without pay for each allegation of misconduct. In his decision, Mr. Neal noted the seriousness, particularly as this was a case of data that was protected by the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA). Mr. Neal also made a recommendation to the Chief Constable that a renewed focus be applied to the training of all VPD members. The renewed focus should reinforce the importance of complying with policy and statutory obligations of all members arising in connection with access to police databases, disclosure of information on those databases and privacy obligations of members with respect to such data, particularly data governed by the YCJA. *The suspensions were to be served concurrently. For more information on this review, visit the OPCC website at https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":9,"file":"2017-14249","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"Conducted a CPIC and/or PRIME search of a family member for a purpose unrelated to his duties as a police officer.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a Vancouver Police officer following information that he had accessed police databases to search for records related to a young person and may have disclosed confidential information. Conducted a CPIC and/or PRIME search of a family member for a purpose unrelated to his duties as a police officer. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference where discipline was proposed. The OPCC did not approve the proposed discipline as it failed to adequately assess the seriousness of the member’s conduct. The matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the Discipline Authority increased the discipline to a written reprimand. Upon review of this matter, the OPCC considered that the disciplinary measures imposed did not reflect the seriousness of the breaches of privacy and the use of sensitive information for personal purposes. This was out of step with the public’s expectations and the standards expected by professions entrusted with protecting private and sensitive personal information. 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. The Commissioner arranged an adjudicative review to be held before Retired Provincial Court Judge, Brian Neal, Q.C. As the Adjudicator, Mr. Neal reviewed this matter and determined that the conduct required discipline that would serve as a deterrence to other members. He imposed a penalty of 5-day suspensions without pay for each allegation of misconduct. In his decision, Mr. Neal noted the seriousness, particularly as this was a case of data that was protected by the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA). Mr. Neal also made a recommendation to the Chief Constable that a renewed focus be applied to the training of all VPD members. The renewed focus should reinforce the importance of complying with policy and statutory obligations of all members arising in connection with access to police databases, disclosure of information on those databases and privacy obligations of members with respect to such data, particularly data governed by the YCJA. *The suspensions were to be served concurrently. For more information on this review, visit the OPCC website at https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":10,"file":"2020-17402","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"grabbed another volunteer after she made a comment directed towards him","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the off-duty conduct of one of their members. It was reported that information was discovered during an employment background check that was completed by the VPD recruiting section. It was learned that during a debrief conducted at an RCMP detachment to discuss the results of a traffic operation, an off-duty Special Municipal Constable was alleged to have grabbed another volunteer after she made a comment directed towards him. There were no resulting injuries. A criminal investigation was conducted by the RCMP which did not result in any criminal charges. For grabbing a volunteer while off duty during a volunteer shift with the RCMP. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures. In approving the proposed discipline, the OPCC considered that the member had no record of discipline on his service record and had since apologized to the affected person. It was noted that the member had reflected on his actions and accepted responsibility for what he had done.","measures":["suspension","counselling"]},{"id":11,"file":"2014-9588","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Attend Court","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"An officer failed to attend traffic court and as a result, a stay of proceedings was entered into the matter.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An officer failed to attend traffic court and as a result, a stay of proceedings was entered into the matter.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":12,"file":"2019-17046","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Attend Court","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to attend traffic court on two occasions in October 2019","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A Saanich Police Department member failed to attend traffic court on two occasions in October 2019. The member had been away on medical leave and had not been cleared for full duties, but had been approved to attend traffic court, which he did on two occasions in September. In October, the member’s supervisor notified him that he had missed a traffic court appearance. The member then realized he had missed another traffic court date two weeks earlier. The member learned that the calendar on his phone was not functioning properly. As the member was on leave, he was not attending the office to review the work schedule for reminders and had relied on his electronic calendar set up on his phone as a reminder. The member took full responsibility for his actions and proactively took steps to prevent the recurrence of this type of mistake. The OPCC determined that there were no public trust issues and that no complaint has been received by the OPCC. An internal investigation was initiated as a result. That in October 2019, the member failed to attend traffic court on two occasions as required, breaching departmental policy.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":13,"file":"2012-8126","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to sufficiently document investigative steps during an investigation","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer failed to sufficiently document investigative steps during an investigation.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":14,"file":"2022-22673","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"made comments about a colleague’s jewelry and made unwanted physical contact with the colleague by placing their arm around them","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The department initiated an internal discipline investigation into the conduct of a Vancouver Police Department (VPD) member for breach of the VPD Respectful Workplace Policy. According to the VPD, the member made comments about a colleague’s jewelry and made unwanted physical contact with the colleague by placing their arm around them. This incident occurred in front of a group of peers and caused the colleague to feel embarrassed and humiliated. The member made inappropriate comments and physical contact in contravention of VPD Respectful Workplace Policy.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":15,"file":"2021-20210","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"a video circulating on social media depicting a VPD member (Member A) using force on an affected person","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Commissioner ordered an investigation after receiving information from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) relating to a video circulating on social media depicting a VPD member (Member A) using force on an affected person. During the course of the investigation, it was revealed that Member A did not document the incident appropriately, and another VPD member (Member B) may have unlawfully searched the affected person. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the New Westminster Police Department to conduct the investigation and Chief Constable Dave Jansen was designated as the Discipline Authority. The use of force on the affected person.","measures":["training"]},{"id":16,"file":"2021-20210","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"Member A failed to complete any notes or contemporaneous documentation regarding the use of force against the affected person without good or sufficient cause not to submit notes.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Commissioner ordered an investigation after receiving information from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) relating to a video circulating on social media depicting a VPD member (Member A) using force on an affected person. During the course of the investigation, it was revealed that Member A did not document the incident appropriately, and another VPD member (Member B) may have unlawfully searched the affected person. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the New Westminster Police Department to conduct the investigation and Chief Constable Dave Jansen was designated as the Discipline Authority. The member neglected to take notes documenting their use of force on the affected person. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that Member A appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered to the member which the member declined. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The Discipline Authority found that Member A was speaking to the affected person in follow-up to a call for service when Member A struck the affected person’s hand. Member A reportedly believed the affected person may have been holding an illegal substance. The Discipline Authority determined that the force used was unnecessary and unreasonable. The Discipline Authority also determined that Member A failed to complete any notes or contemporaneous documentation regarding the use of force against the affected person without good or sufficient cause not to submit notes. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority noted the seriousness of the misconduct was on the lower end of the scale, and that Member A has been a VPD member for over 20 years with no prior substantiated misconduct on their Service Record of Discipline. Member A did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed the findings for Member A and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["training"]},{"id":17,"file":"2021-20210","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Search of a Person","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member searched the affected person without good and sufficient cause.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Commissioner ordered an investigation after receiving information from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) relating to a video circulating on social media depicting a VPD member (Member A) using force on an affected person. During the course of the investigation, it was revealed that Member A did not document the incident appropriately, and another VPD member (Member B) may have unlawfully searched the affected person. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the New Westminster Police Department to conduct the investigation and Chief Constable Dave Jansen was designated as the Discipline Authority. The member searched the affected person without good and sufficient cause. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that Member B appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by Member B. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted Member accepted responsibility for their misconduct and had no prior substantiated misconduct on their Service Record of Discipline. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required for Member B and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":18,"file":"2016-11796","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The two occupants of the vehicle were not provided with the reason for the stop or of their subsequent right to counsel. It was further determined that the vehicle was searched without a legal basis.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Delta Police Department was informed by an outside policing agency that they were conducting a criminal investigation into one of their members. As a result of this information, the Chief Constable immediately assigned the member to administrative leave with pay and subsequently requested the Police Complaint Commissioner order an investigation into the matter. On November 7, 2015, a police officer conducted a stop of a vehicle whose passenger was noted to be a sex trade worker; this vehicle stop was not in keeping with accepted policing practices. The two occupants of the vehicle were not provided with the reason for the stop or of their subsequent right to counsel. It was further determined that the vehicle was searched without a legal basis.","measures":["suspension","written reprimand","training","close supervision"]},{"id":19,"file":"2016-11796","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"the police officer failed to document the reason for the stop, the names of both parties, the action taken (query of the vehicle occupants’ names), the destruction of drug paraphernalia and that alcohol was poured out.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Delta Police Department was informed by an outside policing agency that they were conducting a criminal investigation into one of their members. As a result of this information, the Chief Constable immediately assigned the member to administrative leave with pay and subsequently requested the Police Complaint Commissioner order an investigation into the matter. On November 7, 2015, the police officer failed to accurately document the stop of the vehicle. Specifically, the police officer failed to document the reason for the stop, the names of both parties, the action taken (query of the vehicle occupants’ names), the destruction of drug paraphernalia and that alcohol was poured out.","measures":["written reprimand","close supervision"]},{"id":20,"file":"2016-11796","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"advising the sex trade worker she could be under arrest, searching her purse and discarding drug paraphernalia, and using the ploy of stolen property in an attempt to identify her","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Delta Police Department was informed by an outside policing agency that they were conducting a criminal investigation into one of their members. As a result of this information, the Chief Constable immediately assigned the member to administrative leave with pay and subsequently requested the Police Complaint Commissioner order an investigation into the matter. On December 7, 2015, the police officer had an interaction with a sex trade worker that was not keeping with accepted police practices, specifically, failing to properly document the interaction, advising the sex trade worker she could be under arrest, searching her purse and discarding drug paraphernalia, and using the ploy of stolen property in an attempt to identify her. This office noted that the Police Act investigation arose from a criminal investigation conducted by an outside policing agency and involved very serious and concerning allegations against the police officer. The affected persons identified during the course of the criminal investigation were from some of the most vulnerable populations in society. Regional Crown Counsel reviewed the criminal investigation and the recommended charges; a decision was made to not proceed with criminal charges against the police officer. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference to determine whether the member was prepared to admit responsibility and if so, what disciplinary or corrective measures the member was prepared to accept. 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. 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. The disciplinary measures imposed at the prehearing conference appear to be both correct and appropriate with respect to the totality of circumstances. Therefore, the agreement reached at the prehearing conference was approved and the resolution is final and conclusive.","measures":["suspension","written reprimand","training","close supervision"]},{"id":21,"file":"2016-12824","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2017,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"used the PRIME database system, without permission, to gather statistics for their master’s degree course","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer used the PRIME database system, without permission, to gather statistics for their master’s degree course. The OPCC reviewed the investigation and the Internal Discipline Authority’s decision. The OPCC determined there were no public trust concerns that required investigation.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":22,"file":"2020-17313","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2021,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"commenced to swear, name-call, yell, and then hang up on the supervisor","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An internal investigation was initiated into the conduct of a Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP) member. It was reported that the member was upset with a supervisor’s level of support provided to another officer. The member discussed their concerns with the supervisor and during this conversation allegedly commenced to swear, name-call, yell, and then hang up on the supervisor. The member breached the Respectful Workplace Policy during an interaction he had with a supervisor.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":23,"file":"2017-14001","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer called a fellow officer derogatory names in front of a Deputy, an Inspector and the entire squad.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On September 28, 2017, a police officer interrupted a squad briefing to voice his displeasure regarding the division of food and refreshments provided by the Police Board. The police officer called a fellow officer derogatory names in front of a Deputy, an Inspector and the entire squad. On February 1, 2018, the police officer and his union representative met with the Internal Discipline Authority. The police officer took responsibility for his actions. He had taken offence to how he believed another police officer had dealt with the situation, regarding the equal distribution of food, and how that police officer spoke to him in front of others, but admitted the manner in which he retaliated was unacceptable, disrespectful and did nothing to solve the issue at hand. The police officer came to the meeting with a prepared letter of apology. The OPCC reviewed the investigation and the Internal Discipline Authority’s decision. The OPCC determined there were no public trust concerns that required further investigation.","measures":["written reprimand","program activity"]},{"id":24,"file":"2019-16296","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Negligent Discharge","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the member heard a popping sound. The member inspected his shotgun and saw that the safety was not engaged and a discharged shell casing was visible.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A report was received of a male waving a knife on Granville Street in Vancouver. Police responded to this call. One of the members was armed with a with a less-lethal “beanbag shotgun.” Once the call was complete, the member slung the beanbag shotgun over his shoulder and entered a crosswalk to return to his police vehicle. At mid-point in the crosswalk, the member heard a popping sound. The member inspected his shotgun and saw that the safety was not engaged and a discharged shell casing was visible. The spent projectile was later found on the roadway. Failing to use or care for a firearm in accordance with standards or requirements established by law resulting in the negligent discharge of a beanbag shotgun in public. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference where the member accepted responsibility for their actions. No injuries or property damage occurred as a result; however, this discharge occurred near a civilian. The OPCC determined that the discipline was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":25,"file":"2014-9765","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.4,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to wear the required WorkSafeBC high-visibility vest while on duty as a Bike Squad member","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer failed to wear the required WorkSafeBC high-visibility vest while on duty as a Bike Squad member.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":26,"file":"2019-15814","agency":"Oak Bay Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Provide Assistance (General)","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The member failed to report the alleged driving offence to the police jurisdiction where the offence occurred.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A complainant contacted the Oak Bay Police Department to report that she had an altercation with an off-duty member where the member had taken exception to her driving. A verbal exchange occurred and the off-duty member, after having returned to the office, queried the complainant, then phoned her several days later and warned her about her driving behaviour. The OPCC reviewed the complainant and determine an investigation was required into the incident. The member failed to report the alleged driving offence to the police jurisdiction where the offence occurred. Following an investigation, the Discipline Authority determined that the member should have notified the RCMP in the first instance as the driving incident occurred in their jurisdiction. A prehearing conference was offered to the member and held before the Deputy Chief Constable as the Prehearing Conference Authority. An agreement was reached with respect to the proposed discipline of advice to future conduct. In reviewing the investigation and considering all the relevant factors in this case, the OPCC approved the discipline in light of the respondent member’s service record which contained no substantiated entries.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":27,"file":"2018-15160","agency":"Oak Bay Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"Being found intoxicated in a public place, urinating with his pants down and failing to identify himself upon initial request by a police officer.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Oak Bay Police Department reported an off-duty Oak Bay Police Reserve Constable was observed by Victoria police officers to be intoxicated and urinating on a building in downtown Victoria. It was also reported this this Reserve Constable was uncooperative with Victoria police officers during this interaction. It was further reported a few weeks later that this same off-duty Reserve Constable was found unconscious in front of a downtown Victoria nightclub. He was initially released to the custody of friends but was later found in a similar state and a decision was made by police to transport him to hospital by ambulance due to his severe intoxication. The Reserve Constable resigned from the Oak Bay Police Reserve Program prior to the conclusion of the investigation. Being found intoxicated in a public place, urinating with his pants down and failing to identify himself upon initial request by a police officer.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":28,"file":"2018-15160","agency":"Oak Bay Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"found unconscious in front of a downtown Victoria nightclub. He was initially released to the custody of friends but was later found in a similar state and a decision was made by police to transport him to hospital by ambulance due to his severe intoxication.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Oak Bay Police Department reported an off-duty Oak Bay Police Reserve Constable was observed by Victoria police officers to be intoxicated and urinating on a building in downtown Victoria. It was also reported this this Reserve Constable was uncooperative with Victoria police officers during this interaction. It was further reported a few weeks later that this same off-duty Reserve Constable was found unconscious in front of a downtown Victoria nightclub. He was initially released to the custody of friends but was later found in a similar state and a decision was made by police to transport him to hospital by ambulance due to his severe intoxication. The Reserve Constable resigned from the Oak Bay Police Reserve Program prior to the conclusion of the investigation. Being found intoxicated in a public place to the point of being unable to care for oneself. Following an investigation, the Discipline Authority determined the evidence appeared to substantiate the allegations of Discreditable Conduct and offered a prehearing conference. The prehearing conference was held before the Chief Constable as the Prehearing Conference Authority. An agreement was reached with respect to the proposed discipline of a written reprimand for two counts of Discreditable Conduct. Considering that the Reserve Constable resigned from the program, the OPCC approved the discipline in this case.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":29,"file":"2020-18892","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Damage to Police Property","sublabel":"Misusing/Losing/Damaging Police Property","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to report it to their supervisor or on-duty Watch Commander at the time","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An internal investigation was initiated into the conduct of a Saanich Police Department member for Damage to Police Property. During a night shift in November, 2020, the member advised their Watch Commander that their departmentally issued wallet containing their badge and police identification was missing. The member was not certain when the wallet went missing but had not located it in their home or at work and believed it may have been stolen from their personal vehicle in late August, 2020. The investigation determined that the member discovered they were missing their wallet in late August or early September of 2020 and failed to report it to their supervisor or on-duty Watch Commander at the time. The member did not report their badge and wallet missing in a timely fashion as required by policy.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":30,"file":"2011-6612","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Contravening a Provision of the Act, Regulation, Rule or Guideline","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"He also told the attendant that the vehicle was a loaner replacing a police vehicle damaged in the riot.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member violated VPD policy by taking his personal vehicle through the COV car wash. He also told the attendant that the vehicle was a loaner replacing a police vehicle damaged in the riot.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":31,"file":"2014-9579","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2014,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Disorderly Conduct Prejudicial to the Maintenance of Discipline in the Department","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"made offensive and derogatory remarks during a squad briefing that caused awkwardness, embarrassment and humiliation to a female police officer","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Three police officers breached the department’s Respectful Workplace Policy by making offensive and derogatory remarks during a squad briefing that caused awkwardness, embarrassment and humiliation to a female police officer. The police officers’ supervisor also breached the department’s Respectful Workplace Policy in two ways: failing to create and maintain a workplace that was free from discrimination and, as the supervisor in charge, failing to stop the behaviour as soon as it started.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":32,"file":"2015-10319","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"engaged in a theft of monies from a container where members of the Street Crime Unit had been contributing money","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer engaged in a theft of monies from a container where members of the Street Crime Unit had been contributing money. The officer was charged with two counts of Theft and one count of Breach of Trust contrary to the Criminal Code.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":33,"file":"2019-16648","agency":"Central Saanich Police Service","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"Engaging in behaviour that resulted in injuries to a spouse and led to an arrest and charge for assault.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"Text states the member allegedly \"assaulted his spouse,\" causing \"injuries to a spouse\" and an assault charge — intimate partner violence by the officer himself.","text":"Upon request by the Central Saanich Police Service (CSPS), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a member who was alleged to have assaulted his spouse and appointed an external agency to complete the investigation. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation. The matter was referred to the BC Prosecution Service and ultimately the charge was stayed and a Peace Bond entered into. Engaging in behaviour that resulted in injuries to a spouse and led to an arrest and charge for assault. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not in the public interest.","measures":["suspension","counselling"]},{"id":34,"file":"2022-21306","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"The member neglected to comply with VPD policies regarding conflict of interest and departmental emails.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The department initiated an internal discipline investigation into the conduct of a Vancouver Police Department (VPD) member for breach of the VPD’s Conflict of Interest, and the Email and Internet Security policies. According to the VPD, the member sent an email of a political nature, to an external agency from the member’s VPD email address. The email included the member’s signature, rank, and departmental crest. The member neglected to comply with VPD policies regarding conflict of interest and departmental emails.","measures":["verbal reprimand","training"]},{"id":35,"file":"2018-14963","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"a police officer had an unintentional discharge of his C8 carbine rifle when he failed to follow his training regarding the safe handling of the C8 rifle during range practice","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On July 5, 2018, during a live fire training exercise, a police officer had an unintentional discharge of his C8 carbine rifle when he failed to follow his training regarding the safe handling of the C8 rifle during range practice. No one was injured and there was minimal damage. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. The police officer took full responsibility for the discharge of the rifle and determined that he failed to follow instruction and training. The police officer was provided remedial training to maintain his C8 rifle qualification. The police officer was successful in articulating and demonstrating safe rifle handling in accordance with the department’s Rifle Program during this training. The Prehearing Conference Authority did not anticipate any future occurrences. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":36,"file":"2021-20735","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Account For Money/Property Received","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.62,"thin":false,"quote":"The member failed to properly account for the complainant’s property once in police custody.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns regarding an interaction with a member of the Abbotsford Police Department (APD). The complainant reported that the member did not return their knife which was seized from them during a traffic stop. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The member failed to properly account for the complainant’s property once in police custody. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the misconduct was at the low end of the spectrum of seriousness, bearing in mind that the knife was low in value, and that the misplacement of the knife was unintentional and occurred in a “challenging investigative environment.” Additionally, it was noted that the member accepted responsibility for their actions and had no previous substantiated misconduct allegations. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":37,"file":"2014-10141","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Unsafe Storage of Firearm","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"left a loaded police-issued firearm in the officer’s desk drawer","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer left a loaded police-issued firearm in the officer’s desk drawer.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":38,"file":"2011-6012","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Negligent Discharge","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"While practicing dry-firing his service firearm in the men’s locker room, the officer accidentally discharged a round.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"While practicing dry-firing his service firearm in the men’s locker room, the officer accidentally discharged a round.","measures":["training"]},{"id":39,"file":"2012-8129","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition\" after registering a \"fail reading\" on an ASD (Approved Screening Device)","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An off-duty police officer received a \"90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition\" after registering a \"fail reading\" on an ASD (Approved Screening Device).","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":40,"file":"2022-21448","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Disorderly Conduct Prejudicial to the Maintenance of Discipline in the Department","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The colleague was called a derogatory term and pushed by the member, causing the colleague to fall backward into a desk.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC ordered an investigation after receiving information about a West Vancouver Police Department (WVPD) member. The member was reportedly involved in a confrontation with another police colleague. The colleague was called a derogatory term and pushed by the member, causing the colleague to fall backward into a desk. The member engaged in disorderly conduct which was prejudicial to the maintenance of discipline in the department. The member’s use of derogatory comments and physical force in the workplace. At the conclusion of the investigation the Discipline Authority found that the member committed one allegation of misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the misconduct of the member was of a serious nature due to the multiple derogatory comments made and the use of physical force. In addition, the Prehearing Conference Authority found that the breaches of the department’s Respectful Workplace Policy diminished efforts made to build camaraderie within the department. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension","training","counselling"]},{"id":41,"file":"2018-15271","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to handle his pistol in a safe manner when he had an unintended discharge at an outdoor range","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On September 17, 2018, a police officer failed to handle his pistol in a safe manner when he had an unintended discharge at an outdoor range. The bullet went through the window of a police vehicle. There were no injuries and no other property damage was located. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. 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. The Prehearing Conference Authority reported that the police officer took full responsibility for his actions. The police officer was permanently removed from his duties as a firearms instructor post this incident and was sent for an independent assessment of his firearms handling skills and was qualified to carry a duty pistol. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":42,"file":"2015-11048","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"engaged in conduct with the spouse of a police officer under his command which constituted a breach of trust and/or conflict of interest.\"","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The (former) Chief Constable engaged in conduct with the spouse of a police officer under his command which constituted a breach of trust and/or conflict of interest.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":43,"file":"2015-11048","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"provided misleading information to the police officer under his command in relation to his conduct with the police officer’s spouse","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The (former) Chief Constable provided misleading information to the police officer under his command in relation to his conduct with the police officer’s spouse.","measures":["reduction in rank","suspension","training"]},{"id":44,"file":"2015-11048","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"provided misleading information to an investigator during the internal investigation.'","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The (former) Chief Constable provided misleading information to an investigator during the internal investigation.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":45,"file":"2015-11048","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Equipment","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"used police equipment and/or facilities of the police department for purposes unrelated to his duties as a member","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The (former) Chief Constable used police equipment and/or facilities of the police department for purposes unrelated to his duties as a member.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":46,"file":"2016-11497","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"authored a report stating that his/her department-issued rain jacket had been damaged in order to obtain a new one","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police member authored a report stating that his/her department-issued rain jacket had been damaged in order to obtain a new one.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":47,"file":"2016-11497","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"the police member removed another police member’s jacket from the locker room","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"When the police member was asked to produce his/her damaged rain jacket, the police member removed another police member’s jacket from the locker room.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":48,"file":"2016-11497","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Damage to Police Property","sublabel":"Misusing/Losing/Damaging Police Property","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"The police member then intentionally cut the other police member’s jacket in an effort to conceal his/her actions.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police member then intentionally cut the other police member’s jacket in an effort to conceal his/her actions.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":49,"file":"2016-11497","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"authored a report stating that his/her department-issued winter jacket had been lost in order to obtain a new one","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police member authored a report stating that his/her department-issued winter jacket had been lost in order to obtain a new one.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":50,"file":"2016-11497","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The police member made statements during two interviews with a professional standards investigator knowing that they were false.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police member made statements during two interviews with a professional standards investigator knowing that they were false.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":51,"file":"2020-18524","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Police Service Dog","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"it was not necessary for the member to have deployed the PSD a second time after the affected person fled the vehicle","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Commissioner ordered an investigation after receiving information that a Police Service Dog (PSD) had bitten an individual (the affected person) after Vancouver Police Department (VPD) members stopped a stolen vehicle. It was reported that the PSD was deployed into the vehicle, through the passenger door, when the affected person did not comply with commands to exit the car, resulting in the affected person exiting through the driver’s door and attempting to flee. The PSD pursued the affected person and bit their leg. The Commissioner considered that independent civilian video appeared to indicate that the affected person was not given an opportunity to surrender before the deployment of the PSD. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and additionally designated an external Discipline Authority. The use of force in deploying the PSD a second time after the affected person exited the vehicle which was unnecessary. After reviewing the Final Investigation Report and the Discipline Authority’s decision, the Commissioner determined that there was a reasonable basis to believe that the decision of the Discipline Authority was incorrect and appointed the Honourable David Pendleton, retired BC Provincial Court judge, to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. In his decision, Mr. Pendleton determined that while the member subjectively believed it was necessary to prevent the affected person from fleeing, there were questions about whether it was objectively reasonable for the member to conclude that the affected person was not surrendering and continued to pose a serious enough risk to justify the force used. Disciplinary Process A prehearing conference was offered to the member which was declined. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. Mr. Pendleton, as the Discipline Authority, found that it was not necessary for the member to have deployed the PSD a second time after the affected person fled the vehicle. Specifically, he found that the affected person no longer posed a risk to members or the public, and there were other members waiting nearby who would have had no difficulty apprehending the affected person. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority agreed with member’s counsel that the overall seriousness of the misconduct was mitigated as police had sufficient grounds to lawfully arrest the affected person using some level of force. Additionally, Mr. Pendleton was satisfied that the incident was isolated and unlikely to recur. The member requested a Review on the Record pursuant to section 136(1) of the Police Act. The Commissioner reviewed the request and the disciplinary decision and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":52,"file":"2019-16598","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"creating a video in which they appeared to ridicule and minimize the severity of sexual harassment investigations currently taking place within the VPD","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of two members (Member A and Member B) for creating a video in which they appeared to ridicule and minimize the severity of sexual harassment investigations currently taking place within the VPD; it was later determined that the video was made using police facilities while the members were on duty, during a break, and in uniform. Additional allegations of misconduct were identified during the course of the investigation, including a member (Member C) who received the video and forwarded it to a fellow member, and a supervisor (Member D) who received the video and further forwarded it without taking any action to address or report it. Taking part in creating and distributing a video that appeared to mock and minimize sexual harassment investigations/allegations at the department.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":53,"file":"2019-16598","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Equipment","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"Using an interview room in the Cambie Police building during a break, while on duty and in uniform, to create the above-mentioned video.'}","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of two members (Member A and Member B) for creating a video in which they appeared to ridicule and minimize the severity of sexual harassment investigations currently taking place within the VPD; it was later determined that the video was made using police facilities while the members were on duty, during a break, and in uniform. Additional allegations of misconduct were identified during the course of the investigation, including a member (Member C) who received the video and forwarded it to a fellow member, and a supervisor (Member D) who received the video and further forwarded it without taking any action to address or report it. Using an interview room in the Cambie Police building during a break, while on duty and in uniform, to create the above-mentioned video. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by Member A and Member B. After reviewing the prehearing conference report, Commissioner did not approve the disciplinary or corrective measures as they did not reflect the seriousness of the actions of the members and was not appropriate in the circumstances. The matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the Discipline Authority (DA) found that the members committed misconduct and imposed disciplinary or corrective measures. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the DA noted that, while the video was not directed at any particular person, societal expectations reflect that matters such as these be handled with “much greater scrutiny and more severe consequences in order to effect real change in the workplace.” Neither member requested a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed the findings and determined that there were insufficient grounds to arrange for a further review in relation to Member A and Member B.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":54,"file":"2019-16598","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"received the video and forwarded it to a fellow member","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of two members (Member A and Member B) for creating a video in which they appeared to ridicule and minimize the severity of sexual harassment investigations currently taking place within the VPD; it was later determined that the video was made using police facilities while the members were on duty, during a break, and in uniform. Additional allegations of misconduct were identified during the course of the investigation, including a member (Member C) who received the video and forwarded it to a fellow member, and a supervisor (Member D) who received the video and further forwarded it without taking any action to address or report it. Forwarding a video that appeared to mock and minimize sexual harassment investigations/allegations at the VPD. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by Member C. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measure, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that Member C was unaware of any specific sexual harassment investigations that were occurring within VPD at the time the member received the video. The member also took full responsibility for their actions, was remorseful, and had taken the initiative to contact the VPD Training Section in order to access and review VPD training materials related to Respectful Workplace Policy. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required in relation to Member C and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":55,"file":"2019-16598","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"Forwarding a video that appeared to mock and minimize sexual harassment investigations/allegations at the VPD.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of two members (Member A and Member B) for creating a video in which they appeared to ridicule and minimize the severity of sexual harassment investigations currently taking place within the VPD; it was later determined that the video was made using police facilities while the members were on duty, during a break, and in uniform. Additional allegations of misconduct were identified during the course of the investigation, including a member (Member C) who received the video and forwarded it to a fellow member, and a supervisor (Member D) who received the video and further forwarded it without taking any action to address or report it. Forwarding a video that appeared to mock and minimize sexual harassment investigations/allegations at the VPD.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":56,"file":"2019-16598","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"they should have addressed the conduct of the members under their supervision","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of two members (Member A and Member B) for creating a video in which they appeared to ridicule and minimize the severity of sexual harassment investigations currently taking place within the VPD; it was later determined that the video was made using police facilities while the members were on duty, during a break, and in uniform. Additional allegations of misconduct were identified during the course of the investigation, including a member (Member C) who received the video and forwarded it to a fellow member, and a supervisor (Member D) who received the video and further forwarded it without taking any action to address or report it. Not addressing the conduct of the constable under their supervision who forwarded the video. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by Member D. After reviewing the prehearing conference report, the Commissioner did not approve the disciplinary or corrective measures as they were not appropriate in the circumstances. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding, where the Discipline Authority (DA) found that the member committed misconduct and imposed disciplinary or corrective measures. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the DA noted that Member D had no role in the production of the video, did not have knowledge of the context or background of the video, and fully acknowledged that they erred in judgement in forwarding the video without considering its impact and that they should have addressed the conduct of the members under their supervision. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed the findings and determined that there were insufficient grounds to arrange for a further review in relation to Member D. *The suspensions for Member D were to be served concurrently. OPCC Recommendations Following a review of this matter, the Commissioner noted a concerning attitude amongst the officers involved where very troubling misogynistic behaviour was being explained as “black humor.” In addition, there was considerable dissemination of the video prior to it being brought to the attention of the VPD Executive or Professional Standards Section, despite the fact that the subject matter of the video was in relation to sexual harassment allegations within the VPD. As a result, there appeared to be a gap in workplace policies or broader cultural issues within the department that warranted further scrutiny. The Commissioner issued a recommendation to the Vancouver Police Board which included a recommendation to: Either directly, or with the assistance of expertise external to the VPD, examine the facts and circumstances of this file in its entirety; and Review VPD’s training, procedures, and policies with respect to respectful workplace behavior in light of the facts of this matter and, where necessary, develop or amend training and policies to ensure matters such as this are appropriately captured and addressed.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":57,"file":"2018-14524","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Sexualized Harassment/Touching/Comments","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"While off-duty, grabbing a woman’s buttocks on two occasions without her consent.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The text states the officer, while off-duty, grabbed \"a woman's buttocks on two occasions without her consent,\" non-consensual contact \"sexual in nature.\"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that they received reports from two female VPD members that another VPD member inappropriately touched them while off-duty and at a party with fellow co-workers. Further allegations were brought forward regarding additional unwanted advances and physical touching by this member. This conduct was investigated criminally by the New Westminster Police Department (NWPD). The BC Prosecution Service approved charges of sexual assault; however, a stay of proceedings was entered for the criminal charges. The investigation revealed that each of the physical contacts were initiated by the member, were sexual in nature, and non-consensual. They included occasions where the women told him to stop or instances where they had to remove themselves from the situation for the behaviour to cease. While off-duty, grabbing a woman’s buttocks on two occasions without her consent.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":58,"file":"2018-14524","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Sexualized Harassment/Touching/Comments","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"For pushing a woman at a party against a wall and grabbing her buttocks while trying to engage in a kiss.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The text alleges the officer pushed a woman against a wall, grabbed her buttocks and tried to kiss her — non-consensual sexual touching by the member himself.","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that they received reports from two female VPD members that another VPD member inappropriately touched them while off-duty and at a party with fellow co-workers. Further allegations were brought forward regarding additional unwanted advances and physical touching by this member. This conduct was investigated criminally by the New Westminster Police Department (NWPD). The BC Prosecution Service approved charges of sexual assault; however, a stay of proceedings was entered for the criminal charges. The investigation revealed that each of the physical contacts were initiated by the member, were sexual in nature, and non-consensual. They included occasions where the women told him to stop or instances where they had to remove themselves from the situation for the behaviour to cease. For pushing a woman at a party against a wall and grabbing her buttocks while trying to engage in a kiss.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":59,"file":"2018-14524","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Sexualized Harassment/Touching/Comments","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"For inappropriately touching a woman at party while she was asleep and for continuing to touch her after she told him to stop.Agency: Vancouver Police Department Allegation 3 of 3 in this file CASE CONTEXT: The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that they received reports from two female VPD members that another VPD member inappropriately touched them while off-duty and at a party with fellow co-workers. Further allegations were brought forward regarding additional unwanted advances and physical touching by this member. This conduct was investigated criminally by the New Westminster Police Department (NWPD). The BC Prosecution Service approved charges of sexual assault; however, a stay of proceedings was entered for the criminal charges. The investigation revealed that each of the physical contacts were initiated by the member, were sexual in nature, and non-consensual. They included occasions where the women told him to stop or instances where they had to remove themselves from the situation for the behaviour to cease. THIS ALLEGATION: For inappropriately touching a woman at party while she was asleep and for continuing to touch her after she told him to stop.: Vancery Police Department Allegation 3 of 3 in this file CASE CONTEXT: The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that they received reports from two female VPD members that another VPD member inappropriately touched them while off-duty and at a party with fellow co-workers. Further allegations were brought forward regarding additional unwanted advances and physical touching by this member. This conduct was investigated criminally by the New Westminster Police Department (NWPD). The BC Prosecution Service approved charges of sexual assault; however, a stay of proceedings was entered for the criminal charges. The investigation revealed that each of the physical contacts were initiated by the member, were sexual in nature, and non-consensual. They included occasions where the women told him to stop or instances where they had to remove themselves from the situation for the behaviour to cease.wasking to respond with valid JSON. I should not include the long text. Let me correct: evidence_quote must be at most 40 words, verbatim. I'll output proper JSON. Wait — I need to output only one JSON object. Let me redo. {\"categories\": [\"gendered_and_sexualized_violence\", \"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct\"], \"primary\": \"gendered_and_sexualized_violence\", \"confidence\": 0.98, \"too_thin\": false, \"evidence_quote\": \"For inappropriately touching a woman at party while she was asleep and for continuing to touch her after she told him to stop.\"}","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The text states the member inappropriately touched a sleeping woman and continued after she said stop, with contacts found \"sexual in nature, and non-consensual,\" charged as sexual assault.","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that they received reports from two female VPD members that another VPD member inappropriately touched them while off-duty and at a party with fellow co-workers. Further allegations were brought forward regarding additional unwanted advances and physical touching by this member. This conduct was investigated criminally by the New Westminster Police Department (NWPD). The BC Prosecution Service approved charges of sexual assault; however, a stay of proceedings was entered for the criminal charges. The investigation revealed that each of the physical contacts were initiated by the member, were sexual in nature, and non-consensual. They included occasions where the women told him to stop or instances where they had to remove themselves from the situation for the behaviour to cease. For inappropriately touching a woman at party while she was asleep and for continuing to touch her after she told him to stop. The matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the member denied each of the allegations he was facing. The Discipline Authority determined that allegations were not minor and were troubling as they were sexual in nature and were considered to be a “physical violation of each of the victims.” He also noted that the member did not appear to accept responsibility that he acted in a manner that was inappropriate. In arriving at his decision, the Discipline Authority noted “the growing trend within all workplaces, and within society in general, about the impact of inappropriate sexualized actions.” Upon review, the Police Complaint Commissioner determined that the Discipline Authority appropriately considered the aggravating and mitigating factors and determined that disciplinary measures imposed were both correct and appropriate with respect to the circumstances. The Commissioner concluded that a Public Hearing or Review on the Record was not necessary in the public interest noting that the member received the most severe penalty available under the Police Act and that the matter had been investigated criminally and reviewed by the BC Prosecution Service. Although the member resigned from the VPD during the course of these proceedings, the former’s member’s service record of discipline will reflect that he was dismissed from the police department. (Also See File 2018-15342).","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":60,"file":"2020-17918","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Using or Attempting to Use Police Authority for Personal Gain (e.g., Preferential Treatment)","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"he had called in personal favours from other members working in the area in order to get any type of enforcement","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a member for Corrupt Practice. It was reported that a VPD member had emailed the Mayor and Council of a nearby city from his police email account outlining concerns with a lack of traffic enforcement in his neighborhood. The member also advised that due to a lack of enforcement, he had called in personal favours from other members working in the area in order to get any type of enforcement. Calling in favours from other police member(s) to provide special attention/enforcement related to traffic safety concerns in his neighborhood. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The Prehearing Conference Authority determined that the member had legitimate fear for the safety of community members, which lessened the seriousness of the conduct. The Prehearing Conference Authority was satisfied that the member had accepted responsibility and that this type of misconduct would not reoccur. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":61,"file":"2013-8743","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2015,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Arrest","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"arrested a male without sufficient grounds","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer arrested a male without sufficient grounds.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":62,"file":"2013-8743","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2015,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The officer used excessive force during the course of the arrest.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer used excessive force during the course of the arrest. *The suspensions were to be served concurrently.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":63,"file":"2022-22408","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Unsafe Storage of Firearm","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"left their department issued firearm in an unattended backpack at a coffee shop","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Commissioner ordered an investigation after receiving information that a member of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) had left their department issued firearm in an unattended backpack at a coffee shop. It was reported that a civilian had located the firearm and alerted police. The member failed to comply with VPD policy in relation to safe carrying and transport of departmental firearms. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member’s misconduct was an honest mistake, and that the member had taken responsibility for their actions, had no substantiated misconduct on their Service Record of Discipline, and had refamiliarized themselves with the relevant policy and laws regarding the use and storage of departmental issued firearms. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":64,"file":"2022-22809","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"inappropriately spoke to a colleague and referred to them as “authoritative and pushy.”","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The department initiated an internal discipline investigation into the conduct of a Vancouver Police Department (VPD) member. It was alleged that the member inappropriately spoke to a colleague and referred to them as “authoritative and pushy.” The member contravened the VPD Respectful Workplace Policy by making inappropriate comments regarding a colleague.","measures":["verbal reprimand","training"]},{"id":65,"file":"2017-13573","agency":"Organized Crime Agency of BC (CFSEU)","year":2018,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Negligent Discharge","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer was in the process of unloading his firearm when he discharged a round from his service pistol.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On June 20, 2017, a police officer, while on duty, attended the Chilliwack Fish and Game Club for a training day. The police officer was in the process of unloading his firearm when he discharged a round from his service pistol. The firearm was pointed in a safe direction causing minor damage to a wood floor. No one was injured as a result of this incident. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. 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. The OPCC reviewed the prehearing conference report and, considering all the relevant factors in this case, the discipline fell within the acceptable range for appropriate discipline in the circumstances. The OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":66,"file":"2015-10543","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Using or Attempting to Use Police Authority for Personal Gain (e.g., Preferential Treatment)","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"attempted to collect monies on behalf of an associate via threats and coercion, including threats of criminal sanctions","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police department requested an Order for Investigation after receiving information that a police officer was involved in an inappropriate relationship. During the course of the investigation several more allegations of misconduct were identified. A police officer attempted to collect monies on behalf of an associate via threats and coercion, including threats of criminal sanctions. The Police Act investigation was suspended during the criminal investigation into this allegation. After reviewing the criminal investigation, Crown Counsel did not approve charges and the suspension of the Police Act proceedings was lifted.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":67,"file":"2015-10543","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer failed to conduct an adequate investigation into a report of a domestic assault.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police department requested an Order for Investigation after receiving information that a police officer was involved in an inappropriate relationship. During the course of the investigation several more allegations of misconduct were identified. The police officer failed to conduct an adequate investigation into a report of a domestic assault.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":68,"file":"2015-10543","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.92,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer sent and received sexual text messages and images to and from a victim of crime.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The officer \"sent and received sexual text messages and images to and from a victim of crime,\" sexualized conduct toward a vulnerable complainant, not merely mishandling another's file.","text":"The police department requested an Order for Investigation after receiving information that a police officer was involved in an inappropriate relationship. During the course of the investigation several more allegations of misconduct were identified. The police officer sent and received sexual text messages and images to and from a victim of crime.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":69,"file":"2015-10543","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.45,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to comply with the requirements of Saanich Police Department Policy OD50 governing the handling of confidential sources","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police department requested an Order for Investigation after receiving information that a police officer was involved in an inappropriate relationship. During the course of the investigation several more allegations of misconduct were identified. The police officer failed to comply with the requirements of Saanich Police Department Policy OD50 governing the handling of confidential sources.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":70,"file":"2015-10543","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"conducted an inadequate investigation into a complaint of sexual assault and robbery","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police department requested an Order for Investigation after receiving information that a police officer was involved in an inappropriate relationship. During the course of the investigation several more allegations of misconduct were identified. The police officer conducted an inadequate investigation into a complaint of sexual assault and robbery.","measures":["reduction in rank"]},{"id":71,"file":"2015-10543","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"filed a false or misleading investigative report and made false or misleading radio broadcasts related to an investigation","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police department requested an Order for Investigation after receiving information that a police officer was involved in an inappropriate relationship. During the course of the investigation several more allegations of misconduct were identified. The police officer filed a false or misleading investigative report and made false or misleading radio broadcasts related to an investigation.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":72,"file":"2015-10543","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer conducted queries of PRIME Records Management System for information about individuals that were not related to the proper performance of the police officer's duties.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police department requested an Order for Investigation after receiving information that a police officer was involved in an inappropriate relationship. During the course of the investigation several more allegations of misconduct were identified. The police officer conducted queries of PRIME Records Management System for information about individuals that were not related to the proper performance of the police officer's duties.","measures":["reduction in rank"]},{"id":73,"file":"2015-10543","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the police officer made false or misleading statements to the investigating officer responsible for this Police Act investigation.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police department requested an Order for Investigation after receiving information that a police officer was involved in an inappropriate relationship. During the course of the investigation several more allegations of misconduct were identified. On September 7, 2016, the police officer made false or misleading statements to the investigating officer responsible for this Police Act investigation.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":74,"file":"2015-10543","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer observed a privatized file on the PRIME Records Management System and then communicated with an associate and made multiple attempts to further communicate with the associate in an effort to determine what had been disclosed to police","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police department requested an Order for Investigation after receiving information that a police officer was involved in an inappropriate relationship. During the course of the investigation several more allegations of misconduct were identified. The police officer observed a privatized file on the PRIME Records Management System and then communicated with an associate and made multiple attempts to further communicate with the associate in an effort to determine what had been disclosed to police that resulted in his removal from normal operational duties.","measures":["reduction in rank"]},{"id":75,"file":"2015-10543","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"made false or misleading statements in his written statement to Crown Counsel","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police department requested an Order for Investigation after receiving information that a police officer was involved in an inappropriate relationship. During the course of the investigation several more allegations of misconduct were identified. The police officer made false or misleading statements in his written statement to Crown Counsel.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":76,"file":"2015-10543","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer made false or misleading statements.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police department requested an Order for Investigation after receiving information that a police officer was involved in an inappropriate relationship. During the course of the investigation several more allegations of misconduct were identified. The police officer made false or misleading statements. This matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. During the Police Act investigation, the police officer resigned and chose not to participate in the Discipline Proceeding. 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. While individually some of the allegations may have warranted a lower level of discipline, the Discipline Authority was compelled to look at the conduct as a continuum of behaviour that occurred over a period of time and that was interconnected. As such, the Discipline Authority determined that the disposition must represent this context. As the former member resigned from the Saanich Police Department, the Discipline Authority’s decisions regarding the proposed disciplinary measures were written as though the police officer was still with the department and they will form part of the Service Record of Discipline for this member regardless of their current employment situation. In cases where the imposed discipline is dismissal or reduction in rank, the police officer has a right to a Public Hearing or a Review on the Record, if requested. No request was received from the police officer. Based on a review of the evidence, the OPCC was satisfied that the decision of the Discipline Authority was appropriate considering the circumstances.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":77,"file":"2012-7810","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Negligent Discharge","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"accidentally discharged one round from his service fire arm in the department's men's locker room unloading station.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member accidentally discharged one round from his service fire arm in the department's men's locker room unloading station.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":78,"file":"2018-15138","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"a police officer disclosed to his supervisor that he used a police database (PRIME) to conduct a query of an extended family member","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On August 10, 2018, a police officer disclosed to his supervisor that he used a police database (PRIME) to conduct a query of an extended family member. In addition, the police officer admitted to additional PRIME queries of the extended family members that the officer conducted in the past. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. 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. Several years ago, the police officer informed the police department that an extended family member had gang associations. The police officer acknowledged that he should have gone through the proper channels if he had further concerns for the security of his family. The police officer reported that he conducted the queries to ensure the security of himself and his family. There was no evidence that the police officer conducted CPIC (Canadian Police Information Center) queries, shared the information, or that the queries negatively impacted any criminal investigation(s). The police officer participated in a review of departmental policy and relevant manuals in relation to accessing PRIME and CPIC information under the direct supervision of the Inspector in Charge of the Administrative Bureau, prior to the Discipline Authority reaching a decision in this matter. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":79,"file":"2021-20131","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2022,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the member failed to conduct a complete and objective investigation by not considering all the available evidence including the statements taken and evidence obtained from RCMP members. The member concluded the file when they should have submitted a Report to Crown Counsel.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of two MVTP members (Member A and Member B) for their handling of a criminal investigation involving a theft and threats made to a member of the public. According to the MVTP, both the RCMP and MVTP attended the call which occurred on Transit property. The RCMP arrived first, prior to Member A and Member B attending, who completed a number of investigative steps including the taking of statements. MVTP took over the file and concluded the matter without forwarding any charges to Crown Counsel despite the evidentiary basis for doing so. The victim contacted Member B to bring forward concerns about the quality of the investigation. Member B failed to re-open the investigation and did not notify their supervisor of the concerns brought forward. The MVTP subsequently initiated an internal file review and assigned their General Investigations Unit to re-investigate the criminal matter. As the lead investigator, the member failed to conduct a complete and objective investigation by not considering all the available evidence including the statements taken and evidence obtained from RCMP members. The member concluded the file when they should have submitted a Report to Crown Counsel.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":80,"file":"2021-20131","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2022,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to re-open the investigation or notify their supervisor of concerns raised.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of two MVTP members (Member A and Member B) for their handling of a criminal investigation involving a theft and threats made to a member of the public. According to the MVTP, both the RCMP and MVTP attended the call which occurred on Transit property. The RCMP arrived first, prior to Member A and Member B attending, who completed a number of investigative steps including the taking of statements. MVTP took over the file and concluded the matter without forwarding any charges to Crown Counsel despite the evidentiary basis for doing so. The victim contacted Member B to bring forward concerns about the quality of the investigation. Member B failed to re-open the investigation and did not notify their supervisor of the concerns brought forward. The MVTP subsequently initiated an internal file review and assigned their General Investigations Unit to re-investigate the criminal matter. The member reviewed the investigation completed by the lead investigator, including evidence gathered by the RCMP and failed to re-open the investigation or notify their supervisor of concerns raised. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by Member A and Member B. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that Member A had accepted responsibility and had provided assurances that they would be more diligent in the future. The Prehearing Conference Authority further noted that Member B was an inexperienced member who at the time did not fully understand their responsibilities in the circumstances and had learned from this incident. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measure and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":81,"file":"2014-9436-03","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to drive with due care, specifically, by driving through a red light and causing a collision with another vehicle","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer failed to drive with due care, specifically, by driving through a red light and causing a collision with another vehicle. The Police Complaint Commissioner exercised his powers under section 111 of the Act and referred this matter to Crown Counsel. Crown Counsel approved a charge under section 144(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act. This file was the subject of a section 117 review. The retired judge who conducted the review substantiated this allegation and the officer accepted a verbal reprimand at a prehearing conference. For further information please go to Section 117 Reviews 2014-9436-03 at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":82,"file":"2012-7429","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Improvised Weapon","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The member breached department policy by ramming a stolen vehicle occupied by three persons. The nature of the crime and the circumstances did not justify the tactic.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member breached department policy by ramming a stolen vehicle occupied by three persons. The nature of the crime and the circumstances did not justify the tactic.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":83,"file":"2011-6201","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Vascular Neck Restraint","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"While the complainant was handcuffed in the rear seat of the police vehicle, the officer used unnecessary force by holding him by the shoulders and shaking him.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"While the complainant was handcuffed in the rear seat of the police vehicle, the officer used unnecessary force by holding him by the shoulders and shaking him.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":84,"file":"2020-18229","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Immediate Roadside Prohibition/Impaired Operation of a Motor Vehicle","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The RCMP member detected an odour of liquor on the member’s breath and requested a breath sample, which resulted in two “Warn” readings. The member received a three-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the New Westminster Police Department (NWPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the off-duty conduct of one of their member’s following a vehicle stop. According to the NWPD, the RCMP members stopped an NWPD member as part of a roadblock. The RCMP member detected an odour of liquor on the member’s breath and requested a breath sample, which resulted in two “Warn” readings. The member received a three-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition. Operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures considering that the member had immediately accepted responsibility and demonstrated a willingness to learn from the experience.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":85,"file":"2018-15320","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Immediate Roadside Prohibition/Impaired Operation of a Motor Vehicle","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"Police suspected the driver of possible alcohol impairment and as a result administered two roadside alcohol screening device tests, both registering a “Fail”. The member received a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) and the vehicle was impounded for thirty days.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that Langley RCMP patrol officers stopped a vehicle for speeding. The driver was an off-duty VPD member. Police suspected the driver of possible alcohol impairment and as a result administered two roadside alcohol screening device tests, both registering a “Fail”. The member received a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) and the vehicle was impounded for thirty days. In addition, it was learned that the member had placed his wallet open with his police badge angled towards the RCMP officer’s field of vision and that when the RCMP officer asked the member to exit the vehicle, the member asked if there was another way to deal with this. Operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":86,"file":"2018-15320","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Badging/Identifying as a Police Officer","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"placed his wallet open with his police badge angled towards the RCMP officer’s field of vision","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that Langley RCMP patrol officers stopped a vehicle for speeding. The driver was an off-duty VPD member. Police suspected the driver of possible alcohol impairment and as a result administered two roadside alcohol screening device tests, both registering a “Fail”. The member received a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) and the vehicle was impounded for thirty days. In addition, it was learned that the member had placed his wallet open with his police badge angled towards the RCMP officer’s field of vision and that when the RCMP officer asked the member to exit the vehicle, the member asked if there was another way to deal with this. Displaying his police badge when the RCMP member approached his vehicle.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":87,"file":"2018-15320","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Using or Attempting to Use Police Authority for Personal Gain (e.g., Preferential Treatment)","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"the member had placed his wallet open with his police badge angled towards the RCMP officer’s field of vision and that when the RCMP officer asked the member to exit the vehicle, the member asked if there was another way to deal with this.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that Langley RCMP patrol officers stopped a vehicle for speeding. The driver was an off-duty VPD member. Police suspected the driver of possible alcohol impairment and as a result administered two roadside alcohol screening device tests, both registering a “Fail”. The member received a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) and the vehicle was impounded for thirty days. In addition, it was learned that the member had placed his wallet open with his police badge angled towards the RCMP officer’s field of vision and that when the RCMP officer asked the member to exit the vehicle, the member asked if there was another way to deal with this. For comments related to seeking preferential treatment. Following an investigation, the Discipline Authority substantiated three allegations and a prehearing conference was offered, and held. The OPCC did not approve the outcome of the prehearing conference and noted that the proposed measures did not adequately address the seriousness of an officer in a leadership position driving in excess of the speed limit while under the influence of alcohol, and using his position as a police officer to obtain preferential treatment. As a result, a discipline proceeding was held where it was determined that the conduct of the member posed a public safety risk which could have had serious consequences, adding that the public does not tolerate persons who drink and drive and that intolerance is compounded when the person is an off-duty police officer. During the discipline process, the member retired from the VPD and did not participate in the proceedings. The VPD did not modify the discipline proposed and imposed the same measures as at the prehearing conference. The OPCC reviewed the matter and determined that it was not in the public interest to proceed with a further review in all the circumstances. *The suspensions were to be served consecutively.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":88,"file":"2016-12894","agency":"Oak Bay Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"used the services of a sex trade worker","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer, either on or off-duty, used the services of a sex trade worker. This matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The Discipline Authority determined that the allegation was substantiated and determined that the police officer ought to be dismissed from employment at the police department for this conduct. In cases where the imposed discipline is dismissal or reduction in rank, the police officer has a right to a Public Hearing or a Review on the Record, if requested. No request was received from the police officer. Based on a review of the evidence, the OPCC was satisfied that the decision of the Discipline Authority was appropriate considering the circumstances.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":89,"file":"2018-15476","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"stopping a suspect vehicle when the speed was not appropriate for a box and pin, and for failing to obtain authorization from a supervisor during a second attempt","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC initiated an investigation following notification from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) of an injury to a member of the public. According to information provided by the VPD, police attempted to stop a suspected stolen vehicle. The police conducted a ‘box and pin’ maneuver of the vehicle, which resulted in the suspect’s vehicle colliding with a police vehicle and a parked vehicle. The driver fled on foot and was taken into custody by police a short distance away. The driver of the stolen vehicle suffered serious injuries. The suspect and civilian vehicles were damaged beyond repair. Due to the serious nature of the injuries, the Independent Investigations Office (IIO) investigated this matter. In addition, the Police Act requires an investigation also be initiated by the OPCC whenever death or serious harm results from an incident involving municipal police officers. These investigations are separate and distinct from investigations by the IIO and are not restricted to evidence gathered by the IIO. Under the Police Act , officers may be compelled to provide statements, answer questions and otherwise account for their actions. At the conclusion of the investigation by the IIO, they did not consider that an officer committed an offence under any enactment and did not refer the matter to Crown Counsel for consideration of possible criminal charges. An investigation under the Police Act determined that police had the lawful authority and duty to stop the suspected stolen vehicle but that the member committed misconduct by failing to follow departmental policy relating to box and pin maneuvers, specifically in consideration that a box and pin maneuver should only be conducted when a suspect’s vehicle is stopped, or moving at a “very low speed.” Failing to follow departmental policy, “Boxing, Pinning, Ramming and Other Methods of Stopping a Vehicle”, specifically stopping a suspect vehicle when the speed was not appropriate for a box and pin, and for failing to obtain authorization from a supervisor during a second attempt. A prehearing conference was offered but not accepted by the member. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. At the discipline proceeding the member accepted responsibility and admitted the allegation, noting that the member’s actions were as a result of a misunderstanding of the policy. The Discipline Authority (DA) noted that “it is important that a police organization is able to manage risk, ensure the safe and effective deployment of resources, and act in a manner that protects the public.” Based on a review of a number of mitigating and aggravating factors, the DA imposed a verbal reprimand. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measure, noting the respondent member had reviewed the policy with a senior Vancouver Police Department member prior to the discipline proceeding.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":90,"file":"2022-22063","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The member failed to complete and submit a MV 6020 report as required by VPD policy.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns regarding a member of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) not completing a police report in relation to a motor vehicle incident. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The member failed to complete and submit a MV 6020 report as required by VPD policy. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member accepted responsibility for their actions and was apologetic, had no prior substantiated misconduct on their Service Record of Discipline, and had come to understand the relevant policy after numerous reviews of it following this incident. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":91,"file":"2015-10655","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"accessed police databases for purposes unrelated to his/her duties as a police officer","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer accessed police databases for purposes unrelated to his/her duties as a police officer.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":92,"file":"2020-17888","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"the member had left his pistol insecure in the firearm locker at the end of his patrol shift approximately one hour earlier","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a member for unsafe storage of a firearm. It was reported that a Victoria Police Department Acting Sergeant discovered a loaded pistol inside one of the jail firearm lockers. The firearm locker was open and the pistol could be observed in plain view. Subsequent investigation revealed that the member had left his pistol insecure in the firearm locker at the end of his patrol shift approximately one hour earlier. Leaving a firearm unattended in an open gun locker. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The Prehearing Conference Authority characterized the conduct as less serious and noted that the member had accepted responsibility for his actions from the outset. It was also noted that the member did not have a service record of discipline. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":93,"file":"2018-14885","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Negligent Discharge","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"did not follow proper protocol and procedures for the safe loading and unloading of a firearm","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On May 29, 2018, a police officer experienced an accidental discharge of a patrol rifle in the motorcycle bay of the police department. The OPCC reviewed the investigation and the Internal Discipline Authority’s decision. The OPCC determined there were no public trust concerns that required investigation. 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. The Discipline Authority determined that the police officer did not follow proper protocol and procedures for the safe loading and unloading of a firearm. However, the police officer was cooperative from the onset of this matter, including notification of the incident. No one was injured and there was only minor damage to the floor of the bay consisting of a chip out of the cement. The internal investigator recommended that the rifle course be extended by two days to include more “reality based” scenarios in which members can cycle through the function test, cruiser ready and end of shift steps.","measures":["training"]},{"id":94,"file":"2014-10181","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"was removed from a nightclub for being intoxicated. In an attempt to regain entry, the officer identified himself/herself as an “undercover officer”.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer, while off duty, was removed from a nightclub for being intoxicated. In an attempt to regain entry, the officer identified himself/herself as an “undercover officer”.","measures":["suspension","written reprimand","training"]},{"id":95,"file":"2021-19098","agency":"Oak Bay Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Vehicle Pursuit/Emergency Driving","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"Failing to adhere to the BC Emergency Vehicle Operations Policy when they pursued a speeding vehicle for approximately three kilometres.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An internal investigation was initiated into the conduct of an Oak Bay Police Department member who engaged in a pursuit of a vehicle that failed to stop. After terminating the pursuit, the member immediately notified their supervisor of the pursuit. Failing to adhere to the BC Emergency Vehicle Operations Policy when they pursued a speeding vehicle for approximately three kilometres.","measures":["verbal reprimand","training"]},{"id":96,"file":"2011-6336","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"the member drove his unmarked police surveillance vehicle and caused a motor vehicle accident resulting in damage to the police vehicle","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"While off duty, the member drove his unmarked police surveillance vehicle and caused a motor vehicle accident resulting in damage to the police vehicle.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":97,"file":"2011-6336","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"The member later misrepresented the circumstances of a collision with the vehicle.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member later misrepresented the circumstances of a collision with the vehicle.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":98,"file":"2018-14537","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"was rude and disrespectful to corrections staff during telephone calls and visits with her daughter","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A special constable’s daughter was the subject of incarceration. The special constable was rude and disrespectful to corrections staff during telephone calls and visits with her daughter.","measures":["suspension","program activity"]},{"id":99,"file":"2018-14537","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"requested disclosure of information about her daughter and also fast tracking of the visitation application with Corrections due to her position with the police department","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The special constable requested disclosure of information about her daughter and also fast tracking of the visitation application with Corrections due to her position with the police department.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":100,"file":"2018-14537","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"used envelopes with the department’s letterhead to send personal documents to her daughter at the correctional institution and used the department’s email system to send personal emails to the Correctional Investigator.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The special constable used envelopes with the department’s letterhead to send personal documents to her daughter at the correctional institution and used the department’s email system to send personal emails to the Correctional Investigator. This matter was initially the subject of a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. The OPCC found that the discipline and/or corrective measures proposed did not adequately address the seriousness of the special constable’s conduct and therefore rejected the agreement. Consequently, a Discipline Proceeding was held where the special constable admitted to all three allegations of misconduct. A copy of the Disciplinary Disposition Record was forwarded to the OPCC for review. 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. However, the special constable had not, based on the available evidence presented to the Discipline Authority, repeated the misconduct in question. The OPCC also understood, from the Discipline Authority’s findings that there were no previous instances whereby the special constable sought to use her status as a police officer to seek advantage or favour. 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. With regard to the special constable’s repeated rude and disrespectful behavior towards the staff members at the correctional facility, the special constable was to write a letter of apology to each of the staff members. The OPCC believed that this would be meaningful to the staff members negatively impacted by the special constable’s conduct. For these reasons, further adjudication of this matter was not necessary and would not be in the public interest. Therefore, there were insufficient grounds for the Police Complaint Commissioner to arrange a Public Hearing or Review on the Record in these circumstances. *The suspensions were to be served concurrently.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":101,"file":"2020-18181","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"Negligently discharging one round from her pistol inside of the gun cleaning room.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Victoria Police Department, the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a member in relation to a negligent discharge of a firearm. It was reported that a member discharged a firearm inside the gun cleaning room at the department. Subsequent investigation determined that the member had removed the magazine to the pistol in the loading/unloading bay, but had negligently failed to eject the remaining round from the pistol. Upon pulling the trigger of the pistol to field strip the gun, one round was fired. One other police officer was in the room; there were no injuries. Both members immediately notified their supervisors of the incident. Negligently discharging one round from her pistol inside of the gun cleaning room. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The Prehearing Conference Authority classified the conduct as less serious and determined that the likelihood of a future similar occurrence was low. The member also had a previously unblemished service record of discipline. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":102,"file":"2018-15568","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"stopped at a red light, activated their emergency lights to proceed through the intersection, and struck the cyclist","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC initiated an investigation following notification from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) of injury to a member of the public. According to the VPD, a member operating a police vehicle stopped at a red light, activated their emergency lights to proceed through the intersection, and struck the cyclist. The cyclist was transported to hospital where it was originally believed that the cyclist received minor injuries. The OPCC subsequently received further information indicating that the cyclist’s injuries constituted serious harm. Due to the serious nature of the injuries, the Independent Investigations Office (IIO) investigated this matter. In addition, the Police Act requires an investigation also be initiated by the OPCC whenever death or serious harm results from an incident involving municipal police officers. These investigations are separate and distinct from investigations by the IIO and are not restricted to evidence gathered by the IIO. Under the Police Act, officers may be compelled to provide statements, answer questions and otherwise account for their actions. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of the IIO investigation. Following the investigation by the IIO, the matter was referred to the BC Prosecution Service and charges were approved. The member pled guilty to the offence of Driving without Due Care and Attention under s. 144(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Act , and was sentenced to a $2,000 fine and a six-month driving prohibition. An investigation under the Police Act also found that the member committed misconduct. The member failed to adhere to the provisions of Section 122 of the Motor Vehicle Act, Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulations , and Vancouver Police Department Regulations and Procedure Manual. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. 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. The Discipline Authority found that the member committed misconduct and imposed disciplinary measures which also included important training for the member to prevent a similar recurrence of behaviour. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed the findings and determined that further review was not required as corrective measures were imposed which would assist in the preventing this type of misconduct from recurring.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":103,"file":"2021-19459","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"the member’s disclosure that the member was involved in a drug investigation nearby could have resulted in the file being compromised","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Saanich Police Department (SPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation in relation to a member’s conduct while the member was on duty and engaged in static surveillance. According to the SPD, a civilian reported that she had met the member via the use of a dating application and that the member engaged in a phone conversation and met with the civilian while on duty, conducting surveillance. The member met with an unknown civilian while engaged in surveillance duties. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at a decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member’s lack of knowledge of the civilian and the member’s disclosure that the member was involved in a drug investigation nearby could have resulted in the file being compromised. The Prehearing Conference Authority found that the member had a momentary lack of judgement and in hindsight, the member realized the meeting was not appropriate. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":104,"file":"2010-5401","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"pushed a woman with cerebral palsy to the ground and walked away without apologizing or offering assistance","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner received a registered complaint reporting, in part, that a police officer pushed a woman with cerebral palsy to the ground and walked away without apologizing or offering assistance. The Police Complaint Commissioner determined that a Public Hearing into this matter was required as he was of the view that proposed discipline at both the prehearing conference and the Discipline Proceedings was inadequate to address the seriousness of the incident. As a result of a Public Hearing, the Adjudicator determined that one count of Abuse of Authority and one count of Neglect of Duty had been proven. *The suspensions were to be served consecutively for a total of a six-day suspension. The Adjudicator’s Reasons for Decision in relation to Public Hearing 2013-05 can be found at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/public-hearings/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":105,"file":"2010-5401","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Provide Assistance (General)","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.5,"thin":true,"quote":"the proposed discipline of one-to-one use-of-force training and a one-day suspension was inadequate in the circumstances","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above. The discipline authority determined that the investigation into the matter appeared to support the allegations of Abuse of Authority and Neglect of Duty and offered the member a Pre-hearing Conference. The OPCC rejected the Prehearing Conference Agreement noting that the proposed discipline of one-to-one use-of-force training and a one-day suspension was inadequate in the circumstances. The matter was remitted to a Discipline Hearing wherein the discipline authority substantiated the allegations of Abuse of Authority and Neglect of Duty and proposed a one-day suspension for each substantiation. The Police Complaint Commissioner determined that a Public Hearing into this matter was required as he was of the view that proposed discipline at both the prehearing conference and the Discipline Proceedings was inadequate to address the seriousness of the incident. As a result of a Public Hearing, the Adjudicator determined that one count of Abuse of Authority and one count of Neglect of Duty had been proven. *The suspensions were to be served consecutively for a total of a six-day suspension. The Adjudicator’s Reasons for Decision in relation to Public Hearing 2013-05 can be found at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/public-hearings/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":106,"file":"2011-6379","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Follow Supervisor's Lawful Order - Written","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.5,"thin":false,"quote":"The member’s work performance, attitude and conduct towards the Department in recent years had deteriorated to a point where the employment relationship was irreparably breached.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member’s work performance, attitude and conduct towards the Department in recent years had deteriorated to a point where the employment relationship was irreparably breached. (Also see #2011-6479)","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":107,"file":"2019-16616","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Account For Money/Property Received","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"Directing a Special Municipal Constable to tag cannabis and drug paraphernalia for destruction.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The complainant reported that police confiscated a number of items that were in their possession, including prescription medications, and refused to return them. It was determined that a Special Municipal Constable destroyed the complainant’s cannabis and other drug paraphernalia at the direction of another Vancouver Police Officer. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. Directing a Special Municipal Constable to tag cannabis and drug paraphernalia for destruction. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The Prehearing Conference Authority found the conduct to be of low seriousness, given that the laws regarding cannabis had just recently changed and the amount of property destroyed was small. The Prehearing Conference Authority was also satisfied that the member had learned from the incident. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":108,"file":"2011-6443","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Account For Money/Property Received","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to properly account for money received in his capacity as a police officer","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer failed to properly account for money received in his capacity as a police officer.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":109,"file":"2011-6443","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Account For Money/Property Received","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to consult with his department’s Human Source Handling Unit before meeting with an informant alone and returning seized monies to the informant","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer failed to consult with his department’s Human Source Handling Unit before meeting with an informant alone and returning seized monies to the informant.","measures":["training"]},{"id":110,"file":"2011-6443","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Account For Money/Property Received","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to document, report and or dispose of money received in his capacity as an officer","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"This same police officer failed to document, report and or dispose of money received in his capacity as an officer.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":111,"file":"2011-6447","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"The member knowingly associated with a known illegal drug trafficker.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member knowingly associated with a known illegal drug trafficker.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":112,"file":"2011-6447","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The member possessed and used cocaine.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member possessed and used cocaine.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":113,"file":"2011-6447","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Under a Pecuniary or Obligation that Affects Ability to Perform Duties","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"agreed or allowed himself to be in debt to a known criminal as a result of purchasing illegal controlled substances, and failed to pay an outstanding bar tab.\"","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member agreed or allowed himself to be in debt to a known criminal as a result of purchasing illegal controlled substances, and failed to pay an outstanding bar tab.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":114,"file":"2010-5643","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Account For Money/Property Received","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"placed a drug exhibit (marijuana leaf) in the police vehicle of another officer","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer placed a drug exhibit (marijuana leaf) in the police vehicle of another officer.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":115,"file":"2021-20712","agency":"Oak Bay Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.55,"thin":false,"quote":"The member neglected to comply with OBPD policy in relation to the length of coffee and meal breaks.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The department initiated an internal discipline investigation into the conduct of an Oak Bay Police Department (OBPD) member. According to the OBPD, the member had been absent from the office for extended periods, beyond the break times permitted by departmental policy. The member neglected to comply with OBPD policy in relation to the length of coffee and meal breaks.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":116,"file":"2022-22807","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member neglected to take investigative steps on an RCMP independent external investigation, including the failure to provide updates to the RCMP, respond to inquiries from the RCMP, and ensure the investigation was re-assigned.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Nelson Police Department (NPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of an NPD member. It was reported that the member was assigned to externally investigate a serious and sensitive matter at the request of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). However, the member did not complete required investigative steps and did not request to have the file reassigned after going off duty for a period of time. It was further alleged that the member did not provide regular updates to the RCMP as requested and was unresponsive to communications from RCMP members. Upon request by the Nelson Police Department, the Commissioner directed the Delta Police Department to conduct the investigation and designated Chief Constable Neil Dubord as the Discipline Authority. The member neglected to take investigative steps on an RCMP independent external investigation, including the failure to provide updates to the RCMP, respond to inquiries from the RCMP, and ensure the investigation was re-assigned. At the conclusion of the investigation the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered to the member; the member declined the offer and as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority noted the misconduct related to an external criminal investigation involving an RCMP member and impacted both the NPD and the RCMP. The Discipline Authority also noted the member had two separate substantiated matters on his current Service Record of Discipline, and drew an adverse inference from the member’s failure to testify at the discipline proceeding process. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. Even though the member retired prior to the conclusion of this matter, their Service Record of Discipline will record the discipline imposed.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":117,"file":"2019-15721","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"queried the incident on the police computer for his own interest despite having no association to the call","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Saanich Police Department reported that a Special Municipal Constable (SMC) was on his way home from work when he observed several Saanich Police members involved in a large incident. Upon returning to work the following day, the SMC queried the incident on the police computer for his own interest despite having no association to the call. The OPCC determined that there were no public trust issues and that no complaint had been received by the OPCC. An internal investigation was initiated as a result. The investigation revealed that the SMC did not further share this information with any unauthorized persons. Using their position as a member of the Saanich Police Department to gain confidential information of any kind, from any printer, electronic, or personal police department source, for reasons of personal benefit.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":118,"file":"2015-10992","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.62,"thin":false,"quote":"Between October and December 2013 the police officer communicated with a person who illegally sold steroids.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"This internal investigation arose out of a public trust investigation that was requested by the Abbotsford Police Department (see OPCC file no. 2014-9552). The public trust investigation involved several allegations of misconduct which included a public trust offence pursuant to section 77(2) of the Police Act. During the criminal investigation, the police officer’s cell phone was searched and a number of concerning text messages were found. The police department advised the OPCC of these text messages. These text messages formed the basis for this internal discipline investigation. Although the internal discipline investigation was completed in March of 2016, the public trust matter was still proceeding. 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. Between October and December 2013 the police officer communicated with a person who illegally sold steroids.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":119,"file":"2015-10992","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.5,"thin":false,"quote":"the police officer used his cell phone to communicate with sex trade workers","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"This internal investigation arose out of a public trust investigation that was requested by the Abbotsford Police Department (see OPCC file no. 2014-9552). The public trust investigation involved several allegations of misconduct which included a public trust offence pursuant to section 77(2) of the Police Act. During the criminal investigation, the police officer’s cell phone was searched and a number of concerning text messages were found. The police department advised the OPCC of these text messages. These text messages formed the basis for this internal discipline investigation. Although the internal discipline investigation was completed in March of 2016, the public trust matter was still proceeding. 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. Between November 2013 and January 2014 the police officer used his cell phone to communicate with sex trade workers. The outcome of the public trust matter resulted in the member being dismissed from the police department. Due to the member’s dismissal, the Discipline Authority did not finalize the disciplinary measures imposed here.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":120,"file":"2020-18439","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Negligent Discharge","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"The member removed the magazine but did not clear the chamber. The member continued to dry fire and discharged one round.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request by the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the discharge of a duty issued firearm in a gun locker room at the VPD. It was learned that the member was on duty and dry firing a duty pistol in preparation for a morning pistol qualification. After a conversation, the member removed the magazine but did not clear the chamber. The member continued to dry fire and discharged one round. There were no injuries as a result. The member failed to clear his pistol and negligently discharged one round. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":121,"file":"2018-14498","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Using or Attempting to Use Police Authority for Personal Gain (e.g., Preferential Treatment)","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"attempting to use his position as a police officer to address the apparent inaccuracies in the security guards report to police of this incident for the purposes of mitigating or eliminating a potential Police Act complaint","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that a Securiguard employee observed a group of men she believed were drinking on private property and in public view and asked them to leave. One of the men identified himself and the others as members of the Vancouver Police Department and said words to the effect of, “the other guy doesn’t mind as long as we clean up after ourselves.” The guard reiterated her earlier demand for them to leave. Further conversation ensued and the group ultimately left. The guard called the Vancouver Police Department to report this incident. It was further reported that the member who conversed with the security guard earlier attended the offices of Securiguard and spoke with the manager about his interaction. This member was in full uniform and discussed how the allegations made by the Securiguard employee affected him and the other VPD members and provided examples of where other Securiguard employees had committed Motor Vehicle Act infractions and were not penalized by members of the VPD. For attending the office of the security company and attempting to use his position as a police officer to address the apparent inaccuracies in the security guards report to police of this incident for the purposes of mitigating or eliminating a potential Police Act complaint. The Discipline Authority offered a prehearing conference to the member in relation to the allegation of Corrupt Practice. The OPCC rejected the proposed discipline noting that the discipline did not adequately address the seriousness of the member’s conduct, particularly considering that the member was an experienced officer. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The Discipline Authority noted that given the experience of this officer, along with the information contained in the Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) report, this member knew, or reasonably ought to have known, that the incident detailed in the CAD call would very likely be the subject of an internal investigation and that that there were alternatives to attending the Securiguard office to address the inaccuracy of the police report. The Discipline Authority found that this member attended the Securiguard office for the purpose of mitigating, or perhaps eliminating, a potential Police Act complaint and concluded that this constituted a personal and professional gain that the member was attempting to garner. The Discipline Authority imposed a four-day suspension without pay. The OPCC reviewed this outcome and determined that there were insufficient grounds to arrange a Review on the Record or Public Hearing into the matter. For further information on this incident, visit the OPCC website at www.opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/ to review Mr. Wally Oppal, Q.C’s independent review of the allegations concerning the allegation that police were drinking in the parking lot.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":122,"file":"2010-5900","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Search - Non Person/Non-Dwelling","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"Officers entered the complainant’s residence, without consent or warrant, searched and seized marijuana plants without authority to do so.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Officers entered the complainant’s residence, without consent or warrant, searched and seized marijuana plants without authority to do so.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":123,"file":"2018-14312","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member was found guilty for the criminal offence of Uttering Threats pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada and was given a 12-month suspended sentence.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the off duty conduct of a member in relation to their conduct with a store employee. It was reported that the member contacted the store to report that a dresser the member had purchased some time earlier had tipped over and trapped his young son’s leg. The member insisted that the dresser be removed from the member’s residence that day. The member was reported to have been aggressive, profane, hostile and threatening in their communications with store employees and to have repeatedly called. When the member was told police would be contacted, the member reportedly replied that the member “was the police.” A criminal investigation was initiated into the conduct of the member. The member was found guilty for the criminal offence of Uttering Threats pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada and was given a 12-month suspended sentence. The member uttered threats to the staff members who worked at the furniture store.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":124,"file":"2018-14312","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Using or Attempting to Use Police Authority for Personal Gain (e.g., Preferential Treatment)","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"the member reportedly replied that the member “was the police.”","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the off duty conduct of a member in relation to their conduct with a store employee. It was reported that the member contacted the store to report that a dresser the member had purchased some time earlier had tipped over and trapped his young son’s leg. The member insisted that the dresser be removed from the member’s residence that day. The member was reported to have been aggressive, profane, hostile and threatening in their communications with store employees and to have repeatedly called. When the member was told police would be contacted, the member reportedly replied that the member “was the police.” A criminal investigation was initiated into the conduct of the member. The member was found guilty for the criminal offence of Uttering Threats pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada and was given a 12-month suspended sentence. The member inappropriately identified themselves as a police officer to staff members at the furniture store when communicating with them over the phone.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":125,"file":"2018-14312","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Public Trust Offence","sublabel":"Discredit Reputation of Department (Conviction)","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member was found guilty for the criminal offence of Uttering Threats pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada and was given a 12-month suspended sentence.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the off duty conduct of a member in relation to their conduct with a store employee. It was reported that the member contacted the store to report that a dresser the member had purchased some time earlier had tipped over and trapped his young son’s leg. The member insisted that the dresser be removed from the member’s residence that day. The member was reported to have been aggressive, profane, hostile and threatening in their communications with store employees and to have repeatedly called. When the member was told police would be contacted, the member reportedly replied that the member “was the police.” A criminal investigation was initiated into the conduct of the member. The member was found guilty for the criminal offence of Uttering Threats pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada and was given a 12-month suspended sentence. Criminal conviction on one count of uttering threats to the store manager. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The member accepted responsibility for their actions during the prehearing conference, and the prehearing conference authority imposed a suspension for each allegation. The discipline/corrective measure imposed amounted to 16 days of suspension for all three allegations. The member agreed to the proposed discipline/corrective measure. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":126,"file":"2018-14695","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer then began engaging the locking lever which caused the rifle to discharge two rounds through the roof of the police vehicle and into the concrete ceiling of the underground parking lot.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On April 29, 2018, a police officer was in the underground parking lot of the municipal public safety building, preparing to go on patrol. The police officer leaned in through the passenger side door of his police vehicle to secure a C8 carbine rifle in the rifle rack. The officer had difficulty placing the rifle into the rack which caused the police officer additional attempts to place it in the correct position. The police officer then began engaging the locking lever which caused the rifle to discharge two rounds through the roof of the police vehicle and into the concrete ceiling of the underground parking lot. No one was injured as a result of this incident; however, the discharge of the rifle caused damage to the roof of the police vehicle and to the ceiling of the underground parking lot. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. The OPCC reviewed the prehearing conference report and, considering all the relevant factors in this case, the OPCC determined the discipline was within the acceptable range for appropriate discipline based on the circumstances. In this case, the police officer accepted full responsibility for the discharge of the rifle. The police officer successfully completed remedial training on the handling procedures of the C8 carbine rifle prior to the prehearing conference.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":127,"file":"2021-19808","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Vehicle Pursuit/Emergency Driving","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.92,"thin":false,"quote":"The members neglected to promptly and diligently stop their attempts to follow the vehicle at high speed on a Highway and neglected to comply with the provisions of the APD Pursuit Policy.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Abbotsford Police Department (APD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of APD members involved in a vehicle pursuit. According to the APD, members identified a vehicle driving without valid insurance. Further queries determined that the suspected driver had a warrant for his arrest and the vehicle had a recent history of failing to stop for police. The members drove their police vehicles at speeds exceeding 190 km/h to maintain visual contact with the driver and initially did not engage the police vehicles’ emergency equipment. The suspect vehicle then began travelling in the wrong direction on the highway at a high rate of speed. Police engaged the police vehicles’ emergency equipment and pursued the vehicle with the stated intention of utilizing the vehicle’s lights and siren to warn other drivers of the vehicle travelling the wrong direction on the Highway. The pursuit was authorized by a supervisor. The suspect vehicle ultimately returned to its authorized lane and the pursuit was terminated. No collisions occurred, no property was damaged, and the suspect driver was not conclusively identified. The members neglected to promptly and diligently stop their attempts to follow the vehicle at high speed on a Highway and neglected to comply with the provisions of the APD Pursuit Policy. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by Member A and Member B. The prehearing conferences held did not result in resolution of the matter. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The Discipline Authority found that Member A and Member B’s failure to continually assess the changing circumstances, as required by APD policy on closing the distance, posed a significant risk to the public. Specifically, the Discipline Authority noted that the speeds driven by Member A and Member B far exceeded the posted speed limits and that Member A passed Member B, while travelling at a high rate of speed, without advising Member B. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Discipline Authority noted that both Member A and Member B had taken self-imposed initiatives to review department policy, the Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulations and section 122 of the Motor Vehicle Act and fully understood the impact of their actions. Member A and Member B did not request a review of the disciplinary decision.","measures":[]},{"id":128,"file":"2021-19808","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Vehicle Pursuit/Emergency Driving","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to elicit information necessary to provide guidance to responding members and fulfil their supervisory responsibilities","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Abbotsford Police Department (APD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of APD members involved in a vehicle pursuit. According to the APD, members identified a vehicle driving without valid insurance. Further queries determined that the suspected driver had a warrant for his arrest and the vehicle had a recent history of failing to stop for police. The members drove their police vehicles at speeds exceeding 190 km/h to maintain visual contact with the driver and initially did not engage the police vehicles’ emergency equipment. The suspect vehicle then began travelling in the wrong direction on the highway at a high rate of speed. Police engaged the police vehicles’ emergency equipment and pursued the vehicle with the stated intention of utilizing the vehicle’s lights and siren to warn other drivers of the vehicle travelling the wrong direction on the Highway. The pursuit was authorized by a supervisor. The suspect vehicle ultimately returned to its authorized lane and the pursuit was terminated. No collisions occurred, no property was damaged, and the suspect driver was not conclusively identified. The member neglected, without good or sufficient cause, to promptly and diligently broadcast over the police radio system to immediately order members following the vehicle on a Highway at high speeds to cease following the vehicle forthwith, and/or during the pursuit, neglected to comply with the provisions of the APD Pursuit Policy. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by Member C. The prehearing conference held did not result in resolution of the matter. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The Discipline Authority found that Member C, who was the supervisor and was not actively involved in the pursuit, failed to elicit information necessary to provide guidance to responding members and fulfil their supervisory responsibilities. The Discipline Authority further found that Member C did not react to additional information about the suspect’s speed, driving pattern, or the potential for motor vehicle accidents, and that the increased risk was not mitigated by supervisory oversight or direction. Member C did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. In reviewing this matter in its entirety, the OPCC noted the Discipline Authority’s comments explaining that pursuits are “extremely high risk/low frequency event[s]” and that a “wrong way pursuit on a roadway is an extremely high risk tactic that, if ever deployed, should only be deployed if there are life and death circumstances due to a more serious criminal event and even then, would require additional training and oversight” by the department. The Discipline Authority noted several proactive changes made by the department to prevent the recurrence of these types of incidents in the future, including changes to departmental policy and building greater awareness amongst their officers regarding risk management and decision making, including in the area of pursuits.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":129,"file":"2023-23360","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Equipment","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"used an unmarked VPD police vehicle while off-duty without authorization","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member having used an unmarked VPD police vehicle while off-duty without authorization. The member took home a VPD police vehicle without authorization. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member had accepted responsibility for their actions during the investigation, was apologetic, had no substantiated misconduct on their Service Record of Discipline, and had reviewed related department policies. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":130,"file":"2014-10014","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Discourtesy","sublabel":"Discourteous - Verbal","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to behave with courtesy due in the circumstances towards a member of the public","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer failed to behave with courtesy due in the circumstances towards a member of the public.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":131,"file":"2011-6923","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"The member made inappropriate disparaging comments about another member to a member of the public.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member made inappropriate disparaging comments about another member to a member of the public.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":132,"file":"2019-16639","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"Driving his personal vehicle while his ability was affected by alcohol, in contravention of the BC Motor Vehicle Act.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An off-duty West Vancouver Police Department (WVPD) member was the subject of a traffic stop by the Surrey RCMP. The RCMP Constable read the Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand and two breath samples were obtained. Both samples registered a “Warn” on the ASD. The member was served with a 3-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP). Driving his personal vehicle while his ability was affected by alcohol, in contravention of the BC Motor Vehicle Act. A prehearing conference was offered to the member. In this case, the member notified the Deputy Chief Constable and supervisor after receiving the IRP, was remorseful and admitted the misconduct. An agreement was reached with respect to the proposed discipline of a two-day suspension without pay. The OPCC reviewed and approved this outcome in all the circumstances noting the member’s self-reporting and acceptance of responsibility throughout this matter.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":133,"file":"2018-15276","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Oppressive Conduct","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the warrantless entry was not, in the Commissioner’s view, consistent with section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC initiated an investigation into members’ attendance at a suite in a single room occupancy [SRO] building in Vancouver’s downtown east side for the purpose of executing arrest warrants against one of the three occupants. While present at the door of the suite, members determined that they needed to check the wellbeing of a woman inside and a battering ram was used to attempt entry. As the ram was being deployed, officers outside the door of the suite perceived the presence of bear spray, which they believed had come from under the door. The door was then opened by the suite occupants. Two individuals were taken to the ground and handcuffed. A third individual was found inside the suite and also taken into custody. As a result of the arrest of the individual inside the suite, the affected person incurred significant injuries described in police records as a possible separated shoulder, a broken nose, a laceration to his scalp requiring 10 staples, and six stitches under his left eye. The investigation examined whether the officers involved committed misconduct by unlawfully entering the suite, arresting the occupants without cause, using unnecessary force against them, or neglecting to sufficiently search one of the parties. The members unlawfully entered a residence. The Discipline Authority determined none of the police officers involved committed misconduct. Upon review of the matter, the Commissioner determined there was a reasonable basis to disagree with the Discipline Authority. The Commissioner noted that although the members were acting in the performance of their common law duties, there were no reports to police that suggested violence in the suite and there was no information at the scene to suggest a potential emergency or imminent risk of harm to any of the occupants. Any reliance on a risk to the safety of the occupants was speculative. Therefore, the warrantless entry was not, in the Commissioner’s view, consistent with section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a result, the Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge, Carol Baird Ellan, to review the matter and arrive at her own decision based on the evidence. Ms. Baird Ellan found that all six allegations of misconduct appeared to be substantiated and as a result the matter proceeded to a disciplinary process. Disciplinary Process A prehearing conference was offered to all four members but was not accepted by any of them. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding before Ms. Baird Ellan as the Discipline Authority (DA). Ms. Baird Ellan found that police committed six allegations of misconduct as it related to the entry of the residence, the arrest and force used by police and in relation to the adequacy of the search of one of the arrested individuals. In arriving at her decision, the DA noted that in order for police to gain a warrantless entry into someone’s residence the circumstances must amount to exigency in order to justify interference with the occupants’ right of privacy. It is not enough to believe someone may possibly come to harm based on some past events. There must be an air of reality to the belief that harm is imminent. The DA distinguished the use of R. v. Godoy to justify entry from a “wellbeing check” and noted that Godoy has consistently been interpreted to apply only in cases of exigency, in the sense of “requiring immediate aid or action.” The DA found that the use of the ram was “obtrusive, violent, and unjustified” and was “clearly an abuse of authority whether or not it was successful in breaking open the door.” In addition, the Discipline Authority noted that all four members could benefit from skills-based practical training in exercising sound judgement under stress. The Discipline Authority recommended that all four of the members participate in training related to the following areas: Grounds for exigent entry as distinguished from well-being checks; Grounds for arrest as distinguished from investigative detention and the authority and appropriate level of intervention that flows from each; Alternatives, such as verbal requests or commands, to the use of escalating force in obtaining compliance in cases of apparent non-compliance; Assessment and re-assessment of the need to escalate force when faced with non-compliance during arrest; and Search incidental to investigative detention and arrest in cases of an injured suspect. The Discipline Authority noted that in the absence of available practical skills training in all or any of the five areas listed above, that the members each have training or retraining in exigent entry and wellbeing checks, arrest and investigative detention, use of force and de-escalation techniques, and search incidental to arrest and detention. The DA also suggested that the department consider designing a training program that assists officers to practice making these types of decisions in stressful circumstances. In particular, the DA noted a need for skills-based training in the five areas enumerated above, “with role-playing scenarios, perhaps derived from disciplinary decisions, that are designed to enable members to make appropriate assessments and re-assessments as to the extent of their authority under stress and in evolving circumstances.\" *The suspensions were to be served concurrently for all members. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":134,"file":"2018-15276","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Arrest","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"Intentionally or recklessly arrested an affected person without good and sufficient cause.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC initiated an investigation into members’ attendance at a suite in a single room occupancy [SRO] building in Vancouver’s downtown east side for the purpose of executing arrest warrants against one of the three occupants. While present at the door of the suite, members determined that they needed to check the wellbeing of a woman inside and a battering ram was used to attempt entry. As the ram was being deployed, officers outside the door of the suite perceived the presence of bear spray, which they believed had come from under the door. The door was then opened by the suite occupants. Two individuals were taken to the ground and handcuffed. A third individual was found inside the suite and also taken into custody. As a result of the arrest of the individual inside the suite, the affected person incurred significant injuries described in police records as a possible separated shoulder, a broken nose, a laceration to his scalp requiring 10 staples, and six stitches under his left eye. The investigation examined whether the officers involved committed misconduct by unlawfully entering the suite, arresting the occupants without cause, using unnecessary force against them, or neglecting to sufficiently search one of the parties. The member Intentionally or recklessly arrested an affected person without good and sufficient cause. The Discipline Authority determined none of the police officers involved committed misconduct. Upon review of the matter, the Commissioner determined there was a reasonable basis to disagree with the Discipline Authority. The Commissioner noted that although the members were acting in the performance of their common law duties, there were no reports to police that suggested violence in the suite and there was no information at the scene to suggest a potential emergency or imminent risk of harm to any of the occupants. Any reliance on a risk to the safety of the occupants was speculative. Therefore, the warrantless entry was not, in the Commissioner’s view, consistent with section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a result, the Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge, Carol Baird Ellan, to review the matter and arrive at her own decision based on the evidence. Ms. Baird Ellan found that all six allegations of misconduct appeared to be substantiated and as a result the matter proceeded to a disciplinary process. Disciplinary Process A prehearing conference was offered to all four members but was not accepted by any of them. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding before Ms. Baird Ellan as the Discipline Authority (DA). Ms. Baird Ellan found that police committed six allegations of misconduct as it related to the entry of the residence, the arrest and force used by police and in relation to the adequacy of the search of one of the arrested individuals. In arriving at her decision, the DA noted that in order for police to gain a warrantless entry into someone’s residence the circumstances must amount to exigency in order to justify interference with the occupants’ right of privacy. It is not enough to believe someone may possibly come to harm based on some past events. There must be an air of reality to the belief that harm is imminent. The DA distinguished the use of R. v. Godoy to justify entry from a “wellbeing check” and noted that Godoy has consistently been interpreted to apply only in cases of exigency, in the sense of “requiring immediate aid or action.” The DA found that the use of the ram was “obtrusive, violent, and unjustified” and was “clearly an abuse of authority whether or not it was successful in breaking open the door.” In addition, the Discipline Authority noted that all four members could benefit from skills-based practical training in exercising sound judgement under stress. The Discipline Authority recommended that all four of the members participate in training related to the following areas: Grounds for exigent entry as distinguished from well-being checks; Grounds for arrest as distinguished from investigative detention and the authority and appropriate level of intervention that flows from each; Alternatives, such as verbal requests or commands, to the use of escalating force in obtaining compliance in cases of apparent non-compliance; Assessment and re-assessment of the need to escalate force when faced with non-compliance during arrest; and Search incidental to investigative detention and arrest in cases of an injured suspect. The Discipline Authority noted that in the absence of available practical skills training in all or any of the five areas listed above, that the members each have training or retraining in exigent entry and wellbeing checks, arrest and investigative detention, use of force and de-escalation techniques, and search incidental to arrest and detention. The DA also suggested that the department consider designing a training program that assists officers to practice making these types of decisions in stressful circumstances. In particular, the DA noted a need for skills-based training in the five areas enumerated above, “with role-playing scenarios, perhaps derived from disciplinary decisions, that are designed to enable members to make appropriate assessments and re-assessments as to the extent of their authority under stress and in evolving circumstances.\" *The suspensions were to be served concurrently for all members. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":135,"file":"2018-15276","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"the affected person incurred significant injuries described in police records as a possible separated shoulder, a broken nose, a laceration to his scalp requiring 10 staples, and six stitches under his left eye.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC initiated an investigation into members’ attendance at a suite in a single room occupancy [SRO] building in Vancouver’s downtown east side for the purpose of executing arrest warrants against one of the three occupants. While present at the door of the suite, members determined that they needed to check the wellbeing of a woman inside and a battering ram was used to attempt entry. As the ram was being deployed, officers outside the door of the suite perceived the presence of bear spray, which they believed had come from under the door. The door was then opened by the suite occupants. Two individuals were taken to the ground and handcuffed. A third individual was found inside the suite and also taken into custody. As a result of the arrest of the individual inside the suite, the affected person incurred significant injuries described in police records as a possible separated shoulder, a broken nose, a laceration to his scalp requiring 10 staples, and six stitches under his left eye. The investigation examined whether the officers involved committed misconduct by unlawfully entering the suite, arresting the occupants without cause, using unnecessary force against them, or neglecting to sufficiently search one of the parties. The members intentionally or recklessly used unnecessary force on an affected person. The Discipline Authority determined none of the police officers involved committed misconduct. Upon review of the matter, the Commissioner determined there was a reasonable basis to disagree with the Discipline Authority. The Commissioner noted that although the members were acting in the performance of their common law duties, there were no reports to police that suggested violence in the suite and there was no information at the scene to suggest a potential emergency or imminent risk of harm to any of the occupants. Any reliance on a risk to the safety of the occupants was speculative. Therefore, the warrantless entry was not, in the Commissioner’s view, consistent with section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a result, the Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge, Carol Baird Ellan, to review the matter and arrive at her own decision based on the evidence. Ms. Baird Ellan found that all six allegations of misconduct appeared to be substantiated and as a result the matter proceeded to a disciplinary process. Disciplinary Process A prehearing conference was offered to all four members but was not accepted by any of them. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding before Ms. Baird Ellan as the Discipline Authority (DA). Ms. Baird Ellan found that police committed six allegations of misconduct as it related to the entry of the residence, the arrest and force used by police and in relation to the adequacy of the search of one of the arrested individuals. In arriving at her decision, the DA noted that in order for police to gain a warrantless entry into someone’s residence the circumstances must amount to exigency in order to justify interference with the occupants’ right of privacy. It is not enough to believe someone may possibly come to harm based on some past events. There must be an air of reality to the belief that harm is imminent. The DA distinguished the use of R. v. Godoy to justify entry from a “wellbeing check” and noted that Godoy has consistently been interpreted to apply only in cases of exigency, in the sense of “requiring immediate aid or action.” The DA found that the use of the ram was “obtrusive, violent, and unjustified” and was “clearly an abuse of authority whether or not it was successful in breaking open the door.” In addition, the Discipline Authority noted that all four members could benefit from skills-based practical training in exercising sound judgement under stress. The Discipline Authority recommended that all four of the members participate in training related to the following areas: Grounds for exigent entry as distinguished from well-being checks; Grounds for arrest as distinguished from investigative detention and the authority and appropriate level of intervention that flows from each; Alternatives, such as verbal requests or commands, to the use of escalating force in obtaining compliance in cases of apparent non-compliance; Assessment and re-assessment of the need to escalate force when faced with non-compliance during arrest; and Search incidental to investigative detention and arrest in cases of an injured suspect. The Discipline Authority noted that in the absence of available practical skills training in all or any of the five areas listed above, that the members each have training or retraining in exigent entry and wellbeing checks, arrest and investigative detention, use of force and de-escalation techniques, and search incidental to arrest and detention. The DA also suggested that the department consider designing a training program that assists officers to practice making these types of decisions in stressful circumstances. In particular, the DA noted a need for skills-based training in the five areas enumerated above, “with role-playing scenarios, perhaps derived from disciplinary decisions, that are designed to enable members to make appropriate assessments and re-assessments as to the extent of their authority under stress and in evolving circumstances.\" *The suspensions were to be served concurrently for all members. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":136,"file":"2018-15276","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Search","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The members failed to conduct an adequate search of an individual under arrest, missing a knife and contraband which was later located.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC initiated an investigation into members’ attendance at a suite in a single room occupancy [SRO] building in Vancouver’s downtown east side for the purpose of executing arrest warrants against one of the three occupants. While present at the door of the suite, members determined that they needed to check the wellbeing of a woman inside and a battering ram was used to attempt entry. As the ram was being deployed, officers outside the door of the suite perceived the presence of bear spray, which they believed had come from under the door. The door was then opened by the suite occupants. Two individuals were taken to the ground and handcuffed. A third individual was found inside the suite and also taken into custody. As a result of the arrest of the individual inside the suite, the affected person incurred significant injuries described in police records as a possible separated shoulder, a broken nose, a laceration to his scalp requiring 10 staples, and six stitches under his left eye. The investigation examined whether the officers involved committed misconduct by unlawfully entering the suite, arresting the occupants without cause, using unnecessary force against them, or neglecting to sufficiently search one of the parties. The members failed to conduct an adequate search of an individual under arrest, missing a knife and contraband which was later located. The Discipline Authority determined none of the police officers involved committed misconduct. Upon review of the matter, the Commissioner determined there was a reasonable basis to disagree with the Discipline Authority. The Commissioner noted that although the members were acting in the performance of their common law duties, there were no reports to police that suggested violence in the suite and there was no information at the scene to suggest a potential emergency or imminent risk of harm to any of the occupants. Any reliance on a risk to the safety of the occupants was speculative. Therefore, the warrantless entry was not, in the Commissioner’s view, consistent with section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a result, the Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge, Carol Baird Ellan, to review the matter and arrive at her own decision based on the evidence. Ms. Baird Ellan found that all six allegations of misconduct appeared to be substantiated and as a result the matter proceeded to a disciplinary process. Disciplinary Process A prehearing conference was offered to all four members but was not accepted by any of them. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding before Ms. Baird Ellan as the Discipline Authority (DA). Ms. Baird Ellan found that police committed six allegations of misconduct as it related to the entry of the residence, the arrest and force used by police and in relation to the adequacy of the search of one of the arrested individuals. In arriving at her decision, the DA noted that in order for police to gain a warrantless entry into someone’s residence the circumstances must amount to exigency in order to justify interference with the occupants’ right of privacy. It is not enough to believe someone may possibly come to harm based on some past events. There must be an air of reality to the belief that harm is imminent. The DA distinguished the use of R. v. Godoy to justify entry from a “wellbeing check” and noted that Godoy has consistently been interpreted to apply only in cases of exigency, in the sense of “requiring immediate aid or action.” The DA found that the use of the ram was “obtrusive, violent, and unjustified” and was “clearly an abuse of authority whether or not it was successful in breaking open the door.” In addition, the Discipline Authority noted that all four members could benefit from skills-based practical training in exercising sound judgement under stress. The Discipline Authority recommended that all four of the members participate in training related to the following areas: Grounds for exigent entry as distinguished from well-being checks; Grounds for arrest as distinguished from investigative detention and the authority and appropriate level of intervention that flows from each; Alternatives, such as verbal requests or commands, to the use of escalating force in obtaining compliance in cases of apparent non-compliance; Assessment and re-assessment of the need to escalate force when faced with non-compliance during arrest; and Search incidental to investigative detention and arrest in cases of an injured suspect. The Discipline Authority noted that in the absence of available practical skills training in all or any of the five areas listed above, that the members each have training or retraining in exigent entry and wellbeing checks, arrest and investigative detention, use of force and de-escalation techniques, and search incidental to arrest and detention. The DA also suggested that the department consider designing a training program that assists officers to practice making these types of decisions in stressful circumstances. In particular, the DA noted a need for skills-based training in the five areas enumerated above, “with role-playing scenarios, perhaps derived from disciplinary decisions, that are designed to enable members to make appropriate assessments and re-assessments as to the extent of their authority under stress and in evolving circumstances.\" *The suspensions were to be served concurrently for all members. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":137,"file":"2018-15276","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Arrest","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The member intentionally or recklessly arrested an affected person without good and sufficient cause.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC initiated an investigation into members’ attendance at a suite in a single room occupancy [SRO] building in Vancouver’s downtown east side for the purpose of executing arrest warrants against one of the three occupants. While present at the door of the suite, members determined that they needed to check the wellbeing of a woman inside and a battering ram was used to attempt entry. As the ram was being deployed, officers outside the door of the suite perceived the presence of bear spray, which they believed had come from under the door. The door was then opened by the suite occupants. Two individuals were taken to the ground and handcuffed. A third individual was found inside the suite and also taken into custody. As a result of the arrest of the individual inside the suite, the affected person incurred significant injuries described in police records as a possible separated shoulder, a broken nose, a laceration to his scalp requiring 10 staples, and six stitches under his left eye. The investigation examined whether the officers involved committed misconduct by unlawfully entering the suite, arresting the occupants without cause, using unnecessary force against them, or neglecting to sufficiently search one of the parties. The member intentionally or recklessly arrested an affected person without good and sufficient cause. The Discipline Authority determined none of the police officers involved committed misconduct. Upon review of the matter, the Commissioner determined there was a reasonable basis to disagree with the Discipline Authority. The Commissioner noted that although the members were acting in the performance of their common law duties, there were no reports to police that suggested violence in the suite and there was no information at the scene to suggest a potential emergency or imminent risk of harm to any of the occupants. Any reliance on a risk to the safety of the occupants was speculative. Therefore, the warrantless entry was not, in the Commissioner’s view, consistent with section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a result, the Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge, Carol Baird Ellan, to review the matter and arrive at her own decision based on the evidence. Ms. Baird Ellan found that all six allegations of misconduct appeared to be substantiated and as a result the matter proceeded to a disciplinary process. Disciplinary Process A prehearing conference was offered to all four members but was not accepted by any of them. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding before Ms. Baird Ellan as the Discipline Authority (DA). Ms. Baird Ellan found that police committed six allegations of misconduct as it related to the entry of the residence, the arrest and force used by police and in relation to the adequacy of the search of one of the arrested individuals. In arriving at her decision, the DA noted that in order for police to gain a warrantless entry into someone’s residence the circumstances must amount to exigency in order to justify interference with the occupants’ right of privacy. It is not enough to believe someone may possibly come to harm based on some past events. There must be an air of reality to the belief that harm is imminent. The DA distinguished the use of R. v. Godoy to justify entry from a “wellbeing check” and noted that Godoy has consistently been interpreted to apply only in cases of exigency, in the sense of “requiring immediate aid or action.” The DA found that the use of the ram was “obtrusive, violent, and unjustified” and was “clearly an abuse of authority whether or not it was successful in breaking open the door.” In addition, the Discipline Authority noted that all four members could benefit from skills-based practical training in exercising sound judgement under stress. The Discipline Authority recommended that all four of the members participate in training related to the following areas: Grounds for exigent entry as distinguished from well-being checks; Grounds for arrest as distinguished from investigative detention and the authority and appropriate level of intervention that flows from each; Alternatives, such as verbal requests or commands, to the use of escalating force in obtaining compliance in cases of apparent non-compliance; Assessment and re-assessment of the need to escalate force when faced with non-compliance during arrest; and Search incidental to investigative detention and arrest in cases of an injured suspect. The Discipline Authority noted that in the absence of available practical skills training in all or any of the five areas listed above, that the members each have training or retraining in exigent entry and wellbeing checks, arrest and investigative detention, use of force and de-escalation techniques, and search incidental to arrest and detention. The DA also suggested that the department consider designing a training program that assists officers to practice making these types of decisions in stressful circumstances. In particular, the DA noted a need for skills-based training in the five areas enumerated above, “with role-playing scenarios, perhaps derived from disciplinary decisions, that are designed to enable members to make appropriate assessments and re-assessments as to the extent of their authority under stress and in evolving circumstances.\" *The suspensions were to be served concurrently for all members. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":138,"file":"2018-15276","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The member intentionally or recklessly used unnecessary force on an affected person.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC initiated an investigation into members’ attendance at a suite in a single room occupancy [SRO] building in Vancouver’s downtown east side for the purpose of executing arrest warrants against one of the three occupants. While present at the door of the suite, members determined that they needed to check the wellbeing of a woman inside and a battering ram was used to attempt entry. As the ram was being deployed, officers outside the door of the suite perceived the presence of bear spray, which they believed had come from under the door. The door was then opened by the suite occupants. Two individuals were taken to the ground and handcuffed. A third individual was found inside the suite and also taken into custody. As a result of the arrest of the individual inside the suite, the affected person incurred significant injuries described in police records as a possible separated shoulder, a broken nose, a laceration to his scalp requiring 10 staples, and six stitches under his left eye. The investigation examined whether the officers involved committed misconduct by unlawfully entering the suite, arresting the occupants without cause, using unnecessary force against them, or neglecting to sufficiently search one of the parties. The member intentionally or recklessly used unnecessary force on an affected person. The Discipline Authority determined none of the police officers involved committed misconduct. Upon review of the matter, the Commissioner determined there was a reasonable basis to disagree with the Discipline Authority. The Commissioner noted that although the members were acting in the performance of their common law duties, there were no reports to police that suggested violence in the suite and there was no information at the scene to suggest a potential emergency or imminent risk of harm to any of the occupants. Any reliance on a risk to the safety of the occupants was speculative. Therefore, the warrantless entry was not, in the Commissioner’s view, consistent with section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a result, the Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge, Carol Baird Ellan, to review the matter and arrive at her own decision based on the evidence. Ms. Baird Ellan found that all six allegations of misconduct appeared to be substantiated and as a result the matter proceeded to a disciplinary process. Disciplinary Process A prehearing conference was offered to all four members but was not accepted by any of them. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding before Ms. Baird Ellan as the Discipline Authority (DA). Ms. Baird Ellan found that police committed six allegations of misconduct as it related to the entry of the residence, the arrest and force used by police and in relation to the adequacy of the search of one of the arrested individuals. In arriving at her decision, the DA noted that in order for police to gain a warrantless entry into someone’s residence the circumstances must amount to exigency in order to justify interference with the occupants’ right of privacy. It is not enough to believe someone may possibly come to harm based on some past events. There must be an air of reality to the belief that harm is imminent. The DA distinguished the use of R. v. Godoy to justify entry from a “wellbeing check” and noted that Godoy has consistently been interpreted to apply only in cases of exigency, in the sense of “requiring immediate aid or action.” The DA found that the use of the ram was “obtrusive, violent, and unjustified” and was “clearly an abuse of authority whether or not it was successful in breaking open the door.” In addition, the Discipline Authority noted that all four members could benefit from skills-based practical training in exercising sound judgement under stress. The Discipline Authority recommended that all four of the members participate in training related to the following areas: Grounds for exigent entry as distinguished from well-being checks; Grounds for arrest as distinguished from investigative detention and the authority and appropriate level of intervention that flows from each; Alternatives, such as verbal requests or commands, to the use of escalating force in obtaining compliance in cases of apparent non-compliance; Assessment and re-assessment of the need to escalate force when faced with non-compliance during arrest; and Search incidental to investigative detention and arrest in cases of an injured suspect. The Discipline Authority noted that in the absence of available practical skills training in all or any of the five areas listed above, that the members each have training or retraining in exigent entry and wellbeing checks, arrest and investigative detention, use of force and de-escalation techniques, and search incidental to arrest and detention. The DA also suggested that the department consider designing a training program that assists officers to practice making these types of decisions in stressful circumstances. In particular, the DA noted a need for skills-based training in the five areas enumerated above, “with role-playing scenarios, perhaps derived from disciplinary decisions, that are designed to enable members to make appropriate assessments and re-assessments as to the extent of their authority under stress and in evolving circumstances.\" *The suspensions were to be served concurrently for all members. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":139,"file":"2011-6804","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner raised concern about the two officers’ lack of reporting in this matter and an allegation of Neglect of Duty to the investigation.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On September 17, 2011, the complainant and his friend were stopped by two police officers for not wearing bicycle helmets. The complainant filed a registered complaint in relation to the conduct of the officers during the incident. During the Police Act investigation into the complaint, the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner raised concern about the two officers’ lack of reporting in this matter and an allegation of Neglect of Duty to the investigation. This complaint became the subject of Public Hearing 2013-03. The decision can be found at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/public-hearings/","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":140,"file":"2013-8793","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Follow Supervisor's Lawful Order - Written","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to comply with an order, given both verbally and in writing, to have no contact with an individual","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer failed to comply with an order, given both verbally and in writing, to have no contact with an individual.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":141,"file":"2019-15758","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"Engaging in outside employment without proper written authorization while being employed by the Metro Vancouver Transit Police, thus contravening departmental policy.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"While off-duty, a Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP) member visited another off-duty member of the MVTP and a member of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) in a hotel room in Vancouver. The respondent member was doing private security detail work and had his department issued service pistol with him. The member placed the pistol in a bedside table without locking it contrary to departmental policy. At approximately 1900 hours, the three members went out to dinner leaving the pistol in the hotel room. A hotel room attendant entered the room to service it; found the gun and called hotel security. Hotel security took possession of the pistol, secured it, and called the Vancouver Police. While VPD members were on scene to investigate, the respondent member returned to retrieve his issued pistol. A criminal investigation was conducted by the Vancouver Police which did not result in any criminal charges. The member ultimately resigned from the MVTP. Engaging in outside employment without proper written authorization while being employed by the Metro Vancouver Transit Police, thus contravening departmental policy.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":142,"file":"2019-15758","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2019,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Using or Attempting to Use Police Authority for Personal Gain (e.g., Preferential Treatment)","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"Using police equipment and databases to search for information and details unrelated to his duties as a police officer, but in relation to the private security detail he was working on.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"While off-duty, a Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP) member visited another off-duty member of the MVTP and a member of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) in a hotel room in Vancouver. The respondent member was doing private security detail work and had his department issued service pistol with him. The member placed the pistol in a bedside table without locking it contrary to departmental policy. At approximately 1900 hours, the three members went out to dinner leaving the pistol in the hotel room. A hotel room attendant entered the room to service it; found the gun and called hotel security. Hotel security took possession of the pistol, secured it, and called the Vancouver Police. While VPD members were on scene to investigate, the respondent member returned to retrieve his issued pistol. A criminal investigation was conducted by the Vancouver Police which did not result in any criminal charges. The member ultimately resigned from the MVTP. Using police equipment and databases to search for information and details unrelated to his duties as a police officer, but in relation to the private security detail he was working on.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":143,"file":"2019-15758","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The respondent member placed the pistol in a bedside table without locking it contrary to departmental policy.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"While off-duty, a Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP) member visited another off-duty member of the MVTP and a member of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) in a hotel room in Vancouver. The respondent member was doing private security detail work and had his department issued service pistol with him. The member placed the pistol in a bedside table without locking it contrary to departmental policy. At approximately 1900 hours, the three members went out to dinner leaving the pistol in the hotel room. A hotel room attendant entered the room to service it; found the gun and called hotel security. Hotel security took possession of the pistol, secured it, and called the Vancouver Police. While VPD members were on scene to investigate, the respondent member returned to retrieve his issued pistol. A criminal investigation was conducted by the Vancouver Police which did not result in any criminal charges. The member ultimately resigned from the MVTP. *The suspensions were to be served consecutively. (Also See #2018-15651)","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":144,"file":"2019-16945","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"the member failed to properly document his involvement in the arrest and use of force incident","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Commissioner initiated an investigation following notification from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) of an injury to a member of the public where the affected person suffered a serious facial injury following a use of force incident with police. It was reported that police transported the affected person to jail where his health deteriorated. The affected person was then transported to hospital by ambulance where a medical examination indicated that he had a “right orbital blowout fracture.” The Independent Investigations Office (IIO) was advised of this incident and determined that the injuries did not meet the threshold of serious harm. An investigation under the Police Act determined that the member committed misconduct by failing to submit required police documentation. Failing to submit required police documentation. An investigation into the circumstances of the use of force incident determined that the force used by police during this incident was appropriate but that the member failed to properly document his involvement in the arrest and use of force incident. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":145,"file":"2020-17796","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"drew or partially removed the member’s duty pistol from the member’s holster without authority or justification on two occasions","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a member who drew or partially removed the member’s duty pistol from the member’s holster without authority or justification on two occasions. These actions occurred in the presence of other members inside police buildings. It was reported that the member was a recent graduate and was on probation with the department. 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.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":146,"file":"2020-17796","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Failure to Use a Firearm in Accordance With Law","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"drew or partially removed the member’s duty pistol from the member’s holster without authority or justification on two occasions","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a member who drew or partially removed the member’s duty pistol from the member’s holster without authority or justification on two occasions. These actions occurred in the presence of other members inside police buildings. It was reported that the member was a recent graduate and was on probation with the department. The member improperly used, and at one point drew, their firearm without legal cause, contrary to departmental policy and the Criminal Code of Canada. At the conclusion of the investigation the Discipline Authority (DA) found that the member committed two counts of misconduct. No prehearing conference was offered to the member and as a result, the matter proceeded directly to a discipline proceeding. The DA determined that the actions of the member were “significant breaches of the Police Act ” and that a “safety risk resulted which could have had serious consequences.” The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":147,"file":"2012-7533","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Misuse of Intoxicants","sublabel":"Unfit For Duty Due to Intoxicants","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"Members improperly stored alcohol at work, and consumed alcohol while on duty.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Members improperly stored alcohol at work, and consumed alcohol while on duty.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":148,"file":"2010-5344","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"The member had accessed police databases to conduct personal queries unrelated to his duties as a police officer.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member had accessed police databases to conduct personal queries unrelated to his duties as a police officer.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":149,"file":"2010-5344","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Account For Money/Property Received","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The member also seized numerous items that were not diligently processed as required by departmental policy and procedures between 2006 and 2011.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member also seized numerous items that were not diligently processed as required by departmental policy and procedures between 2006 and 2011.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":150,"file":"2010-5344","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Account For Money/Property Received","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"seized numerous items that were not diligently processed as required by departmental policy and procedures between 2006 and 2011","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member also seized numerous items that were not diligently processed as required by departmental policy and procedures between 2006 and 2011. *The suspensions were to be served consecutively.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":151,"file":"2018-15398","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Provide Medical Attention","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"An investigation under the Police Act determined that the member committed misconduct by failing to provide adequate medical assistance.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"According to the Abbotsford Police Department (APD), police officers arrested an affected person for a criminal offence and used force to take them into custody. The force used included taking the affected person down to the ground in order to gain control. While in jail, the affected person complained of injuries and pain; however, no medical assistance was sought by the Jail Supervisor. After a period of time in the jail, the new shift supervisor arranged for the affected person to be assessed by Emergency Health Services (EHS). The affected person was taken to the hospital where x-rays showed a fracture to the left knee and right elbow. As a result of the serious nature of the injuries, the Independent Investigations Office (IIO) investigated this matter. In addition, the Police Act requires an investigation also be initiated by the OPCC whenever death or serious harm results from an incident involving municipal police officers. These investigations are separate and distinct from investigations by the IIO and are not restricted to evidence gathered by the IIO. Under the Police Act, officers may be compelled to provide statements, answer questions and otherwise account for their actions. At the conclusion of the investigation by the IIO, they did not consider that an officer committed an offence under any enactment and did not refer the matter to Crown Counsel for consideration of possible criminal charges. An investigation under the Police Act determined that the member committed misconduct by failing to provide adequate medical assistance. Failing to provide medical assistance. The member accepted the offer of a prehearing conference. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that neglecting a duty of care to an injured prisoner is serious. He also noted that this Sergeant was not the regular jail Sergeant and was filling in. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":152,"file":"2012-7272","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The member made unauthorized queries on police databases.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member made unauthorized queries on police databases.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":153,"file":"2022-21932","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Negligent Discharge of Firearm/Weapon","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"negligently firing a live handgun round during a training exercise","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a member for negligently firing a live handgun round during a training exercise. The member had believed they were holding a training firearm with non-lethal training rounds. The member negligently fired a live handgun round during a training exercise. Following an investigation, the Discipline Authority determined that the member committed misconduct and offered them a prehearing conference. In arriving at the decision on disciplinary or correctives measures, the Pre-Hearing Conference Authority noted that the negligent discharge occurred at a training facility which had no public access, resulted in no injuries, and the member accepted responsibility for the misconduct. It was also noted that the member had an unblemished Service Record of Discipline and had undergone further advanced level firearms training since the incident. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":154,"file":"2017-13225","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Absent/Late For Duty","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.5,"thin":false,"quote":"An off-duty police officer was seen at a pub in the early hours of December 18, 2016, and then failed to report for a scheduled shift that morning.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An off-duty police officer was seen at a pub in the early hours of December 18, 2016, and then failed to report for a scheduled shift that morning. The OPCC reviewed the investigation and the Internal Discipline Authority’s decision. The OPCC determined there were no public trust concerns that required investigation.","measures":["counselling"]},{"id":155,"file":"2011-6210","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"accessed police databases on three occasions for purposes unrelated to the duties of a police officer","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer accessed police databases on three occasions for purposes unrelated to the duties of a police officer. The officer exercised the right to a Public Hearing pursuant to section 137 of the Police Act. The Adjudicator subsequently determined that only two allegations had been proven. For more information, see: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/public-hearings/","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":156,"file":"2011-6210","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Improper Disclosure of Information","sublabel":"Disclosing Information Acquired as a Police Officer","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The officer disclosed information that the officer acquired from police databases to a member of the public.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer disclosed information that the officer acquired from police databases to a member of the public. The discipline authority determined that the investigation supported the substantiation of six allegations and imposed discipline that included dismissal. The officer exercised the right to a Public Hearing pursuant to section 137 of the Police Act. The officer exercised the right to a Public Hearing pursuant to section 137 of the Police Act. The Adjudicator subsequently determined that only two allegations had been proven. For more information, see: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/public-hearings/","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":157,"file":"2013-8504","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"A police officer made inappropriate comments regarding another police officer and a civilian employee.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer made inappropriate comments regarding another police officer and a civilian employee.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":158,"file":"2017-13312","agency":"Oak Bay Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Negligent Discharge","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"the police officer negligently discharged a bullet","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On April 5, 2017, a police officer was scheduled to attend a mandatory training day which included firearms re-qualification. A colleague with more experience in the handling of firearms conducted a refresher session with the police officer in terms of how to disassemble the service revolver. After this refresher, it was the police officer’s intention to disassemble a service revolver five times in order to be ready to do so on the range with ease. On what was believed to be the fifth repetition of the disassembling process, the police officer negligently discharged a bullet. There appeared to be a jammed casing in the firearm. The area was searched thoroughly but no bullet was found. No one was hurt as a result of this incident. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. 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. In reviewing the proposed discipline in this matter, the OPCC determined that the discipline appeared to be correct and appropriate with respect to the circumstances. There did not appear to be any moral culpability on the part of the member considering the circumstances. Anytime a police firearm is unintentionally or negligently discharged, the potential for serious injury exists. The police officer acknowledged that they did not use the unloading station and advised that they will ensure they do so in the future. The police officer accepted full responsibility for his actions. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":159,"file":"2020-17875","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Detention","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"police did not have grounds for the stop and the stop was done for the “ulterior purpose of identifying [the complainant].”","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns with a member who detained and handcuffed the complainant for investigation of a drug offence. The complainant reported that the member conducted a ‘pat-down’ search, removed the complainant’s wallet from his pant pocket, removed the complainant’s identification from the wallet, and queried the complainant on a police computer. The complainant was allowed to proceed after approximately 15 minutes. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. Intentionally or recklessly detaining the complainant without cause. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority (DA) found that the member did not commit misconduct. The Commissioner disagreed and was of the view that the detention and search of the complainant violated his Charter Rights against arbitrary detention and unreasonable search or seizure and that the conduct reached the threshold of misconduct. The Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge, Ms. Carol Baird Ellan, to review the matter and arrive at her own decision based on the evidence. Ms. Baird Ellan issued her decision where she determined that the evidence appeared to substantiate three counts of misconduct in relation to the detention, handcuffing, and search of the complainant. Specifically, Ms. Baird Ellan found that police did not have grounds for the stop and the stop was done for the “ulterior purpose of identifying [the complainant].” Additionally, Ms. Baird Ellan found that it appeared, prior to the application of handcuffs, that there was “very little interaction of a type that would support officer safety concerns.” The DA further noted that the reason for removing the complainant’s wallet was not for officer safety, and found that removing the complainant’s identification to query him was “clearly outside the permissible scope of a search for officer safety.” For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/ Disciplinary Process A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the nature of the alleged misconducts supported a need for specific training to address any gaps or deficiencies in knowledge. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["training"]},{"id":160,"file":"2020-17875","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Handcuffs","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"there was \"very little interaction of a type that would support officer safety concerns.\"","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns with a member who detained and handcuffed the complainant for investigation of a drug offence. The complainant reported that the member conducted a ‘pat-down’ search, removed the complainant’s wallet from his pant pocket, removed the complainant’s identification from the wallet, and queried the complainant on a police computer. The complainant was allowed to proceed after approximately 15 minutes. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. Intentionally or recklessly using unnecessary force on the complainant. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority (DA) found that the member did not commit misconduct. The Commissioner disagreed and was of the view that the detention and search of the complainant violated his Charter Rights against arbitrary detention and unreasonable search or seizure and that the conduct reached the threshold of misconduct. The Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge, Ms. Carol Baird Ellan, to review the matter and arrive at her own decision based on the evidence. Ms. Baird Ellan issued her decision where she determined that the evidence appeared to substantiate three counts of misconduct in relation to the detention, handcuffing, and search of the complainant. Specifically, Ms. Baird Ellan found that police did not have grounds for the stop and the stop was done for the “ulterior purpose of identifying [the complainant].” Additionally, Ms. Baird Ellan found that it appeared, prior to the application of handcuffs, that there was “very little interaction of a type that would support officer safety concerns.” The DA further noted that the reason for removing the complainant’s wallet was not for officer safety, and found that removing the complainant’s identification to query him was “clearly outside the permissible scope of a search for officer safety.” For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/ Disciplinary Process A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the nature of the alleged misconducts supported a need for specific training to address any gaps or deficiencies in knowledge. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["training"]},{"id":161,"file":"2020-17875","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Search of a Person","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"police did not have grounds for the stop and the stop was done for the “ulterior purpose of identifying [the complainant].”","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns with a member who detained and handcuffed the complainant for investigation of a drug offence. The complainant reported that the member conducted a ‘pat-down’ search, removed the complainant’s wallet from his pant pocket, removed the complainant’s identification from the wallet, and queried the complainant on a police computer. The complainant was allowed to proceed after approximately 15 minutes. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. Intentionally or recklessly searching the complainant without good or sufficient cause. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority (DA) found that the member did not commit misconduct. The Commissioner disagreed and was of the view that the detention and search of the complainant violated his Charter Rights against arbitrary detention and unreasonable search or seizure and that the conduct reached the threshold of misconduct. The Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge, Ms. Carol Baird Ellan, to review the matter and arrive at her own decision based on the evidence. Ms. Baird Ellan issued her decision where she determined that the evidence appeared to substantiate three counts of misconduct in relation to the detention, handcuffing, and search of the complainant. Specifically, Ms. Baird Ellan found that police did not have grounds for the stop and the stop was done for the “ulterior purpose of identifying [the complainant].” Additionally, Ms. Baird Ellan found that it appeared, prior to the application of handcuffs, that there was “very little interaction of a type that would support officer safety concerns.” The DA further noted that the reason for removing the complainant’s wallet was not for officer safety, and found that removing the complainant’s identification to query him was “clearly outside the permissible scope of a search for officer safety.” For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/ Disciplinary Process A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the nature of the alleged misconducts supported a need for specific training to address any gaps or deficiencies in knowledge. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":162,"file":"2018-15245","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Improvised Weapon","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"used the police vehicle, without the assistance of any emergency equipment, to contact the back tire of the AP’s bicycle","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC initiated an investigation following a review of injuries sustained by an affected person (AP). It was reported that a member of the VPD, assisted other officers with a “bait car” deployment at a local parkade. Shortly thereafter, the AP removed property from the bait car and left the area on a bicycle. The member, who was driving an unmarked police vehicle, followed the AP and, in the course of attempting to arrest the AP, used the police vehicle, without the assistance of any emergency equipment, to contact the back tire of the AP’s bicycle. This contact caused the AP to crash to the roadway. The AP was transported to hospital where it was determined that he sustained a number of injuries including a laceration on the top of the AP’s head, a broken clavicle, fractured vertebra, and a cut to the ankle. These injuries constituted serious harm as defined under the Police Act. Due to the serious nature of the injuries, the Independent Investigations Office (IIO) investigated this matter. In addition, the Police Act requires an investigation also be initiated by the OPCC whenever death or serious harm results from an incident involving municipal police officers. These investigations are separate and distinct from investigations by the IIO and are not restricted to evidence gathered by the IIO. Under the Police Act , officers may be compelled to provide statements, answer questions and otherwise account for their actions. The IIO referred the matter to the BC Prosecution Service and charges for Driving Without Due Care and Attention contrary to Section 144(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Act were approved. The member ultimately pled guilty. An investigation under the Police Act also found that the member committed misconduct. The member used unnecessary force when the member’s police vehicle contacted the affected person’s bicycle in the course of initiating an arrest. The investigation determined that the force used by the member during this incident was not proportional, necessary, nor reasonable given the circumstances. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The member accepted responsibility for their actions during the prehearing conference, and the prehearing conference authority imposed a suspension and training. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. The OPCC noted that the member accepted full responsibility for this matter as evidenced by the guilty plea in Provincial Court, their full cooperation with the investigation, and their acknowledgement that there would have been “better ways” to complete the arrest of the affected person.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":163,"file":"2019-16842","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.93,"thin":false,"quote":"the member was convicted of Sexual Assault and received a one-year prison sentence","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The member was criminally investigated and \"convicted of Sexual Assault\" for off-duty conduct toward the affected person, so the allegation concerns his own sexualized violence.","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a member. It was reported that the member was being investigated criminally for Sexual Assault. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to complete the investigation and Chief Constable Dave Jansen of the New Westminster Police Department was designated as the Discipline Authority. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings in which the member was convicted of Sexual Assault and received a one-year prison sentence. The affected person in this matter filed a complaint and was added to the record and recognized as a complainant to the investigation. Prior to completion of the Police Act investigation the member resigned. The former member’s actions towards the affected person.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":164,"file":"2019-16842","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Public Trust Offence","sublabel":"Discredit Reputation of Department (Conviction)","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The former member’s Sexual Assault conviction and incarceration.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The allegation is the member's own \"Sexual Assault conviction and incarceration,\" for which he was criminally convicted and sentenced to one year in prison.","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a member. It was reported that the member was being investigated criminally for Sexual Assault. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to complete the investigation and Chief Constable Dave Jansen of the New Westminster Police Department was designated as the Discipline Authority. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings in which the member was convicted of Sexual Assault and received a one-year prison sentence. The affected person in this matter filed a complaint and was added to the record and recognized as a complainant to the investigation. Prior to completion of the Police Act investigation the member resigned. The former member’s Sexual Assault conviction and incarceration.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":165,"file":"2019-16842","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.93,"thin":false,"quote":"The former member’s deceit during the Criminal Code investigation and in the trial in Provincial Court","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The file concerns the member's own off-duty conduct for which he \"was convicted of Sexual Assault and received a one-year prison sentence,\" and this allegation is his deceit in that very investigation and trial.","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a member. It was reported that the member was being investigated criminally for Sexual Assault. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to complete the investigation and Chief Constable Dave Jansen of the New Westminster Police Department was designated as the Discipline Authority. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings in which the member was convicted of Sexual Assault and received a one-year prison sentence. The affected person in this matter filed a complaint and was added to the record and recognized as a complainant to the investigation. Prior to completion of the Police Act investigation the member resigned. The former member’s deceit during the Criminal Code investigation and in the trial in Provincial Court At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed three counts of misconduct. No prehearing conference was offered to the member and, as a result, the matter proceeded directly to a discipline proceeding where the former member did not participate. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority determined that the member’s actions were at the highest end of the misconduct scale. The Discipline Authority commented that short of taking another person’s life, invading another person’s physical safety is the most severe and troublesome action another human being can take. Additionally, the Discipline Authority noted that the level of professional misconduct and impact to organizational reputation was large. Neither the complainant nor the member requested a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. Even though the member resigned prior to the conclusion of this matter, their Service Record of Discipline will reflect the discipline imposed.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":166,"file":"2018-15439","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"the service pistols were not delivered to the exhibit control room of the department at that time, but were secured in a police vehicle which was parked in a secure underground lot at the police department","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On October 10, 2018, a police officer breached department policy for improper storage of firearms. The OPCC reviewed the investigation and the Internal Discipline Authority’s decision. Several police officers were involved in a firearms training day. After training had concluded, one member accepted responsibility for the pistols and had a duty to maintain care, control, and continuity of the pistols by transporting them from the range to the exhibit control room at the Saanich Police Department at the conclusion of the firearms training session. The investigation showed that the service pistols were not delivered to the exhibit control room of the department at that time, but were secured in a police vehicle which was parked in a secure underground lot at the police department. There was no ammunition stored, at any time, with the service pistols; the pistols were not accessible to the public at any time; the pistols were recovered and secured the next day. The OPCC determined there were no public trust concerns that required further investigation.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":167,"file":"2018-14297","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"By failing to comply with MVTP policy requiring the broadcast of information on the police radio upon engaging in a pursuit in accordance with MVTP Policy OA130-#20.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon receiving notification from the Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP) of an injury to a member of the public and upon request from the MVTP, the OPCC initiated an investigation into a police pursuit of a vehicle. According to the MVTP, two MVTP members were travelling in Surrey, BC, when they observed a vehicle exceeding the speed limit cross in front of their marked police vehicle. The members pulled in behind this vehicle and attempted to catch up but lost sight of the vehicle. A short time later, the suspect vehicle was located and appeared to have slid off the road and crashed into some bushes in front of a residence. After a short foot chase, both suspects were apprehended. The driver was subsequently arrested for several offences related to his driving, possession of drugs and failing to comply with court orders he was under at the time. The driver complained of soreness and was transported to hospital where he was treated and released. A review of this pursuit was undertaken by the MVTP. The review identified potential breaches of MVTP policy and the Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulations. By failing to comply with MVTP policy requiring the broadcast of information on the police radio upon engaging in a pursuit in accordance with MVTP Policy OA130-#20.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":168,"file":"2018-14297","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"By failing to comply with departmental policy requiring members to ensure that any vehicle they are assigned is operated in a safe and professional manner in accordance with MVTP Policy AG090-#11.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon receiving notification from the Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP) of an injury to a member of the public and upon request from the MVTP, the OPCC initiated an investigation into a police pursuit of a vehicle. According to the MVTP, two MVTP members were travelling in Surrey, BC, when they observed a vehicle exceeding the speed limit cross in front of their marked police vehicle. The members pulled in behind this vehicle and attempted to catch up but lost sight of the vehicle. A short time later, the suspect vehicle was located and appeared to have slid off the road and crashed into some bushes in front of a residence. After a short foot chase, both suspects were apprehended. The driver was subsequently arrested for several offences related to his driving, possession of drugs and failing to comply with court orders he was under at the time. The driver complained of soreness and was transported to hospital where he was treated and released. A review of this pursuit was undertaken by the MVTP. The review identified potential breaches of MVTP policy and the Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulations. By failing to comply with departmental policy requiring members to ensure that any vehicle they are assigned is operated in a safe and professional manner in accordance with MVTP Policy AG090-#11.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":169,"file":"2018-14297","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"For failing to comply with departmental policy requiring the broadcast of information on the police radio upon engaging in a pursuit in accordance with MVTP Policy.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon receiving notification from the Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP) of an injury to a member of the public and upon request from the MVTP, the OPCC initiated an investigation into a police pursuit of a vehicle. According to the MVTP, two MVTP members were travelling in Surrey, BC, when they observed a vehicle exceeding the speed limit cross in front of their marked police vehicle. The members pulled in behind this vehicle and attempted to catch up but lost sight of the vehicle. A short time later, the suspect vehicle was located and appeared to have slid off the road and crashed into some bushes in front of a residence. After a short foot chase, both suspects were apprehended. The driver was subsequently arrested for several offences related to his driving, possession of drugs and failing to comply with court orders he was under at the time. The driver complained of soreness and was transported to hospital where he was treated and released. A review of this pursuit was undertaken by the MVTP. The review identified potential breaches of MVTP policy and the Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulations. For failing to comply with departmental policy requiring the broadcast of information on the police radio upon engaging in a pursuit in accordance with MVTP Policy. A prehearing conference was offered to the members. In arriving at this discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that each of the members undertook relevant training as a result of the administrative pursuit review. In addition, it was noted that the Justice Institute of BC (JIBC) recruit training and departmental policy played a role in how the member responded to this incident. Amendments have been made to departmental policy to address this issue. The OPCC approved the discipline imposed in this case, noting that the discipline of advice to future conduct and a written reprimand in this case was on the low end for the range of acceptable discipline.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":170,"file":"2019-16527","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Using or Attempting to Use Police Authority for Personal Gain (e.g., Preferential Treatment)","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The member directed comments at a member of another police agency suggesting that they should be afforded preferential treatment due to their position as a police officer.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of two off-duty VPD members (Member A and Member B). It was reported that the members attended a licensed establishment, wherein Member A became the subject of a criminal investigation relating to an incident that occurred in the establishment. While in custody, Member A made several comments to an investigating member of another police agency suggesting that they should be afforded preferential treatment due to their position as a fellow police officer. It was also reported that Member B, during this incident, used a cellular phone to record police, refused to identify themself, and acted in a belligerent and unprofessional manner. The member directed comments at a member of another police agency suggesting that they should be afforded preferential treatment due to their position as a police officer. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that Member A appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered to Member A; the member declined, and as a result the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the Discipline Authority determined there was misconduct. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority noted that the Member A made comments that were intended to seek preferential treatment, the conduct was unprofessional and avoidable, and that Member A had not accepted responsibility for their actions. The Discipline Authority also noted that the Member A was intoxicated during the incident and was aware of circumstances and policy that would have required the member to identify as a police officer during the off-duty incident. Member A resigned from the VPD prior to the conclusion of the discipline proceeding and did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. Even though Member A resigned prior to the conclusion of this matter, their service record of discipline will reflect the discipline imposed.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":171,"file":"2019-16527","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"used a cellular phone to record police, refused to identify themself, and acted in a belligerent and unprofessional manner","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of two off-duty VPD members (Member A and Member B). It was reported that the members attended a licensed establishment, wherein Member A became the subject of a criminal investigation relating to an incident that occurred in the establishment. While in custody, Member A made several comments to an investigating member of another police agency suggesting that they should be afforded preferential treatment due to their position as a fellow police officer. It was also reported that Member B, during this incident, used a cellular phone to record police, refused to identify themself, and acted in a belligerent and unprofessional manner. The member engaged in inappropriate off-duty actions, conduct, and words directed towards members of the public and police members responding pursuant to a criminal investigation. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by Member B. 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. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority noted that Member B appeared remorseful, admitted to the alleged misconduct, and had not interfered in the initial police investigation. However, the Discipline Authority also found Member B failed to show the level of maturity expected of a senior member and engaged in unhelpful conduct that conflicted with the VPD’s Code of Ethics. Member B did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":172,"file":"2016-12722","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer provided an initial breath sample that registered a “WARN” on the ASD and a “FAIL” on the second breath sample. As the result the police officer was issued a three day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP)","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On October 16, 2016, while off duty, a police officer was stopped while driving a motor vehicle at a police road check for impaired drivers. During the course of the stop the police officer was requested to provide breath samples into an Approved Screening Device (ASD). The police officer provided an initial breath sample that registered a “WARN” on the ASD and a “FAIL” on the second breath sample. As the result the police officer was issued a three day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) and his vehicle was towed to his residence. This matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the Discipline Authority (DA) substantiated the allegation for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and receiving an IRP. 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. Pursuant to section 117 of the Police Act, if the Police Complaint Commissioner disagrees with the decision of the Discipline Authority to not substantiate an allegation of misconduct, the PCC may appoint a retired judge to review the matter. In this case, the Police Complaint Commissioner disagreed with the Discipline Authority and appointed the Honourable Carole Lazar, retired Provincial Court Judge to review the allegations that were not substantiated. Ms. Lazar issued her determination on the matter and found that the evidence did not appear sufficient to substantiate the allegations related to the member displaying their police badge or for interfering with an impaired investigation. Ms. Lazar’s decision is not open to question or review by a court on any ground and is final and conclusive. For more information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":173,"file":"2012-7904","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Disorderly Conduct Prejudicial to the Maintenance of Discipline in the Department","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.5,"thin":false,"quote":"the member failed to ensure the licenses and registrations of the motorcycle fleet were in compliance with the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Act their insurer","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"In his capacity as the NCO in charge of the department’s Traffic Unit, the member failed to ensure the licenses and registrations of the motorcycle fleet were in compliance with the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Act their insurer.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":174,"file":"2017-13492","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"a senior ranking police officer physically disciplined a special municipal constable by removing her hands from her pockets and also by smacking or slapping her on the buttocks at an official department event","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The text states the senior officer smacked or slapped a female subordinate \"on the buttocks,\" an unwanted sexualized touching by the officer himself, found to be discreditable conduct/harassment.","text":"On April 4, 2017, a senior ranking police officer physically disciplined a special municipal constable by removing her hands from her pockets and also by smacking or slapping her on the buttocks at an official department event. The respondent police officer raised concerns with respect to the adequacy of the investigation and bias on behalf of the Discipline Authority and requested the Police Complaint Commissioner exercise his authority and arrange a Review on the Record. After reviewing the proceedings, the Police Complaint Commissioner noted that the only witness who provided testimony was the respondent officer. The Discipline Authority did not have the benefit of hearing evidence from other material witnesses, including the special municipal constable directly affected. Pursuant to the Police Act , unless the member whose conduct is the subject of the proceeding initiates a request to call witnesses to testify in the proceeding, there is no other mechanism to allow for the participation of material witnesses. In this case, the respondent officer did not exercise his right to request permission to question witnesses. In the Police Complaint Commissioner’s view, accountability of the disciplinary process and the ability to search for the truth had been hampered. In addition, as the respondent officer’s request indicated that the record was inadequate, the Police Complaint Commissioner determined that a Review on the Record was not the appropriate form of adjudicative review for this matter but rather a Public Hearing. During a Public Hearing, the respondent officer could introduce evidence, examine/cross-examine witnesses and make submissions, which would allow him the opportunity to address his concerns with the prior proceedings. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Carol Baird Ellan, retired Provincial Court Judge, to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. On August 27, 2018, Adjudicator Baird Ellan issued her decision where she determined that disrespectful workplace interactions of this type engage the provisions of the Police Act . The Adjudicator concluded that the member committed Discreditable Conduct under the Police Act. At the time of the incident the police officer was close to retirement. After Adjudicator Baird Ellan’s findings, the respondent member advised that it was impossible for him to function as a police officer at any rank and tendered his resignation. Adjudicator Baird Ellan advised that had the police officer not resigned prior to the imposing of disciplinary or corrective measures, she would have considered the measures proposed by counsel of a lengthy suspension and permanent demotion. Adjudicator Baird Ellan recognized that initial incident was a brief, ill-considered overstepping of the bounds of familiarity between a superior officer and a subordinate. However, it was compounded by the police officer’s subsequent attempts to minimize the incident and save his career. The police officer was a 40 year member and his workplace training in matters of respect and harassment was dated. However, it was clear from almost daily reports of harassment in the media that the public’s views on such matters have changed significantly in recent years, becoming progressively less tolerant. Adjudicator Baird Ellan imposed a 30 day suspension to served concurrently for each allegation, reassignment, and retraining in harassment, sensitivity, respectful conduct in the workplace and current ethical standards as the most appropriate disciplinary or corrective action. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/public-hearings/","measures":["suspension","training","transfer reassignment"]},{"id":175,"file":"2017-13492","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"disseminated an email in which he identified the special municipal constable and contradicted her description of the incident when he was aware that a Police Act investigation had been commenced","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On June 9, 2017, the senior police officer disseminated an email in which he identified the special municipal constable and contradicted her description of the incident when he was aware that a Police Act investigation had been commenced. The Police Complaint Commissioner determined that it was necessary in the public interest 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. He further considered it necessary in the public interest to appoint an external Discipline Authority pursuant to section 135(1) of the Police Act. Following the investigation a discipline proceeding was held wherein the Discipline Authority determined that the misconduct had been proven and proposed a five day suspension for the police officer and retraining in respectful conduct in the workplace. The respondent police officer raised concerns with respect to the adequacy of the investigation and bias on behalf of the Discipline Authority and requested the Police Complaint Commissioner exercise his authority and arrange a Review on the Record. After reviewing the proceedings, the Police Complaint Commissioner noted that the only witness who provided testimony was the respondent officer. The Discipline Authority did not have the benefit of hearing evidence from other material witnesses, including the special municipal constable directly affected. Pursuant to the Police Act , unless the member whose conduct is the subject of the proceeding initiates a request to call witnesses to testify in the proceeding, there is no other mechanism to allow for the participation of material witnesses. In this case, the respondent officer did not exercise his right to request permission to question witnesses. In the Police Complaint Commissioner’s view, accountability of the disciplinary process and the ability to search for the truth had been hampered. In addition, as the respondent officer’s request indicated that the record was inadequate, the Police Complaint Commissioner determined that a Review on the Record was not the appropriate form of adjudicative review for this matter but rather a Public Hearing. During a Public Hearing, the respondent officer could introduce evidence, examine/cross-examine witnesses and make submissions, which would allow him the opportunity to address his concerns with the prior proceedings. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Carol Baird Ellan, retired Provincial Court Judge, to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. On August 27, 2018, Adjudicator Baird Ellan issued her decision where she determined that disrespectful workplace interactions of this type engage the provisions of the Police Act . The Adjudicator concluded that the member committed Discreditable Conduct under the Police Act. At the time of the incident the police officer was close to retirement. After Adjudicator Baird Ellan’s findings, the respondent member advised that it was impossible for him to function as a police officer at any rank and tendered his resignation. Adjudicator Baird Ellan advised that had the police officer not resigned prior to the imposing of disciplinary or corrective measures, she would have considered the measures proposed by counsel of a lengthy suspension and permanent demotion. Adjudicator Baird Ellan recognized that initial incident was a brief, ill-considered overstepping of the bounds of familiarity between a superior officer and a subordinate. However, it was compounded by the police officer’s subsequent attempts to minimize the incident and save his career. The police officer was a 40 year member and his workplace training in matters of respect and harassment was dated. However, it was clear from almost daily reports of harassment in the media that the public’s views on such matters have changed significantly in recent years, becoming progressively less tolerant. Adjudicator Baird Ellan imposed a 30 day suspension to served concurrently for each allegation, reassignment, and retraining in harassment, sensitivity, respectful conduct in the workplace and current ethical standards as the most appropriate disciplinary or corrective action. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/public-hearings/","measures":["suspension","training","transfer reassignment"]},{"id":176,"file":"2012-7328","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.65,"thin":false,"quote":"The member failed to adhere to the security access protocol for police and crown records management systems.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member failed to adhere to the security access protocol for police and crown records management systems.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":177,"file":"2013-8727","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"the police vehicle collided with a civilian vehicle that was travelling northbound","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police member, operating an unmarked vehicle, attempted to catch up to the subject vehicle when the traffic light changed from green to red. After stopping and “clearing” the intersection, the police member crossed the double yellow centre line and entered the intersection, travelling westbound in the eastbound lane. Once in the intersection, the police vehicle collided with a civilian vehicle that was travelling northbound. The police member was issued a violation ticket for failing to stop at a red light at intersection, contrary to section 129 of the Motor Vehicle Act. (In relation to the Ordered Investigation, the police member was found to have neglected to comply with section 122(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act and Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulation).","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":178,"file":"2019-16254","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Account For Money/Property Received","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"Failing to properly process a number of exhibits involving nine separate files over a several month period.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Victoria Police Department advised that some of their members had found 22 property exhibits in an unlocked drawer in another member’s desk, which included cash, drugs, a laptop. Some of the exhibits were from occurrences several months earlier; some were marked with investigative file numbers while others were not. Failing to properly process a number of exhibits involving nine separate files over a several month period. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed discipline noting it contained appropriate measures to correct and educate the member to prevent future misconduct from occurring.","measures":["written reprimand","training","close supervision"]},{"id":179,"file":"2023-23913","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2024,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"The member failed to clear the intersection prior to advancing through it which caused an accident, and overall posed a risk to other members of the public.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a MVTP member. It was reported that while operating a police vehicle with emergency equipment activated, and responding to assist other officers, the member entered an intersection on a red traffic light colliding with a civilian vehicle. The member failed to clear the intersection prior to advancing through it which caused an accident, and overall posed a risk to other members of the public. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted the member accepted responsibility for the misconduct and proactively took steps to prevent its recurrence. This included a review of applicable sections of the Motor Vehicle Act and emergency vehicle operational policies and educational materials. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":180,"file":"2018-14545","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Sexualized Harassment/Touching/Comments","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"gave a civilian employee a one armed hug and kissed her on the top of her head","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The officer gave a civilian employee \"a one armed hug and kissed her on the top of her head,\" unwanted intimate contact tied to \"expanding their casual working relationship into some other type of relationship.\"","text":"On March 6, 2018, a police officer, while on duty, gave a civilian employee a one armed hug and kissed her on the top of her head. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. The Prehearing Conference Authority found that the police officer clearly misread the situation and any interest that the civilian employee may or may not have had in expanding their casual working relationship into some other type of relationship. The police officer accepted full responsibility for the misconduct and acknowledged it was a mistake on his part. He was aware that his conduct towards the civilian employee was inappropriate and put her in an uncomfortable position. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":181,"file":"2019-16845","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Immediate Roadside Prohibition/Impaired Operation of a Motor Vehicle","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"Operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol above the provincial limit and blowing two breath samples resulting in a ‘Warn' and the issuance of an Immediate Roadside Prohibition.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a VPD member who was stopped at a RCMP roadblock. Upon being questioned, the member informed the RCMP that he had consumed two alcoholic beverages. The member provided two breath samples which resulted in a “warn” reading. The RCMP issued the member a 3-day suspension of his license and a 3-day impound of his vehicle. Operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol above the provincial limit and blowing two breath samples resulting in a ‘Warn' and the issuance of an Immediate Roadside Prohibition. As the member resigned from the VPD, this matter proceeded directly to a discipline proceeding. The Discipline Authority found that that the actions of the member were a significant breach of the Police Act . The Discipline Authority found that the public does not tolerate persons who drink and drive and that intolerance is compounded when the person is an off-duty police officer. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed the findings of the Discipline Authority and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. Although the member resigned prior to the completion of this matter, their service record of discipline will reflect the discipline that was imposed in this case.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":182,"file":"2018-14889","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.55,"thin":false,"quote":"Re-certifying a number of police officers, including himself, which was in contravention of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) DRE Policy.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Saanich Police Department (SPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a Saanich Police officer following a departmental review of their Drug Recognition Experts’ (DRE) certifications. Based on a review of the standards required for a DRE to maintain their recertification it appeared that the member, who was the DRE Coordinator, approved the recertification of Saanich DRE members without ensuring that the requirements were met. The member retired from the SPD prior to the discipline proceeding. Re-certifying a number of police officers, including himself, which was in contravention of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) DRE Policy.","measures":["reduction in rank"]},{"id":183,"file":"2018-14889","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"Engaging in practices not consistent with the IACP standards for recertification, which resulted in police officers being recertified when they did not meet the requirements as outlined in the IACP DRE policy.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Saanich Police Department (SPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a Saanich Police officer following a departmental review of their Drug Recognition Experts’ (DRE) certifications. Based on a review of the standards required for a DRE to maintain their recertification it appeared that the member, who was the DRE Coordinator, approved the recertification of Saanich DRE members without ensuring that the requirements were met. The member retired from the SPD prior to the discipline proceeding. Engaging in practices not consistent with the IACP standards for recertification, which resulted in police officers being recertified when they did not meet the requirements as outlined in the IACP DRE policy.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":184,"file":"2018-14889","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"Entering approval signatures for a number of members’ IACP Drug Evaluation and Classification Program Certification and Assurances documents dated between 2014 and 2016 knowing that the minimum certification requirements were not met.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Saanich Police Department (SPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a Saanich Police officer following a departmental review of their Drug Recognition Experts’ (DRE) certifications. Based on a review of the standards required for a DRE to maintain their recertification it appeared that the member, who was the DRE Coordinator, approved the recertification of Saanich DRE members without ensuring that the requirements were met. The member retired from the SPD prior to the discipline proceeding. Entering approval signatures for a number of members’ IACP Drug Evaluation and Classification Program Certification and Assurances documents dated between 2014 and 2016 knowing that the minimum certification requirements were not met.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":185,"file":"2018-14889","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"approved the recertification of Saanich DRE members without ensuring that the requirements were met.</br>Insufficient documentation was not the description used but the officer failed to properly verify certification requirements.<br>","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Saanich Police Department (SPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a Saanich Police officer following a departmental review of their Drug Recognition Experts’ (DRE) certifications. Based on a review of the standards required for a DRE to maintain their recertification it appeared that the member, who was the DRE Coordinator, approved the recertification of Saanich DRE members without ensuring that the requirements were met. The member retired from the SPD prior to the discipline proceeding. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":186,"file":"2018-14889","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"approved the recertification of Saanich DRE members without ensuring that the requirements were met","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Saanich Police Department (SPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a Saanich Police officer following a departmental review of their Drug Recognition Experts’ (DRE) certifications. Based on a review of the standards required for a DRE to maintain their recertification it appeared that the member, who was the DRE Coordinator, approved the recertification of Saanich DRE members without ensuring that the requirements were met. The member retired from the SPD prior to the discipline proceeding. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":187,"file":"2018-14889","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"approved the recertification of Saanich DRE members without ensuring that the requirements were met","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Saanich Police Department (SPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a Saanich Police officer following a departmental review of their Drug Recognition Experts’ (DRE) certifications. Based on a review of the standards required for a DRE to maintain their recertification it appeared that the member, who was the DRE Coordinator, approved the recertification of Saanich DRE members without ensuring that the requirements were met. The member retired from the SPD prior to the discipline proceeding. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":188,"file":"2018-14889","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"approved the recertification of Saanich DRE members without ensuring that the requirements were met.\",\"too_thin\":false","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Saanich Police Department (SPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a Saanich Police officer following a departmental review of their Drug Recognition Experts’ (DRE) certifications. Based on a review of the standards required for a DRE to maintain their recertification it appeared that the member, who was the DRE Coordinator, approved the recertification of Saanich DRE members without ensuring that the requirements were met. The member retired from the SPD prior to the discipline proceeding. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":189,"file":"2018-14889","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"approved the recertification of Saanich DRE members without ensuring that the requirements were met","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Saanich Police Department (SPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a Saanich Police officer following a departmental review of their Drug Recognition Experts’ (DRE) certifications. Based on a review of the standards required for a DRE to maintain their recertification it appeared that the member, who was the DRE Coordinator, approved the recertification of Saanich DRE members without ensuring that the requirements were met. The member retired from the SPD prior to the discipline proceeding. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":190,"file":"2018-14889","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"approved the recertification of Saanich DRE members without ensuring that the requirements were met","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Saanich Police Department (SPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a Saanich Police officer following a departmental review of their Drug Recognition Experts’ (DRE) certifications. Based on a review of the standards required for a DRE to maintain their recertification it appeared that the member, who was the DRE Coordinator, approved the recertification of Saanich DRE members without ensuring that the requirements were met. The member retired from the SPD prior to the discipline proceeding. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":191,"file":"2018-14889","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.55,"thin":false,"quote":"the member, who was the DRE Coordinator, approved the recertification of Saanich DRE members without ensuring that the requirements were met","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Saanich Police Department (SPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a Saanich Police officer following a departmental review of their Drug Recognition Experts’ (DRE) certifications. Based on a review of the standards required for a DRE to maintain their recertification it appeared that the member, who was the DRE Coordinator, approved the recertification of Saanich DRE members without ensuring that the requirements were met. The member retired from the SPD prior to the discipline proceeding. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":192,"file":"2018-14889","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"the member, who was the DRE Coordinator, approved the recertification of Saanich DRE members without ensuring that the requirements were met","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Saanich Police Department (SPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a Saanich Police officer following a departmental review of their Drug Recognition Experts’ (DRE) certifications. Based on a review of the standards required for a DRE to maintain their recertification it appeared that the member, who was the DRE Coordinator, approved the recertification of Saanich DRE members without ensuring that the requirements were met. The member retired from the SPD prior to the discipline proceeding. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":193,"file":"2018-14889","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"approved the recertification of Saanich DRE members without ensuring that the requirements were met","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Saanich Police Department (SPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a Saanich Police officer following a departmental review of their Drug Recognition Experts’ (DRE) certifications. Based on a review of the standards required for a DRE to maintain their recertification it appeared that the member, who was the DRE Coordinator, approved the recertification of Saanich DRE members without ensuring that the requirements were met. The member retired from the SPD prior to the discipline proceeding. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":194,"file":"2018-14889","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"approved the recertification of Saanich DRE members without ensuring that the requirements were met","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Saanich Police Department (SPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a Saanich Police officer following a departmental review of their Drug Recognition Experts’ (DRE) certifications. Based on a review of the standards required for a DRE to maintain their recertification it appeared that the member, who was the DRE Coordinator, approved the recertification of Saanich DRE members without ensuring that the requirements were met. The member retired from the SPD prior to the discipline proceeding. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":195,"file":"2018-14889","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"the member, who was the DRE Coordinator, approved the recertification of Saanich DRE members without ensuring that the requirements were met","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Saanich Police Department (SPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a Saanich Police officer following a departmental review of their Drug Recognition Experts’ (DRE) certifications. Based on a review of the standards required for a DRE to maintain their recertification it appeared that the member, who was the DRE Coordinator, approved the recertification of Saanich DRE members without ensuring that the requirements were met. The member retired from the SPD prior to the discipline proceeding. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":196,"file":"2018-14889","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.55,"thin":false,"quote":"the member, who was the DRE Coordinator, approved the recertification of Saanich DRE members without ensuring that the requirements were met","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Saanich Police Department (SPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a Saanich Police officer following a departmental review of their Drug Recognition Experts’ (DRE) certifications. Based on a review of the standards required for a DRE to maintain their recertification it appeared that the member, who was the DRE Coordinator, approved the recertification of Saanich DRE members without ensuring that the requirements were met. The member retired from the SPD prior to the discipline proceeding. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":197,"file":"2018-14889","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"approved the recertification of Saanich DRE members without ensuring that the requirements were met","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Saanich Police Department (SPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a Saanich Police officer following a departmental review of their Drug Recognition Experts’ (DRE) certifications. Based on a review of the standards required for a DRE to maintain their recertification it appeared that the member, who was the DRE Coordinator, approved the recertification of Saanich DRE members without ensuring that the requirements were met. The member retired from the SPD prior to the discipline proceeding. As above. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member committed 16 counts of misconduct. The matter proceeded directly to a discipline proceeding. The member did not attend the proceedings, which proceeded in their absence. Regarding the impact of the member’s conduct to the DRE Program, the Discipline Authority stated: “DRE recertification is necessary to ensure the DREs and DRE instructors maintain proficiency. The standards outlined in section III of the IACP policy are required to ensure that professional integrity is maintained throughout the recertification process. 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. This neglect is interpreted as highly irresponsible and careless, as its impacts extend to the public and court system.” The Discipline Authority dismissed the respondent member for this conduct. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. Even though the member retired prior to the conclusion of this matter, the service record of discipline will reflect that the member was dismissed from the SPD.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":198,"file":"2011-6627","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The member elbowed the complainant in the chest and pushed him into a vestibule.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member elbowed the complainant in the chest and pushed him into a vestibule.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":199,"file":"2011-6627","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"The member then applied an arm bar to the complainant’s brother.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member then applied an arm bar to the complainant’s brother.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":200,"file":"2010-5880","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Improper Disclosure of Information","sublabel":"Disclosing Information Acquired as a Police Officer","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"circulated an email to neighbours containing police information which had not first been vetted and/or endorsed by the police department of jurisdiction for release","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer circulated an email to neighbours containing police information which had not first been vetted and/or endorsed by the police department of jurisdiction for release.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":201,"file":"2020-18719","agency":"Oak Bay Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Misuse of Intoxicants","sublabel":"Accepting Liquor in a Public Place","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"The member consumed alcoholic beverages at home while on-duty.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Oak Bay Police Department (OBPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation in relation to a member’s conduct that involved a former common-law partner of the member and included allegations of alcohol abuse both on and off-duty, abusive and intimidating behaviour to the partner and family members, erratic behaviour, an incident of physical violence, and the inappropriate use of a Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW). The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation regarding the incident of physical violence. No criminal charge was filed against the member and the suspension of the Police Act investigation was lifted. The member consumed alcoholic beverages at home while on-duty.","measures":["reduction in rank"]},{"id":202,"file":"2020-18719","agency":"Oak Bay Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The member was abusive and intimidating towards their partner and their family.<attempt>2</attempt> Your entire response must be valid JSON matching the schema above. DO NOT include anything before or after the JSON object.<attthinking>The allegation is about abusive and intimidating behaviour toward a former common-law partner and family — intimate partner violence, so gendered_and_sexualized_violence.</attthinking> {\"categories\": [\"gendered_and_sexualized_violence\"], \"primary\": \"gendered_and_sexualized_violence\", \"confidence\": 0.85, \"too_thin\": false, \"evidence_quote\": \"The member was abusive and intimidating towards their partner and their family.\"}","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The allegation states the member was \"abusive and intimidating towards their partner and their family,\" involving a \"former common-law partner,\" which constitutes intimate partner violence by the officer.","text":"Upon request from the Oak Bay Police Department (OBPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation in relation to a member’s conduct that involved a former common-law partner of the member and included allegations of alcohol abuse both on and off-duty, abusive and intimidating behaviour to the partner and family members, erratic behaviour, an incident of physical violence, and the inappropriate use of a Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW). The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation regarding the incident of physical violence. No criminal charge was filed against the member and the suspension of the Police Act investigation was lifted. The member was abusive and intimidating towards their partner and their family.","measures":["reduction in rank"]},{"id":203,"file":"2020-18719","agency":"Oak Bay Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Equipment","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"The member deployed a CEW on two separate occasions on house guests, with their consent, but for a purpose unrelated to the performance of duties.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Oak Bay Police Department (OBPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation in relation to a member’s conduct that involved a former common-law partner of the member and included allegations of alcohol abuse both on and off-duty, abusive and intimidating behaviour to the partner and family members, erratic behaviour, an incident of physical violence, and the inappropriate use of a Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW). The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation regarding the incident of physical violence. No criminal charge was filed against the member and the suspension of the Police Act investigation was lifted. The member deployed a CEW on two separate occasions on house guests, with their consent, but for a purpose unrelated to the performance of duties.","measures":["reduction in rank"]},{"id":204,"file":"2020-18719","agency":"Oak Bay Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Absent/Late For Duty","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"disabled a police vehicle GPS to conceal their whereabouts while at home","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Oak Bay Police Department (OBPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation in relation to a member’s conduct that involved a former common-law partner of the member and included allegations of alcohol abuse both on and off-duty, abusive and intimidating behaviour to the partner and family members, erratic behaviour, an incident of physical violence, and the inappropriate use of a Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW). The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation regarding the incident of physical violence. No criminal charge was filed against the member and the suspension of the Police Act investigation was lifted. The member was absent from work while on duty and disabled a police vehicle GPS to conceal their whereabouts while at home, and for sleeping on duty without notifying fellow officers, and being an inattentive supervisor.","measures":["reduction in rank"]},{"id":205,"file":"2020-18719","agency":"Oak Bay Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"The member allowed their partner to drive home despite believing them to be impaired by alcohol contrary to the Criminal Code.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Oak Bay Police Department (OBPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation in relation to a member’s conduct that involved a former common-law partner of the member and included allegations of alcohol abuse both on and off-duty, abusive and intimidating behaviour to the partner and family members, erratic behaviour, an incident of physical violence, and the inappropriate use of a Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW). The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation regarding the incident of physical violence. No criminal charge was filed against the member and the suspension of the Police Act investigation was lifted. The member allowed their partner to drive home despite believing them to be impaired by alcohol contrary to the Criminal Code. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority (DA) found that the member appeared to have committed five counts of misconduct. No prehearing conference was offered to the member and as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The DA found that the five allegations were substantiated and characterized the misconduct as serious. In arriving at a decision, the DA noted, in part, that “deploying a CEW as a party trick on two separate occasions, repeatedly napping on duty without informing their shift mates, disabling the GPS on a police vehicle to conceal their whereabouts at home, remaining at home for inappropriately long periods of time, and displaying an inattentive attitude while on duty…establish a pattern of behaviour inconsistent with the expectations that the public and fellow officers place on a higher ranking member.” The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not in the public interest.","measures":["reduction in rank"]},{"id":206,"file":"2017-13969","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"contravened the department’s Respectful Workplace Policy, “Sexual Harassment”, by participating in making inappropriate comments towards one or more police members","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The text states officers contravened the \"Respectful Workplace Policy, 'Sexual Harassment'\" by \"participating in making inappropriate comments towards one or more police members,\" i.e., they themselves committed sexualized harassment.","text":"The internal discipline investigation arose following a third-party complaint regarding potential misconduct between police officers within a patrol platoon. Although not required under the Police Act, due to the serious nature of these allegations the Delta Police Department kept the OPCC apprised of the internal investigation as it progressed. Between April 19, 2017, and August 19, 2017, two police officers contravened the department’s Respectful Workplace Policy, “Sexual Harassment”, by participating in making inappropriate comments towards one or more police members.","measures":["suspension","training","transfer reassignment"]},{"id":207,"file":"2017-13969","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"contravened the department’s Respectful Workplace Policy, “Bullying and Harassment,” by participating in harmful hazing and initiation practices towards one or more police members","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The internal discipline investigation arose following a third-party complaint regarding potential misconduct between police officers within a patrol platoon. Although not required under the Police Act, due to the serious nature of these allegations the Delta Police Department kept the OPCC apprised of the internal investigation as it progressed. Between April 19, 2017 and August 19, 2017, two police officers contravened the department’s Respectful Workplace Policy, “Bullying and Harassment,” by participating in harmful hazing and initiation practices towards one or more police members.","measures":["suspension","training","transfer reassignment"]},{"id":208,"file":"2017-13969","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.82,"thin":false,"quote":"the police officer engaged in unorthodox field practices which created an intimidating environment","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The internal discipline investigation arose following a third-party complaint regarding potential misconduct between police officers within a patrol platoon. Although not required under the Police Act, due to the serious nature of these allegations the Delta Police Department kept the OPCC apprised of the internal investigation as it progressed. Between April 19, 2017, and August 19, 2017, the police officer engaged in unorthodox field practices which created an intimidating environment. *The disciplinary/corrective measures imposed were based on the totality of the circumstances rather than per allegation. At the end of the investigation, the Discipline Authority identified a number of areas that could be improved within the department. His nine recommendations included: further respectful workplace training, a fulsome review of the field training officer program, stabilizing patrol supervision through substantive supervisors, implementation of a recruit check-up system, re-assignment of C-platoon, debriefs with subject officers, professional standards section and the Delta Police Association, and mediation between subject officers and affected officers. The OPCC reviewed the investigation and determined that the outcomes were appropriate. The OPCC determined there were no additional public trust matters that required investigation.","measures":["suspension","training","transfer reassignment"]},{"id":209,"file":"2012-7201","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2016,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Arrest","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"arrested the complainant without good and sufficient cause","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On February 9, 2012, two police officers arrested the complainant without good and sufficient cause.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":210,"file":"2012-7201","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2016,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - OC Spray","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"two police officers used unnecessary force to effect the arrest of the complainant","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On February 9, 2012, two police officers used unnecessary force to effect the arrest of the complainant.","measures":["suspension","close supervision"]},{"id":211,"file":"2012-7201","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2016,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"One of the police officer’s police notes did not comply with departmental policy on notebooks/notebook entries.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"One of the police officer’s police notes did not comply with departmental policy on notebooks/notebook entries. The two police officers were each charged with one count of assault pursuant to the Criminal Code . The criminal proceeding concluded with the officers receiving a conditional discharge, a four month probation order, and a requirement to complete 25 hours of community work. *The suspensions were to be served consecutively.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":212,"file":"2023-23815","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - ERIW","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"discharged their LLSG and struck an affected person who was not being sought by the police nor related to police attendance at the incident location","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Commissioner ordered an investigation after receiving information that a member of the Abbotsford Police Department (APD) discharged their less-lethal shotgun (LLSG) and struck an individual while they were attempting to make an arrest. The affected person was not the individual being sought by police, and it appeared the member had discharged their LLSG without a clear view of who they were shooting at. The member discharged their LLSG and struck an affected person who was not being sought by the police nor related to police attendance at the incident location.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":213,"file":"2023-23815","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"discharged their less lethal shotgun when they were not in a position to make sufficient observations and address the requirements in the departmental use of force policy, as they did not have a clear sight of their target or what was beyond","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Commissioner ordered an investigation after receiving information that a member of the Abbotsford Police Department (APD) discharged their less-lethal shotgun (LLSG) and struck an individual while they were attempting to make an arrest. The affected person was not the individual being sought by police, and it appeared the member had discharged their LLSG without a clear view of who they were shooting at. The member failed to follow departmental use of force training when they discharged their less lethal shotgun when they were not in a position to make sufficient observations and address the requirements in the departmental use of force policy, as they did not have a clear sight of their target or what was beyond. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member had taken full responsibility for their actions from the outset, had expressed remorse and sought out further training on their own initiative. The Prehearing Conference Authority further noted that the member had no prior substantiated misconduct on their Service Record of Discipline. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["training"]},{"id":214,"file":"2011-7006","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Equipment","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"used a police vehicle for personal purposes without authorization","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member used a police vehicle for personal purposes without authorization.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":215,"file":"2014-9660","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2016,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Disorderly Conduct Prejudicial to the Maintenance of Discipline in the Department","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.85,"thin":true,"quote":"During a police briefing, the police officer displayed behaviour that caused his/her employer concern.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"During a police briefing, the police officer displayed behaviour that caused his/her employer concern.","measures":["counselling"]},{"id":216,"file":"2012-7580","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The member conducted an unauthorized query on a police database.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member conducted an unauthorized query on a police database.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":217,"file":"2013-9166","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer left the residence without ensuring the front door lock was engaged.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer responded to a report of a residential alarm. The police officer found the front door unlocked and no one home. After searching the entire residence and finding nothing disturbed, the police officer concluded that the matter was one of user error. The police officer left the residence without ensuring the front door lock was engaged.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":218,"file":"2018-15058","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the member entered an intersection at a high rate of speed, without stopping at the stop sign. The member and a taxi collided","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon receiving notification from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) of a police-involved collision which resulted in injuries to two civilians, the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the incident. It was reported that the member was on foot conducting traffic control for a crime scene. A civilian began using his cell phone in an apparent attempt to record the scene, preventing traffic behind him from being able to proceed. The member directed the civilian to move along. When the civilian did not respond, the member directed him to pull over, but the civilian drove away. The member followed in a police vehicle and during the attempt to stop the civilian, the member entered an intersection at a high rate of speed, without stopping at the stop sign. The member and a taxi collided, resulting in injuries to the member and the two occupants of the taxi, who were transported to hospital. Three parked vehicles were also damaged as a result of the collision. Violating section 122 of the Motor Vehicle Act , the Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulations and the Vancouver Police Department Regulations and Procedural Manual. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The OPCC did not approve proposed the corrective measure. This matter then proceeded to a discipline proceeding, where the member admitted the allegation of misconduct. In determining the proposed discipline, the Discipline Authority classified the misconduct as serious, but noted that the member had no prior record of discipline and had taken initiative to review the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulations . The Discipline Authority also reviewed past similar cases and found that a Written Reprimand was in the range of appropriate discipline. The OPCC reviewed the matter and determined that it was not in the public interest to proceed with a further review of this matter.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":219,"file":"2014-10136","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to safely clear an intersection and did so while not operating emergency vehicle equipment. As a result, the police vehicle collided with a civilian vehicle.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer failed to safely clear an intersection and did so while not operating emergency vehicle equipment. As a result, the police vehicle collided with a civilian vehicle.","measures":["training"]},{"id":220,"file":"2018-14638","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Leave Duty Without Permission","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.45,"thin":false,"quote":"the respondent member failed to attend any training sessions at the conference for this date.Delta Police Department Allegation 1 of 1 — placeholder, continue.The:","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Victoria Police Department (VicPD) reported that a member attended a work conference in Vancouver. Several weeks later, the Deputy Chief Constable became aware of information that the member had only attended the first day of the conference. VicPD reviewed this matter internally to ascertain the member’s attendance at the conference. Upon review and discussions with the member and his supervisor, the police department did not consider that the member’s attendance at the conference met departmental expectations. In addition, further information was learned indicating that the respondent member knowingly provided false or misleading information to supervisors regarding the conference attendance and had submitted expense claims that were of questionable legitimacy in light of the respondent member’s early departure from the conference. At the department’s request, the OPCC initiated an investigation into the matter. On February 16, 2018, the respondent member failed to attend any training sessions at the conference for this date. Based on the Discipline Authority’s determination on the disciplinary or corrective measures for the Deceit allegation, the OPCC did not consider revoking a pending promotion to constitute a “reduction in rank” under the Police Act and was not an option available to the Discipline Authority. Therefore, the OPCC concluded that there was a reasonable basis to believe that the Discipline Authority incorrectly applied section 126 of the Police Act in proposing disciplinary measures. The OPCC arranged a Review on the Record and appointed Retired BC Supreme Court Justice, Ron McKinnon to preside as the Adjudicator. As the Adjudicator, Mr. McKinnon concluded that removing the respondent member from a ranked eligibility list for a promotion to sergeant did not serve as a “reduction in rank” and that the Discipline Authority incorrectly imposed discipline that was not available to him under the Act. Mr. McKinnon imposed a suspension of 20 days without pay as the appropriate sanction for the allegation of deceit. For further information on this review, please visit https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":221,"file":"2018-14638","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"Providing false or misleading information regarding his conference attendance to his Staff Sergeant and Inspector on March 29, 2018, and again to the Staff Sergeant on April 11, 2018.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Victoria Police Department (VicPD) reported that a member attended a work conference in Vancouver. Several weeks later, the Deputy Chief Constable became aware of information that the member had only attended the first day of the conference. VicPD reviewed this matter internally to ascertain the member’s attendance at the conference. Upon review and discussions with the member and his supervisor, the police department did not consider that the member’s attendance at the conference met departmental expectations. In addition, further information was learned indicating that the respondent member knowingly provided false or misleading information to supervisors regarding the conference attendance and had submitted expense claims that were of questionable legitimacy in light of the respondent member’s early departure from the conference. At the department’s request, the OPCC initiated an investigation into the matter. Providing false or misleading information regarding his conference attendance to his Staff Sergeant and Inspector on March 29, 2018, and again to the Staff Sergeant on April 11, 2018. This matter proceeded directly to a Discipline Proceeding where the member admitted to committing misconduct. The Discipline Authority imposed a verbal reprimand for the Neglect of Duty allegation and revoked the member’s pending promotion to the rank of sergeant to serve as a “reduction in rank” sanction for the allegation of Deceit. Based on the Discipline Authority’s determination on the disciplinary or corrective measures for the Deceit allegation, the OPCC did not consider revoking a pending promotion to constitute a “reduction in rank” under the Police Act and was not an option available to the Discipline Authority. Therefore, the OPCC concluded that there was a reasonable basis to believe that the Discipline Authority incorrectly applied section 126 of the Police Act in proposing disciplinary measures. The OPCC arranged a Review on the Record and appointed Retired BC Supreme Court Justice, Ron McKinnon to preside as the Adjudicator. As the Adjudicator, Mr. McKinnon concluded that removing the respondent member from a ranked eligibility list for a promotion to sergeant did not serve as a “reduction in rank” and that the Discipline Authority incorrectly imposed discipline that was not available to him under the Act. Mr. McKinnon imposed a suspension of 20 days without pay as the appropriate sanction for the allegation of deceit. For further information on this review, please visit https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":222,"file":"2023-23908","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"queried their spouse for reasons unrelated to the performance of the member’s duties","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Commissioner ordered an investigation after receiving information that a member of the Abbotsford Police Department (APD) had inappropriately used police databases. It was reported that the member had queried their spouse for reasons unrelated to the performance of the member’s duties. The member used equipment of the APD for purposes unrelated to the performance of duties as a member. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member had taken full responsibility and expressed remorse for the misconduct. The conduct was determined to be of lesser seriousness as it related to the member querying their spouse to ascertain the date of their birthday. The Prehearing Conference Authority further noted that the member had no prior substantiated misconduct on their Service Record of Discipline. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":223,"file":"2018-15175","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"left his loaded duty pistol in a desk drawer in the Communications Center of the Victoria Police Department, and did not have care or control over this duty pistol for over a day","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On August 20, 2018, a police officer left his loaded duty pistol in a desk drawer in the Communications Center of the Victoria Police Department, and did not have care or control over this duty pistol for over a day until it was discovered by a civilian call taker and subsequently returned to him by a police supervisor. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. 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. The Prehearing Conference Authority acknowledged that the duty pistol remained within a secure, locked room within the police department and that the police officer accepted full responsibility. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":224,"file":"2011-6366-01","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"Two police officers used unnecessary force on a suspect while booking him into cells.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Two police officers used unnecessary force on a suspect while booking him into cells.","measures":["verbal reprimand","training","advice future conduct"]},{"id":225,"file":"2018-14858","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"For failing to identify a number of investigative steps for completion upon review of the criminal investigation.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The complainant reported that he was involved in a parking lot dispute with another driver where he was assaulted and threatened. The complainant asserted the officers who attended were biased and prejudiced in their investigation and in their determination to not pursue charges. The OPCC reviewed this complaint and determined that an investigation was required. An additional concern was identified during the course of the investigation relating to a member who conducted a file review of this investigation and did not identify any additional investigative steps for follow-up. For failing to identify a number of investigative steps for completion upon review of the criminal investigation. A prehearing conference was offered to the respondent member where the discipline of advice to future conduct was accepted by the member. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed discipline.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":226,"file":"2011-6510","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Improper Disclosure of Information","sublabel":"Disclosing Information Acquired as a Police Officer","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member provided a confidential document to the media regarding an operational police plan for a public event.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member provided a confidential document to the media regarding an operational police plan for a public event.","measures":["suspension","transfer reassignment"]},{"id":227,"file":"2012-7410","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2013,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.62,"thin":false,"quote":"had requested a photo be taken of himself with a severely intoxicated male for a purpose unrelated to his duties as a police officer","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member had requested a photo be taken of himself with a severely intoxicated male for a purpose unrelated to his duties as a police officer.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":228,"file":"2022-21219","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The member failed to complete and submit a Subject Behaviour Officer Response Report documenting the member’s use of force in this incident.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns with the force used by members of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) against the complainant during an investigation into an armed robbery. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. During the Police Act investigation, it was discovered that the member did not complete a use of force report (Subject Behaviour Officer Response Report) as required by the VPD. The member failed to complete and submit a Subject Behaviour Officer Response Report documenting the member’s use of force in this incident. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member accepted responsibility for their actions, took remedial action by completing the required report once aware of their error and was unlikely to commit the same misconduct in the future. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":229,"file":"2016-11585","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Negligent Discharge","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer was unaware that a magazine was loaded with a live round of ammunition. As the police officer pulled the trigger, the firearm discharged and a bullet went through a window.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On February 12, 2016, a police officer attended the range for a scheduled firearms training day. The scheduled start time for the training was 0700 hours. At approximately 0645 hours, the police officer was inside the range’s club house conducting self-directed “dry fire” drills. The police officer was unaware that a magazine was loaded with a live round of ammunition. As the police officer pulled the trigger, the firearm discharged and a bullet went through a window. There was no further property damage and no one was injured.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":230,"file":"2023-23806","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Improper Disclosure of Information","sublabel":"Disclosing Information Acquired as a Police Officer","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member sent a photo of a Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) call message and two photos of subjects being dealt with by police.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. It was reported that the member sent images pertaining to their police duties to a civilian with whom they were in a relationship. The member sent a photo of a Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) call message and two photos of subjects being dealt with by police. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority determined that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that while the member believed the recipient would have understood the information was confidential, the recipient was not a police officer and had no confidentiality requirements. However, the Prehearing Conference Authority also noted the member accepted responsibility for their actions, that sending the images had not impeded or interfered with any serious or ongoing police investigations, and that the member was a long-serving officer who had no prior substantiated misconduct on their Service Record of Discipline and had received a number of commendations and awards. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":231,"file":"2012-7168","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Negligent Discharge","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The member accidentally discharged his service firearm.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member accidentally discharged his service firearm.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":232,"file":"2011-6328","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and received an IRP for 90 days","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer had operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and received an IRP for 90 days.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":233,"file":"2011-6328","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"identified himself as a police member in an attempt to seek preferential treatment","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer also identified himself as a police member in an attempt to seek preferential treatment.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":234,"file":"2015-11086","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.4,"thin":false,"quote":"participated in a ride along with another policing agency in violation of departmental policy","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On August 1, 2015, a police officer participated in a ride along with another policing agency in violation of departmental policy.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":235,"file":"2015-11086","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Equipment","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"used department equipment for purposes unrelated to the performance of their duties","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On August 1, 2015, a police officer used department equipment for purposes unrelated to the performance of their duties.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":236,"file":"2019-16930","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"Rendering oneself intoxicated in a public place by the excessive consumption of alcohol, which resulted in behaving in a rude and confrontational manner with licensed premises staff and members of the RCMP.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP) reported that one of their members was alleged to have become intoxicated at a restaurant while off-duty and visited the restroom where his behaviour caught the attention of staff. After being confronted by restaurant staff, the member identified himself as a police officer and became belligerent. The member was arrested by the RCMP and later released without charges. Upon request by the MVTP, the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of the member. Rendering oneself intoxicated in a public place by the excessive consumption of alcohol, which resulted in behaving in a rude and confrontational manner with licensed premises staff and members of the RCMP. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member accepted responsibility and expressed remorse for his actions. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension","counselling","program activity"]},{"id":237,"file":"2021-20726","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Negligent Discharge of Firearm/Weapon","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"placing their finger on the trigger of an operational loaded CEW, resulting in the unintentional discharge","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Delta Police Department (DPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of two DPD members. It was reported that a member (“Member A”) had unintentionally discharged a Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) while preparing for their shift in the underground parking. It was further reported that another member (“Member B”) had left the loaded CEW and other equipment on the seat of the police vehicle for Member B. No damages or injuries were reported. The member did not follow policy and training as it relates to the safe handling of weapons placing their finger on the trigger of an operational loaded CEW, resulting in the unintentional discharge. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The Prehearing Conference Authority considered several factors before arriving at a decision on appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that although the CEW is classified as a “less lethal” force option, this weapon could still cause significant pain and/or injury to a person and that the member contravened one of the cardinal firearm safety rules by placing their finger on the trigger before making a conscious decision to shoot. The Prehearing Conference Authority also considered that the member had immediately reported the incident; that there was a lack of injuries or damage; and the member had recently switched to a new type of holster, which may have contributed to the incident. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":238,"file":"2021-20726","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to maintain control of the CEW and cartridges when they left the operational loaded CEW on the driver’s seat of the police vehicle","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Delta Police Department (DPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of two DPD members. It was reported that a member (“Member A”) had unintentionally discharged a Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) while preparing for their shift in the underground parking. It was further reported that another member (“Member B”) had left the loaded CEW and other equipment on the seat of the police vehicle for Member B. No damages or injuries were reported. The member did not follow policy when they failed to maintain control of the CEW and cartridges when they left the operational loaded CEW on the driver’s seat of the police vehicle. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The Prehearing Conference Authority considered several factors before arriving at a decision on appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the CEW had been left loaded, and the vehicle was unlocked and accessible to other police staff. The Prehearing Conference Authority also considered that the CEW had been left in a vehicle in a secured underground parking lot, and that Member A had advised Member B that the vehicle was ready for them and was left unattended for relatively short period of time (several minutes). The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":239,"file":"2011-6007","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Improvised Weapon","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"he stabbed the male in the forearm with the handcuff key four to six times causing puncture wounds","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"While the member was attempting to remove handcuffs from a non-compliant prisoner, he stabbed the male in the forearm with the handcuff key four to six times causing puncture wounds.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":240,"file":"2017-13402","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to abide by the Motor Vehicle Act by disobeying a sign prohibiting a right turn","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On February 17, 2017, a Special Municipal Constable (SMC) failed to abide by the Motor Vehicle Act by disobeying a sign prohibiting a right turn. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference where an agreement was reached with respect to the proposed discipline of advice to future conduct. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. 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. The OPCC determined that the discipline was on the low end of the range for appropriate discipline based on the circumstances. In this case, the SMC was aware that the right turn was illegal, as evidenced by a comment made to others in the vehicle, and chose to clear the intersection and proceed anyway. However, the SMC admitted to the error in judgement and accepted full responsibility for the misconduct. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":241,"file":"2019-16572","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Unsafe Storage of Firearm","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"placed his duty belt inside his locker with his loaded firearm still holstered to the belt. The member reportedly left the locker unlocked and went on annual leave.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a member for leaving his loaded firearm insecure. The VPD reported that the member placed his duty belt inside his locker with his loaded firearm still holstered to the belt. The member reportedly left the locker unlocked and went on annual leave. A supervising officer discovered the firearm and secured it. The member’s actions were contrary to Vancouver Police Policy on the storage of police-issued firearms. Contravening departmental policy by unsafely storing a loaded firearm. The member declined the offer of a prehearing conference. As a result, this matter proceeded directly to a discipline proceeding. The Discipline Authority found that the member was aware of the policy on the storage of police issued-firearms and failed to keep his firearm securely locked and stored in accordance with that policy. With respect to the recommended disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority determined that the breach of policy was not serious, particularly as it occurred in a secure area with no public access. The Discipline Authority also determined that the likelihood of such an incident occurring again was low. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed the findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":242,"file":"2014-9372","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Failure to Use a Firearm in Accordance With Law","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.62,"thin":false,"quote":"The photograph was of a young male holding a police-issued weapon.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A civilian accompanied a police officer on an approved ride-along. The police department became aware of a photograph posted on a social media website that appeared to have been taken in the police department parking lot. The photograph was of a young male holding a police-issued weapon.","measures":["advice future conduct","program activity"]},{"id":243,"file":"2020-18945","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"The member slapped a male suspect in the face immediately after being pricked with a hypodermic needle during the course of a Breach of Probation arrest.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. It was reported that during the arrest of an affected person, the member struck the affected person across the face with their hand. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation in which the member pled guilty to Assault and received a Conditional Discharge with a period of a six-month probation with conditions. The member slapped a male suspect in the face immediately after being pricked with a hypodermic needle during the course of a Breach of Probation arrest. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The member agreed to the proposed discipline. After review, the Commissioner did not approve the disciplinary or corrective measure as it did not reflect the seriousness of the conduct. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the member admitted the allegation and the Discipline Authority imposed a verbal reprimand. The Commissioner reviewed the outcome of the discipline proceeding and determined that a Review on the Record was necessary in the public interest as the disciplinary or corrective measure proposed by the Discipline Authority still did not reflect the seriousness of the misconduct. The Commissioner noted that the member’s conduct included an unprovoked assault on a person in their custody to which the member pled guilty on a subsequent Assault charge. Additionally, the Commissioner noted that the Discipline Authority did not appear to accord sufficient weight to the aggravating factors, including that the member made a physically threatening comment toward the affected person after the assault and that the member only self-reported the incident one year later after they became aware that this incident had been videotaped and was being circulated on social media. The Commissioner appointed retired BC Supreme Court Judge, the Honourable Elizabeth Arnold-Bailey, to review the matter and arrive at her own decision based on the evidence. Ms. Arnold-Bailey found that while the member’s actions were serious in nature, it was an understandable if illegal reaction to being poked with a sharp object in the affected person’s pocket after the affected person indicated he did not have anything sharp on his person. Ms. Arnold-Bailey further found that, while the member followed-up with threatening words toward the affected person, they were just words expressed in frustration and anger, and the member did not intend to carry out the threat. In addition, Ms. Arnold-Bailey held that while it would have been better for the member to report the incident before the video surfaced, the member did the right and proper thing by reporting themselves once the video surfaced. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, Ms. 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. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":244,"file":"2015-10759-01","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to operate his/her police vehicle in a manner that complied with the Motor Vehicle Act and Emergency Driving Regulation of British Columbia.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police member failed to operate his/her police vehicle in a manner that complied with the Motor Vehicle Act and Emergency Driving Regulation of British Columbia.","measures":["training"]},{"id":245,"file":"2014-9330","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"members of his party became involved in a physical altercation with other individuals. During the altercation, the off-duty officer identified himself as a police officer.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer was off duty and out for an evening with friends in another police department’s jurisdiction. The off-duty police officer and members of his party became involved in a physical altercation with other individuals. During the altercation, the off-duty officer identified himself as a police officer. Police attended the location and diffused the matter. The off-duty police officer left the scene prior to giving any additional information to the on-duty officers, but he did notify his supervisor at his department. When later contacted by the other jurisdiction’s officers, he was cooperative in regards to the investigation.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":246,"file":"2020-17298","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Provide Assistance (General)","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"Failing to respond to an incident in cells when notified by a Jail Guard who suspected that a prisoner was using illegal drugs.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A Jail Guard completing her scheduled physical checks noted that a prisoner was under his blanket making snorting sounds that she believed to be consistent with the consumption of drugs. The guard contacted the Jail Supervisor who did not attend the cell block or take any action. Approximately two minutes later, the prisoner knocked on his door to speak with the guard. When the guard got to the door, she could see that there was white powder around his nostrils, seemingly confirming her earlier suspicions. The guard contacted the Jail Supervisor again to relay this information. The Jail Supervisor did not take any further action. The next Jail Supervisor on shift later searched the jail cell and the prisoner and located items on the prisoner consistent with drug use. Failing to respond to an incident in cells when notified by a Jail Guard who suspected that a prisoner was using illegal drugs. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The member advised that it was his intention to attend cells but that he got busy and forgot. The Prehearing Conference Authority imposed a written reprimand noting that the member was remorseful, admitted the misconduct, and accepted responsibility during the prehearing conference. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures considering that the member had been removed from the Acting Sergeant role for approximately four months.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":247,"file":"2018-14300","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"Failing to operate a police vehicle in a safe manner, resulting in a collision with a pedestrian.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"According to the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the member struck a pedestrian (“affected person”) while travelling at a high rate of speed. The affected person sustained injuries as a result of the collision including, a laceration to his liver and kidney, rib fracture, head and neck trauma, and a compound fracture to his ankle. The affected person was taken to hospital for treatment. As a result of the serious nature of the injuries, the Independent Investigations Office (IIO), investigated this matter. In addition, the Police Act requires an investigation also be initiated by the OPCC whenever death or serious harm results from an incident involving municipal police officers. These investigations are separate and distinct from investigations by the IIO and are not restricted to evidence gathered by the IIO. Under the Police Act , officers may be compelled to provide statements, answer questions and otherwise account for their actions. Following the investigation by the IIO, the BC Prosecution Service approved one charge of Dangerous Operation Causing Bodily Harm (s. 249(3) of the Criminal Code ). The member subsequently pled guilty to one count of Driving Without Due Care and Attention (s. 144(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Act ). An investigation under the Police Act also determined that the member committed misconduct by failing to operate their police vehicle in a safe manner. Failing to operate a police vehicle in a safe manner, resulting in a collision with a pedestrian. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The OPCC reviewed the proposed measures and determined they were not appropriate or adequate considering the circumstances of the collision. This matter then proceeded to a discipline proceeding, during which the member admitted to the alleged misconduct. In considering the appropriate discipline, the Discipline Authority found that the conduct was serious and that the member had not acknowledged the error in his actions, despite admitting the misconduct. The Discipline Authority determined there was a moderate risk for future similar misconduct given this lack of acknowledgment and determined that additional training would be necessary to mitigate and prevent the recurrence of possible misconduct. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":248,"file":"2014-9987","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.55,"thin":false,"quote":"engaged in a relationship with a person believed to be involved in the sale of a controlled substance","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer engaged in a relationship with a person believed to be involved in the sale of a controlled substance.","measures":["reduction in rank","written reprimand","close supervision"]},{"id":249,"file":"2014-9987","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"The officer purchased and used non-prescription steroids.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer purchased and used non-prescription steroids.","measures":["reduction in rank","written reprimand","counselling"]},{"id":250,"file":"2017-13254","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Negligent Discharge","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"The gun discharged with the bullet entering the cement wall.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On March 16, 2017, a police officer was in their office preparing for a firearms qualification session later that day. The police officer placed a magazine into the firearm and racked the slide which placed a bullet into the chamber. The gun discharged with the bullet entering the cement wall. No one was injured as a result of this incident. The matter proceeded to a prehearing conference where an agreement was reached with respect to the proposed discipline of a written reprimand. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. 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. In this case, the OPCC was informed that the police officer already completed follow up training before a final determination was made which indicated the police officer’s desire to correct any deficits in the safe operation of this firearm. The police officer also assumed full responsibility for their actions and admitted their error in judgement. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":251,"file":"2015-11357","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"used funds from an account opened for a charitable purpose for personal expenditures","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer used funds from an account opened for a charitable purpose for personal expenditures. Crown Counsel determined that the evidence did not meet charge approval standard. The funds were repaid by the police officer.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":252,"file":"2020-17496","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"queried PRIME for information on a residence and associated files which were unrelated to an investigation and not in the proper performance of their duties","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a Special Municipal Constable (SMC) who disclosed information during a pre-recruitment interview. It was reported that the SMC stated that they queried PRIME for information on a residence and associated files which were unrelated to an investigation and not in the proper performance of their duties. The SMC did not disclose any information they learned as a result. Querying PRIME for information unrelated to an investigation and not in the proper performance of their duties. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the SMC. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures considering that the SMC had self-reported the misconduct and fully accepted responsibility for their actions.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":253,"file":"2016-11578","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Negligent Discharge","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer placed a magazine in the weapon, moved the slide forward and pulled the trigger. A round subsequently discharged into a wall.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On May 13, 2016, a police officer was cleaning their police issued firearm in the department’s gun cleaning room. The police officer placed a magazine in the weapon, moved the slide forward and pulled the trigger. A round subsequently discharged into a wall. No one was injured.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":254,"file":"2016-11578","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Unsafe Storage of Firearm","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"stored their firearm with a loaded magazine in the magazine well. A firearm with a loaded magazine in the magazine well is considered a loaded firearm and storing a loaded firearm is in contravention of departmental policy.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"During the Police Act investigation, it was determined that the police officer stored their firearm with a loaded magazine in the magazine well. A firearm with a loaded magazine in the magazine well is considered a loaded firearm and storing a loaded firearm is in contravention of departmental policy.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":255,"file":"2022-21734","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Negligent Discharge of Firearm/Weapon","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member neglected to handle their firearm in a safe manner when there was an unintentional discharge.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC initiated an investigation into an improper firearm discharge which took place during the West Vancouver Police Department’s (WVPD) annual firearms qualifications. While the discharge was toward a populated area, there were no injuries, and no damage was located. According to the WVPD, the member committed misconduct by firing a service firearm outside of the strictly controlled firearm course of fire. The member neglected to handle their firearm in a safe manner when there was an unintentional discharge. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member immediately accepted responsibility for their action, pointed the firearm in a safe direction at all times in accordance with safety rules and voluntarily sought remedial training regarding firearms following this incident. It was also noted that the member had an unblemished Service Record of Discipline. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":256,"file":"2010-5445","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Improper Disclosure of Information","sublabel":"Disclosing Information Acquired as a Police Officer","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"disclosed the complainant’s criminal record to a third party without lawful authority","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member disclosed the complainant’s criminal record to a third party without lawful authority.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":257,"file":"2019-16192","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The member knowingly submitted 16 fraudulent massage therapy claims over a period of ten months.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a member for submitting fraudulent massage treatment claims for reimbursement. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation. The matter was referred to the BC Prosecution Service but charges were not approved. The member resigned from the VPD prior to the conclusion of the investigation. The member knowingly submitted 16 fraudulent massage therapy claims over a period of ten months. Following the investigation, this matter proceeded directly to a discipline proceeding where the Discipline Authority (DA) found that the member committed misconduct. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary measure, the DA noted that the circumstances of the misconduct were serious in nature and went to the “heart of the principles of trust, decision making, ethics, and integrity.” The former member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. Even though the member resigned prior to the conclusion of this matter, their service record of discipline will reflect that they were dismissed from the VPD.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":258,"file":"2015-10350","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"A police officer made a derogatory comment on Facebook. The officer’s profile on Facebook identified the member as a police officer.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer made a derogatory comment on Facebook. The officer’s profile on Facebook identified the member as a police officer.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":259,"file":"2016-11515","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2017,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"inappropriately touching another officer in the workplace and repeating the unwanted contact after they were told to stop","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":false,"basis":"The text alleges only \"inappropriately touching another officer\" in breach of a Respectful Workplace Policy, with no stated or implied sexual or gendered element to the contact.","text":"On January 19, 2016, a police officer breached the department’s Respectful Workplace Policy by inappropriately touching another officer in the workplace and repeating the unwanted contact after they were told to stop.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":260,"file":"2019-17136","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The member did not make any notes or author a duty report detailing any observations of the male or their actions in dealing with him.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Saanich Police Department (SPD) reported that one of their members failed to properly document their observations and use of force during an incident with a member of the public. It was reported that the member responded to a report of domestic assault and while dealing with a male on scene, the member displayed a Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) at the male. The member did not make any notes or author a duty report detailing any observations of the male or their actions in dealing with him. This member also did not complete the required use of force reporting documentation in a timely manner. Upon request from the SPD, the Commissioner initiated an investigation into this matter. Failing to document a significant incident with a member of the public as required. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. 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. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures.","measures":["training"]},{"id":261,"file":"2014-9762","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Discourtesy","sublabel":"Discourteous - Behavioural","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"behaved in a discourteous manner while attending a call for service regarding a noise complaint","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An officer behaved in a discourteous manner while attending a call for service regarding a noise complaint.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":262,"file":"2022-21397","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the member produced Peace Officers Physical Aptitude Test (POPAT) scoresheets/times that were falsified","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The department initiated an internal discipline investigation into the conduct of a New Westminster Police Department (NWPD) member. It was alleged that after becoming a sworn member, the member produced Peace Officers Physical Aptitude Test (POPAT) scoresheets/times that were falsified. The member knowingly provided false information/documentation regarding the POPAT test results.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":263,"file":"2022-22123","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"disposing a serrated fishing knife into a garbage can within the cell block facility","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a MVTP member related to their handling of a prisoner’s effects. It was reported that the member transported a prisoner to the RCMP jail and that subsequent video footage from the jail depicted the member disposing a serrated fishing knife into a garbage can within the cell block facility. The knife was later discovered by jail staff. The RCMP initiated an investigation to determine who disposed of the knife in this manner and reported their concerns to the MVTP. The member inappropriately seized and disposed of an exhibit in an RCMP cell block facility. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that it was reasonable to expect that the member, given their level of experience, would be familiar with the criminal code process for the detention of seized items, and relevant departmental policies and best practices. The Prehearing Conference Authority further noted that placing the knife into a garbage can, which was located within the cell block facility, posed safety concerns. The Prehearing Conference Authority determined there was no need for a period of supervision or a requirement to take further training as the member proactively spoke to supervisors around the legality of seizing items and reviewed relevant department policies respecting exhibit property control, seizure and prisoner care, control and transportation. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":264,"file":"2017-12978","agency":"Port Moody Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"A police officer played a practical joke on a fellow officer which resulted in an unintended, but serious, injury to the other officer.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer played a practical joke on a fellow officer which resulted in an unintended, but serious, injury to the other officer. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. 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. In reviewing the proposed discipline in this matter, the OPCC determined that the discipline appeared to be correct and appropriate with respect to the circumstances. In this case, the police officer accepted full responsibility for their actions from the beginning, demonstrated remorse, and has remained friends with the victim member. The police officer reviewed both the department’s Occupational Health and Safety policy and Respectful Workplace policy. The police officer also completed an online course through Canadian Police Knowledge Network on Respectful Workplace prior to the prehearing conference. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":265,"file":"2017-13591","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"denied having anything to drink","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Victoria Police Department (VicPD) reported that a Sidney/North Saanich RCMP member initiated a stop of a vehicle operated by an off-duty Victoria member. The RCMP officer noted an odor of liquor on the off-duty member’s breath. The RCMP engaged in an impaired investigation and administered a roadside screening device. The off-duty member provided two breath samples, both registering a “Fail”. It was also reported that the member denied having anything to drink. The member was issued a 90-day driving prohibition and his vehicle was impounded for 30 days. Providing false or misleading information to a police investigator in an attempt to subvert their investigation into whether he had consumed alcohol prior to operating a motor vehicle or vessel.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":266,"file":"2017-13591","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"Receiving a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition and a 30-day Vehicle Impoundment as a result of his blood-alcohol level as measured by an approved [alcohol] screening device.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Victoria Police Department (VicPD) reported that a Sidney/North Saanich RCMP member initiated a stop of a vehicle operated by an off-duty Victoria member. The RCMP officer noted an odor of liquor on the off-duty member’s breath. The RCMP engaged in an impaired investigation and administered a roadside screening device. The off-duty member provided two breath samples, both registering a “Fail”. It was also reported that the member denied having anything to drink. The member was issued a 90-day driving prohibition and his vehicle was impounded for 30 days. Receiving a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition and a 30-day Vehicle Impoundment as a result of his blood-alcohol level as measured by an approved [alcohol] screening device. A prehearing conference was not offered to the member and the matter proceeded directly to a discipline proceeding. In arriving at the disciplinary outcome, the Discipline Authority noted that the member was stopped previously for suspicion of impairment while driving a motor vehicle, had a service record of discipline for similar behaviour, did not accept responsibility, and denied committing misconduct. The Discipline Authority stated that there was a reasonable prospect that the member would commit similar misconduct in the future. The Discipline Authority concluded that honesty and forthrightness are at the core of policing legitimacy and the police ability to maintain the public’s confidence. In addition, the Discipline Authority emphasized the substantial public harm that results from drinking and driving, the lives that this behaviour destroys and the costs to our health care system and economy. 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. Upon review, the Commissioner determined that the Discipline Authority appropriately considered the aggravating and mitigating factors and determined that the disciplinary measures imposed were both correct and appropriate with respect to the circumstances. Furthermore, the member did not submit a request for a review of this decision. The Commissioner determined that either a Public Hearing or Review on the Record was not necessary in the public interest.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":267,"file":"2013-8326","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"operated an unmarked police vehicle in a dangerous manner, resulting in an accident","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"While responding to a call, the police officer operated an unmarked police vehicle in a dangerous manner, resulting in an accident.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":268,"file":"2013-8326","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Damage to Police Property","sublabel":"Misusing/Losing/Damaging Police Property","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"the police vehicle sustained $4,000 worth of damage as a result of the collision","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Although no one was injured, the police vehicle sustained $4,000 worth of damage as a result of the collision.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":269,"file":"2010-5499","agency":"Port Moody Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"untruthful to her supervisors regarding sick leave taken to care for a family member","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer was untruthful to her supervisors regarding sick leave taken to care for a family member.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":270,"file":"2012-7701","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2013,"heading":"Discourtesy","sublabel":"Discourteous - Verbal","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"used derogatory and insulting language","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"While issuing a ticket to the complainant, a police officer used derogatory and insulting language.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":271,"file":"2012-7701","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2013,"heading":"Discourtesy","sublabel":"Discourteous - Verbal","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.9,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":272,"file":"2017-14017","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.82,"thin":false,"quote":"Sergeant Van Patten committed Discreditable Conduct by entering into an inappropriate relationship with Constable Chan who was under his supervision","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The text states Van Patten was \"in an inappropriate relationship\" with a subordinate experiencing mental health issues, amid a \"power imbalance,\" and used copied communications \"in a threatening manner towards Constable Chan\" — a coercive intimate relationship.","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC initiated an investigation into Sergeant Dave Van Patten relating to his conduct while working in the Human Resources Section of the VPD. The OPCC appointed the New Westminster Police Department (NWPD) to carry out this investigation and Chief Officer Dave Jones of the Metro Vancouver Transit Police was designated as the Discipline Authority in this matter. A criminal investigation was also completed by the NWPD and charges were forwarded to Crown Counsel for review. Charges were not approved by Crown and therefore the matter proceeded under the Police Act. Disciplinary Process: The investigation revealed that Sergeant Van Patten was in an inappropriate relationship with a fellow VPD member, Constable Nicole Chan while also serving as a Human Resources Officer for the VPD. The matter was remitted to a discipline proceeding before Chief Officer Jones. 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. According to Chief Officer Jones, “the allegations facing Sergeant Van Patten [were] extremely serious. He not only maintained a relationship with an individual who was junior in rank and service, but who was experiencing mental health related issues. He sought to maintain privacy, of their relationship to the detriment of both of them, and the Vancouver Police Department as a whole.” Chief Officer Jones also found that “Sergeant Van Patten had entered into an agreement with Constable Chan that they would never tell anyone about their relationship, which included not disclosing their relationship to medical professionals who were treating Constable Chan for mental health related matters.” Considering the power imbalance between these two officers, Chief Officer Jones noted that “the real, or apparent, power imbalance of a person in a supervisory position, over a subordinate, is challenging regardless of whether the individuals work within the same unit or area. In this instance with the member not revealing their relationship Sergeant Van Patten was in a position, within the Human Resources Section to have some knowledge, and even withhold information that may have had an impact on decisions affecting Constable Chan.” He found that this conduct would bring discredit on the reputation of the VPD. Chief Officer Jones also found that Sergeant Van Patten obtained access to the phone belonging to another member through false pretenses, copied communications from the device and then used that information in a threatening manner towards Constable Chan. Chief Officer Jones imposed disciplinary measures ranging from a 30-day suspension without pay to dismissal. Sergeant Van Patten resigned from the police agency prior to the conclusion of these proceedings; however, his service record of discipline will reflect that he was dismissed from the VPD. The OPCC reviewed the outcome and determined that a further review of this matter was not required in all the circumstances. In order to assist in preventing the reoccurrence of this type of misconduct from, the OPCC made recommendations to both the Vancouver Police Board and to the provincial government recommending that a review be undertaken by an independent third party to review department policies and procedures related to workplace relationships involving power dynamics, supervisory and leadership functions, and vulnerable employees.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":273,"file":"2017-14017","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"Sergeant Van Patten obtained access to the phone belonging to another member through false pretenses, copied communications from the device and then used that information in a threatening manner towards Constable Chan.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC initiated an investigation into Sergeant Dave Van Patten relating to his conduct while working in the Human Resources Section of the VPD. The OPCC appointed the New Westminster Police Department (NWPD) to carry out this investigation and Chief Officer Dave Jones of the Metro Vancouver Transit Police was designated as the Discipline Authority in this matter. A criminal investigation was also completed by the NWPD and charges were forwarded to Crown Counsel for review. Charges were not approved by Crown and therefore the matter proceeded under the Police Act. Disciplinary Process: The investigation revealed that Sergeant Van Patten was in an inappropriate relationship with a fellow VPD member, Constable Nicole Chan while also serving as a Human Resources Officer for the VPD. The matter was remitted to a discipline proceeding before Chief Officer Jones. 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. According to Chief Officer Jones, “the allegations facing Sergeant Van Patten [were] extremely serious. He not only maintained a relationship with an individual who was junior in rank and service, but who was experiencing mental health related issues. He sought to maintain privacy, of their relationship to the detriment of both of them, and the Vancouver Police Department as a whole.” Chief Officer Jones also found that “Sergeant Van Patten had entered into an agreement with Constable Chan that they would never tell anyone about their relationship, which included not disclosing their relationship to medical professionals who were treating Constable Chan for mental health related matters.” Considering the power imbalance between these two officers, Chief Officer Jones noted that “the real, or apparent, power imbalance of a person in a supervisory position, over a subordinate, is challenging regardless of whether the individuals work within the same unit or area. In this instance with the member not revealing their relationship Sergeant Van Patten was in a position, within the Human Resources Section to have some knowledge, and even withhold information that may have had an impact on decisions affecting Constable Chan.” He found that this conduct would bring discredit on the reputation of the VPD. Chief Officer Jones also found that Sergeant Van Patten obtained access to the phone belonging to another member through false pretenses, copied communications from the device and then used that information in a threatening manner towards Constable Chan. Chief Officer Jones imposed disciplinary measures ranging from a 30-day suspension without pay to dismissal. Sergeant Van Patten resigned from the police agency prior to the conclusion of these proceedings; however, his service record of discipline will reflect that he was dismissed from the VPD. The OPCC reviewed the outcome and determined that a further review of this matter was not required in all the circumstances. In order to assist in preventing the reoccurrence of this type of misconduct from, the OPCC made recommendations to both the Vancouver Police Board and to the provincial government recommending that a review be undertaken by an independent third party to review department policies and procedures related to workplace relationships involving power dynamics, supervisory and leadership functions, and vulnerable employees.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":274,"file":"2017-14017","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"Sergeant Van Patten obtained access to the phone belonging to another member through false pretenses, copied communications from the device and then used that information in a threatening manner towards Constable Chan.'","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC initiated an investigation into Sergeant Dave Van Patten relating to his conduct while working in the Human Resources Section of the VPD. The OPCC appointed the New Westminster Police Department (NWPD) to carry out this investigation and Chief Officer Dave Jones of the Metro Vancouver Transit Police was designated as the Discipline Authority in this matter. A criminal investigation was also completed by the NWPD and charges were forwarded to Crown Counsel for review. Charges were not approved by Crown and therefore the matter proceeded under the Police Act. Disciplinary Process: The investigation revealed that Sergeant Van Patten was in an inappropriate relationship with a fellow VPD member, Constable Nicole Chan while also serving as a Human Resources Officer for the VPD. The matter was remitted to a discipline proceeding before Chief Officer Jones. 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. According to Chief Officer Jones, “the allegations facing Sergeant Van Patten [were] extremely serious. He not only maintained a relationship with an individual who was junior in rank and service, but who was experiencing mental health related issues. He sought to maintain privacy, of their relationship to the detriment of both of them, and the Vancouver Police Department as a whole.” Chief Officer Jones also found that “Sergeant Van Patten had entered into an agreement with Constable Chan that they would never tell anyone about their relationship, which included not disclosing their relationship to medical professionals who were treating Constable Chan for mental health related matters.” Considering the power imbalance between these two officers, Chief Officer Jones noted that “the real, or apparent, power imbalance of a person in a supervisory position, over a subordinate, is challenging regardless of whether the individuals work within the same unit or area. In this instance with the member not revealing their relationship Sergeant Van Patten was in a position, within the Human Resources Section to have some knowledge, and even withhold information that may have had an impact on decisions affecting Constable Chan.” He found that this conduct would bring discredit on the reputation of the VPD. Chief Officer Jones also found that Sergeant Van Patten obtained access to the phone belonging to another member through false pretenses, copied communications from the device and then used that information in a threatening manner towards Constable Chan. Chief Officer Jones imposed disciplinary measures ranging from a 30-day suspension without pay to dismissal. Sergeant Van Patten resigned from the police agency prior to the conclusion of these proceedings; however, his service record of discipline will reflect that he was dismissed from the VPD. The OPCC reviewed the outcome and determined that a further review of this matter was not required in all the circumstances. In order to assist in preventing the reoccurrence of this type of misconduct from, the OPCC made recommendations to both the Vancouver Police Board and to the provincial government recommending that a review be undertaken by an independent third party to review department policies and procedures related to workplace relationships involving power dynamics, supervisory and leadership functions, and vulnerable employees.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":275,"file":"2018-15661","agency":"Oak Bay Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to follow the provisions of the British Columbia Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulations when he initiated a police pursuit of a vehicle and was in contravention of the Emergency Vehicle Operator Guidelines","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Oak Bay Police Department reported that one of their members had failed to follow the provisions of the British Columbia Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulations when he initiated a police pursuit of a vehicle and was in contravention of the Emergency Vehicle Operator Guidelines. The member had queried the licence plate of a vehicle which indicated that the owner may have been a prohibited driver and engaged in a pursuit of that vehicle for several blocks without notifying dispatch. The member terminated his pursuit and self-reported it to his supervisor who reviewed the relevant dash cam video. Failing to follow the provisions of the British Columbia Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulations. Following the investigation, the Discipline Authority substantiated the allegation and offered the respondent member a prehearing conference. The member admitted to the misconduct and an agreement was reached with respect to a discipline/corrective measure of a written reprimand. The respondent member had no previous service record of discipline, and had immediately reported the incident to his supervisor and accepted full responsibility for his actions. The member completed a refresher course on the Emergency Vehicle Operator Guidelines and the Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulations. Considering these factors, the OPCC approved the disciplinary measure imposed at the prehearing conference as they were both correct and appropriate with respect to the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":276,"file":"2011-6719","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"he hit the complainant’s head on the car and punched him in the jaw and chest","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member used excessive force when arresting the complainant when he hit the complainant’s head on the car and punched him in the jaw and chest.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":277,"file":"2018-15040","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"This permission was sought and denied; however, the member chose to disregard this and pursue the outside employment/business opportunity.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A member sought approval from the Chief Constable to seek outside employment however, the Chief Constable denied the request. The member was suspended without pay at the time as a result of an unrelated criminal investigation into his conduct. It was learned that the member owned and was operating a business. The OPCC determined that there were no public trust issues and no complaint had been received. An internal investigation was initiated as a result. Working outside his employment contract contrary to the New Westminster Police Department Policy Code of Administrative Conduct and contrary to specific direction from the Chief Constable. Following the investigation, the Discipline Authority substantiated the allegation of Discreditable Conduct and reviewed the aggravating and mitigating factors. The Discipline Authority noted the serious nature of this conduct particularly as the member was already facing an unrelated serious criminal allegation where the member was currently suspended without pay. The member was aware of the requirements to seek permission of the Chief Constable to engage in outside employment or business opportunities. This permission was sought and denied; however, the member chose to disregard this and pursue the outside employment/business opportunity. The Discipline Authority noted that the member already had discipline on his service record of discipline and that the member did not take responsibility for his actions.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":278,"file":"2017-13313","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"operated a Community Safety vehicle with the emergency lights activated while the vehicle was in motion, contrary to the Community Safety Unit manual & Community Safety Directive","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On February 10, 2017, a Community Safety Officer (CSO) operated a Community Safety vehicle with the emergency lights activated while the vehicle was in motion, contrary to the Community Safety Unit manual & Community Safety Directive.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":279,"file":"2017-13313","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"directed a recruit to breach the Community Safety Unit manual by operating the community safety vehicle with emergency lights and siren activated while the vehicle was in motion","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Between February 10, 2017 and February 21, 2017, the CSO directed a recruit to breach the Community Safety Unit manual by operating the community safety vehicle with emergency lights and siren activated while the vehicle was in motion contrary to the Community Safety Unit manual & Community Safety Directive. Regarding the first allegation of misconduct, the Internal Discipline Authority took into consideration that the CSO violated policy to help a citizen who she believed was injured and required medical attention. For the second allegation of misconduct, the CSO incurred a monetary penalty in losing a day of pay. This discipline could also have an impact on her being hired as a regular sworn member in the future. The OPCC reviewed the investigation and the Internal Discipline Authority’s decision. The OPCC determined there were no public trust concerns that required investigation.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":280,"file":"2012-7313","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Unsafe Storage of Firearm","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"allowed a member of the public to wear aspects of his uniform and have pictures taken which were then posted to a social media site","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member allowed a member of the public to wear aspects of his uniform and have pictures taken which were then posted to a social media site.","measures":["advice future conduct","program activity"]},{"id":281,"file":"2015-12140","agency":"Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police Service","year":2016,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Arrest","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"arrested the complainant for public intoxication when the complainant was in fact inside a residence and not a “public place.”","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On March 14, 2015, a police officer arrested the complainant for public intoxication when the complainant was in fact inside a residence and not a “public place.”","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":282,"file":"2015-12140","agency":"Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police Service","year":2016,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"the police officer used unnecessary force on the complainant to effect the arrest when other options could have been utilized","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On March 14, 2015, the police officer used unnecessary force on the complainant to effect the arrest when other options could have been utilized.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":283,"file":"2019-15995","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Driving Offences","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"Operating a motor vehicle over 40 km/hr above the posted speed limit.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request by the Victoria Police Department, the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a member who was pulled over for excessive speeding by an Integrated Road Safety Unit (IRSU) officer. Operating a motor vehicle over 40 km/hr above the posted speed limit. This matter proceeded directly to a discipline proceeding where the member denied committing misconduct. At this proceeding, the Discipline Authority noted that the community reasonably expects that police officers will refrain from speeding excessively while they are off-duty, given the inherent risks of the behaviour and the fact that police officers are expected to enforce this law as part of their duties. In deciding the appropriate discipline, the Discipline Authority considered the conduct to be serious, noted that the member’s record contained prior substantiated allegations of misconduct and found that the member had not accepted responsibility. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":284,"file":"2015-11276","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Arrest","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"It was later determined that the officer did not have the requisite grounds to arrest the complainant for Breach of the Peace.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On May 18, 2015, a police officer detained the complainant as a suspect in a break and enter. Eventually, it was determined that the complainant was not in fact the suspect police were looking for and the complainant was released. The police officer then arrested the complainant for Breach of the Peace. It was later determined that the officer did not have the requisite grounds to arrest the complainant for Breach of the Peace. 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. The Police Complaint Commissioner disagreed with the Discipline Authority’s findings and on October 5, 2016, appointed retired Provincial Court Judge Carole Lazar to review the evidence pursuant to section 117 of the Police Act. On October 16, 2016, Ms. 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. An officer with the Delta Police Department was appointed to sit as an external prehearing conference authority. A prehearing conference was offered to the police officer and the above discipline was agreed upon. *The suspensions were to be served consecutively. The training consisted of materials related to Breach of the Peace arrests with respect to the Criminal Code of Canada and departmental policy. This included the limitations on where a person can be transported after they have been arrested for Breach of the Peace. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":285,"file":"2015-11276","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"directed that the complainant be transported to North Vancouver, which was both against departmental policy and an inconvenience to the complainant","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The complainant also reported that upon release from custody, the police officer directed that the complainant be transported to North Vancouver, which was both against departmental policy and an inconvenience to the complainant. 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. The Police Complaint Commissioner disagreed with the Discipline Authority’s findings and on October 5, 2016, appointed retired Provincial Court Judge Carole Lazar to review the evidence pursuant to section 117 of the Police Act. On October 16, 2016, Ms. 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. An officer with the Delta Police Department was appointed to sit as an external prehearing conference authority. A prehearing conference was offered to the police officer and the above discipline was agreed upon. *The suspensions were to be served consecutively. The training consisted of materials related to Breach of the Peace arrests with respect to the Criminal Code of Canada and departmental policy. This included the limitations on where a person can be transported after they have been arrested for Breach of the Peace. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":286,"file":"2018-14341","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Improvised Weapon","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"used his police vehicle to physically contact the affected person’s bicycle while he was riding it. The affected person fell and sustained minor scrapes and bruises.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On July 7, 2017, a police officer used his police vehicle to physically contact the affected person’s bicycle while he was riding it. The affected person fell and sustained minor scrapes and bruises.","measures":["counselling"]},{"id":287,"file":"2018-14341","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Damage to Property of Others","sublabel":"Damages Property Belonging to Member of the Public","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.62,"thin":false,"quote":"The affected person’s bicycle sustained damage which was subsequently repaired.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The affected person’s bicycle sustained damage which was subsequently repaired.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":288,"file":"2018-14341","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discourtesy","sublabel":"Discourteous - Verbal","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"the police officer spoke to the affected person in a discourteous manner","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"During the interaction on July 7, 2017, the police officer spoke to the affected person in a discourteous manner. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. 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. The Prehearing Conference Authority was of the opinion that the use of the police vehicle was serious misconduct. Based on what appeared to be an emotional reaction, the police officer drove recklessly after the affected person, causing oncoming vehicles to take evasive action. A sharp and sudden turn into the path of the affected person was also reckless and resulted in the affected person’s bicycle striking the driver's side of the police vehicle. The potential Motor Vehicle Act offence of not wearing a helmet, and the subsequent offence of Obstructing a Peace Officer, did not warrant the disproportionate response of the police officer. The police officer took, and accepted, full responsibility for his actions. Through the investigation, it was identified by the Discipline Authority that the police department does not provide ongoing refresher training for Emergency Vehicle Operations. Although the police officer fully accepted responsibility for his actions, the Discipline Authority referenced that re-visiting Emergency Vehicle Operations with all police officers would be a worthwhile consideration. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":289,"file":"2022-21665","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Provide Charter Rights","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to advise the complainant of their right to counsel and refused to allow the complainant to access counsel without delay","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns regarding a Victoria Police Department member failing to grant access for the complainant to contact a lawyer while in jail. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The member failed to advise the complainant of their right to counsel and refused to allow the complainant to access counsel without delay. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member did not commit misconduct. The Commissioner disagreed as he was of the view that the Discipline Authority did not properly assess the available objective evidence. Upon review of the matter, the Commissioner determined that there was a reasonable basis to believe that the decision of the Discipline Authority was incorrect and appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge James Threlfall to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Mr. Threlfall determined that that the evidence appeared to substantiate the allegation of misconduct in relation to denying the complainant access to counsel. Disciplinary Process No prehearing conference was offered to the member and as a result, the matter proceeded directly to a discipline proceeding with retired judge Mr. Threlfall as the Discipline Authority. Mr. Threlfall substantiated the allegation of Neglect of Duty. Mr. Threlfall found that the member was well-aware of the responsibility to provide Charter rights with respect to access to counsel and that the objective evidence did not show the complainant was potentially violent, too intoxicated to communicate with counsel, or that there were any other reasons for the member to deny the complainant’s right to access to counsel. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measure, Mr. Threlfall noted that while the member had accepted responsibility somewhat late in the day, the misconduct was properly characterized as a one-off error in judgement in an otherwise stellar career. Neither the member nor the complainant requested a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":290,"file":"2011-7038","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to report that his dog had bitten an off-duty colleague at an after shift party","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer failed to comply with policy relating to dog bites when he failed to report that his dog had bitten an off-duty colleague at an after shift party.","measures":["training","advice future conduct"]},{"id":291,"file":"2011-6507","agency":"Port Moody Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Contravening a Provision of the Act, Regulation, Rule or Guideline","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The member had his firearm in his holster while dealing with a prisoner in the cell block, against departmental policy and procedure.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member had his firearm in his holster while dealing with a prisoner in the cell block, against departmental policy and procedure.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":292,"file":"2020-17399","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"posted file related photos on an Instagram account and webpage","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Commissioner initiated an investigation after learning that a Saanich Police Officer was running a web-based business as secondary employment and was using Saanich Police property. Specifically, it was noted that this member was operating a website and a social media account which included images from police investigations. Violating Saanich Police policy regarding outside employment and use of social media. This Discipline Authority found that the member violated departmental policy and posted file related photos on an Instagram account and webpage. The Discipline Authority determined that the member had created and posted the content for educational purposes and was not done in an attempt to sensationalize the content or for profit. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures considering that the member had accepted responsibility.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":293,"file":"2018-15550","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"spread rumours directed at another officer and was verbally derogatory towards civilian members and other officers of the department contrary to departmental policy","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An internal investigation was initiated into the conduct of a Saanich Police Department member for Neglect of Duty. It was alleged that the member displayed negative behaviours towards others including speaking ill behind people's backs, ignoring colleagues, unduly criticizing others for errors, and making sarcastic comments. The member spread rumours directed at another officer and was verbally derogatory towards civilian members and other officers of the department contrary to departmental policy.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":294,"file":"2012-7905","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2013,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Disorderly Conduct Prejudicial to the Maintenance of Discipline in the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"arrested the off-duty officer for being in a state of intoxication in a public place","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An off-duty police officer was involved in a fight. Police attended and subsequently arrested the off-duty officer for being in a state of intoxication in a public place.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":295,"file":"2012-7905","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2013,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Disorderly Conduct Prejudicial to the Maintenance of Discipline in the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"While being held in cells, the off-duty police officer assaulted one of the arresting officers.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"While being held in cells, the off-duty police officer assaulted one of the arresting officers.","measures":["reduction in rank"]},{"id":296,"file":"2013-9131","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to conduct a theft investigation in a timely manner","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The department conducted a review of an officer’s investigations and found one investigation to be lacking and two others to have not been completed in a timely manner. The police officer failed to conduct a theft investigation in a timely manner.","measures":["verbal reprimand","close supervision"]},{"id":297,"file":"2013-9131","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"neglected to comply with department policy regarding exhibit handling","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The department conducted a review of an officer’s investigations and found one investigation to be lacking and two others to have not been completed in a timely manner. The police officer neglected to comply with department policy regarding exhibit handling.","measures":["verbal reprimand","close supervision"]},{"id":298,"file":"2013-9131","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer neglected to locate a possible spousal assault victim in a prompt manner.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The department conducted a review of an officer’s investigations and found one investigation to be lacking and two others to have not been completed in a timely manner. The police officer neglected to locate a possible spousal assault victim in a prompt manner.","measures":["written reprimand","close supervision"]},{"id":299,"file":"2018-15667","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"left two issued pistols and two magazines with ammunition in an unlocked drawer of a filing cabinet used as part of his workstation","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Saanich Police reported that a member left two issued pistols and two magazines with ammunition in an unlocked drawer of a filing cabinet used as part of his workstation. During an office reorganization, the unsecured items were discovered and moved to a locked cabinet by a civilian employee. Failing to promptly and diligently secure and store his service firearms in his assigned firearms locker. A prehearing conference was offered to the member where the member accepted responsibility and also took the initiative to review Saanich Police Department’s policy regarding firearms. In addition, it was noted that no injuries occurred a result of this improper storage. The OPCC approved the proposed discipline.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":300,"file":"2013-8548","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"Police attempted to stop the male and a brief struggle ensued wherein the male was taken to the ground. The male sustained a bloody nose and a bump to the left side of his forehead.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police department reported this matter to the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner as a Reportable Injury subject to section 89 of the Police Act. The circumstances of the event were that a male subject left a restaurant without paying his bill. Police attempted to stop the male and a brief struggle ensued wherein the male was taken to the ground. The male sustained a bloody nose and a bump to the left side of his forehead. Members of the public who witnessed the event subsequently filed registered complaints. These complaints were deemed to be admissible. At the end of the investigation, the Police Complaint Commissioner identified investigative avenues that had not been explored, rejected the Final Investigation Report, and ordered further investigation be conducted by an outside agency. The Commissioner also designated an external discipline authority. Upon completion of the further investigation, the external discipline authority determined that one count of Abuse of Authority had been substantiated and the officer was offered a prehearing conference wherein an agreement was reached with respect to the appropriate disciplinary/corrective measures in the circumstances.","measures":["verbal reprimand","training"]},{"id":301,"file":"2022-22635","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member neglected to respond to a witness report of discovered human remains.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Nelson Police Department (NPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of an NPD member. It was reported that the member failed to respond to a report of discovered human remains. Consequently, the human remains were not located promptly. It was also determined that the human remains were that of a person who was previously reported missing to NPD. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and directed the Abbotsford Police Department to conduct the investigation. The sister of the deceased person in this matter filed a complaint and was added to the record and recognized as a complainant to the investigation. The member neglected to respond to a witness report of discovered human remains. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that it is expected that a police officer would investigate the death of a person without delay based on the value put on life and because the remains and surrounding area could contain evidence as to the cause of death and/or any element of criminality. The Prehearing Conference Authority also noted that the member had fully accepted responsibility for their actions, was remorseful, had no prior substantiated misconduct on their Service Record of Discipline, and had proactively undertaken and become a qualified facilitator for Fair and Impartial Policing training. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":302,"file":"2021-20376","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The member violated departmental Workplace Harassment Policy by making inappropriate comments regarding a co-worker and then posting a sign to the same effect on a workstation.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The department initiated an internal discipline investigation into the conduct of a Nelson Police Department (NPD) member. It was alleged that the member made a number of derogatory comments and engaged in behaviour that was offensive. The member violated departmental Workplace Harassment Policy by making inappropriate comments regarding a co-worker and then posting a sign to the same effect on a workstation.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":303,"file":"2016-12143","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to stop at a red light and caused a collision with a cyclist","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On January 21, 2016, a police officer failed to stop at a red light and caused a collision with a cyclist. The collision caused injury to the cyclist consisting of a cut above their right eye that required sutures, chipped teeth and bruised legs.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":304,"file":"2020-17935","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Misappropriation of Property or Money Received in Course of Duty","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"he seized drugs and lotto tickets and self-administered the drugs","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. It was revealed that while the member was on duty, in uniform and driving a marked police vehicle, he took drugs off a member of the public and cleared the call with no documentation of the seizure. On the same shift the member attended another police incident where he seized the belongings of another member of the public. It was determined that he seized drugs and lotto tickets and self-administered the drugs. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings in which the member pled guilty to the criminal charges of Theft Under $5,000 for Theft of one ‘flap’ of Fentanyl, Breach of Trust by using his authority to commit theft of Fentanyl (without any documentation or adherence to VPD Policy), Possession of a Schedule I substance for possessing the ‘flap’ of Fentanyl, Theft Under $5,000 for theft of three lottery tickets, Breach of Trust by using his position of authority to commit the theft of the lottery tickets (without any documentation or adherence to VPD policy), and Theft under $5,000 in connection to Canadian currency that was stolen during an integrity test. The member received a probationary sentence of three years with conditions. During the investigation, the member was dismissed in relation to a separate matter under the Police Act. The theft of Fentanyl from a member of the public.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":305,"file":"2020-17935","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Misappropriation of Property or Money Received in Course of Duty","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"Theft Under $5,000 for theft of three lottery tickets, Breach of Trust by using his position of authority to commit the theft of the lottery tickets (without any documentation or adherence to VPD policy)","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. It was revealed that while the member was on duty, in uniform and driving a marked police vehicle, he took drugs off a member of the public and cleared the call with no documentation of the seizure. On the same shift the member attended another police incident where he seized the belongings of another member of the public. It was determined that he seized drugs and lotto tickets and self-administered the drugs. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings in which the member pled guilty to the criminal charges of Theft Under $5,000 for Theft of one ‘flap’ of Fentanyl, Breach of Trust by using his authority to commit theft of Fentanyl (without any documentation or adherence to VPD Policy), Possession of a Schedule I substance for possessing the ‘flap’ of Fentanyl, Theft Under $5,000 for theft of three lottery tickets, Breach of Trust by using his position of authority to commit the theft of the lottery tickets (without any documentation or adherence to VPD policy), and Theft under $5,000 in connection to Canadian currency that was stolen during an integrity test. The member received a probationary sentence of three years with conditions. During the investigation, the member was dismissed in relation to a separate matter under the Police Act. The theft of three lotto tickets from a member of the public.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":306,"file":"2020-17935","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"he seized drugs and lotto tickets and self-administered the drugs","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. It was revealed that while the member was on duty, in uniform and driving a marked police vehicle, he took drugs off a member of the public and cleared the call with no documentation of the seizure. On the same shift the member attended another police incident where he seized the belongings of another member of the public. It was determined that he seized drugs and lotto tickets and self-administered the drugs. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings in which the member pled guilty to the criminal charges of Theft Under $5,000 for Theft of one ‘flap’ of Fentanyl, Breach of Trust by using his authority to commit theft of Fentanyl (without any documentation or adherence to VPD Policy), Possession of a Schedule I substance for possessing the ‘flap’ of Fentanyl, Theft Under $5,000 for theft of three lottery tickets, Breach of Trust by using his position of authority to commit the theft of the lottery tickets (without any documentation or adherence to VPD policy), and Theft under $5,000 in connection to Canadian currency that was stolen during an integrity test. The member received a probationary sentence of three years with conditions. During the investigation, the member was dismissed in relation to a separate matter under the Police Act. The theft of Fentanyl resulting in the member’s inability/failure to uphold the VPD's Code of Ethics and discharge their duties as a sworn municipal police officer in a just, impartial, and reasonable manner.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":307,"file":"2020-17935","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"he seized drugs and lotto tickets and self-administered the drugs","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. It was revealed that while the member was on duty, in uniform and driving a marked police vehicle, he took drugs off a member of the public and cleared the call with no documentation of the seizure. On the same shift the member attended another police incident where he seized the belongings of another member of the public. It was determined that he seized drugs and lotto tickets and self-administered the drugs. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings in which the member pled guilty to the criminal charges of Theft Under $5,000 for Theft of one ‘flap’ of Fentanyl, Breach of Trust by using his authority to commit theft of Fentanyl (without any documentation or adherence to VPD Policy), Possession of a Schedule I substance for possessing the ‘flap’ of Fentanyl, Theft Under $5,000 for theft of three lottery tickets, Breach of Trust by using his position of authority to commit the theft of the lottery tickets (without any documentation or adherence to VPD policy), and Theft under $5,000 in connection to Canadian currency that was stolen during an integrity test. The member received a probationary sentence of three years with conditions. During the investigation, the member was dismissed in relation to a separate matter under the Police Act. The theft of three lotto tickets resulting in the member’s inability/failure to uphold the VPD's Code of Ethics and discharge their duties as a sworn municipal police officer in a just, impartial, and reasonable manner.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":308,"file":"2020-17935","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to investigate and/or return found property to the lawful owner, which included: a wallet, $402.00 Canadian currency, identification, a $60.00 gift card, inert OxyContin pills and other miscellaneous items","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. It was revealed that while the member was on duty, in uniform and driving a marked police vehicle, he took drugs off a member of the public and cleared the call with no documentation of the seizure. On the same shift the member attended another police incident where he seized the belongings of another member of the public. It was determined that he seized drugs and lotto tickets and self-administered the drugs. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings in which the member pled guilty to the criminal charges of Theft Under $5,000 for Theft of one ‘flap’ of Fentanyl, Breach of Trust by using his authority to commit theft of Fentanyl (without any documentation or adherence to VPD Policy), Possession of a Schedule I substance for possessing the ‘flap’ of Fentanyl, Theft Under $5,000 for theft of three lottery tickets, Breach of Trust by using his position of authority to commit the theft of the lottery tickets (without any documentation or adherence to VPD policy), and Theft under $5,000 in connection to Canadian currency that was stolen during an integrity test. The member received a probationary sentence of three years with conditions. During the investigation, the member was dismissed in relation to a separate matter under the Police Act. The member failed to investigate and/or return found property to the lawful owner, which included: a wallet, $402.00 Canadian currency, identification, a $60.00 gift card, inert OxyContin pills and other miscellaneous items.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":309,"file":"2020-17935","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"he seized drugs and lotto tickets and self-administered the drugs","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. It was revealed that while the member was on duty, in uniform and driving a marked police vehicle, he took drugs off a member of the public and cleared the call with no documentation of the seizure. On the same shift the member attended another police incident where he seized the belongings of another member of the public. It was determined that he seized drugs and lotto tickets and self-administered the drugs. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings in which the member pled guilty to the criminal charges of Theft Under $5,000 for Theft of one ‘flap’ of Fentanyl, Breach of Trust by using his authority to commit theft of Fentanyl (without any documentation or adherence to VPD Policy), Possession of a Schedule I substance for possessing the ‘flap’ of Fentanyl, Theft Under $5,000 for theft of three lottery tickets, Breach of Trust by using his position of authority to commit the theft of the lottery tickets (without any documentation or adherence to VPD policy), and Theft under $5,000 in connection to Canadian currency that was stolen during an integrity test. The member received a probationary sentence of three years with conditions. During the investigation, the member was dismissed in relation to a separate matter under the Police Act. The member’s use of illicit drugs while on duty.","measures":["reduction in rank","suspension","counselling","close supervision"]},{"id":310,"file":"2020-17935","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"he seized drugs and lotto tickets and self-administered the drugs","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. It was revealed that while the member was on duty, in uniform and driving a marked police vehicle, he took drugs off a member of the public and cleared the call with no documentation of the seizure. On the same shift the member attended another police incident where he seized the belongings of another member of the public. It was determined that he seized drugs and lotto tickets and self-administered the drugs. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings in which the member pled guilty to the criminal charges of Theft Under $5,000 for Theft of one ‘flap’ of Fentanyl, Breach of Trust by using his authority to commit theft of Fentanyl (without any documentation or adherence to VPD Policy), Possession of a Schedule I substance for possessing the ‘flap’ of Fentanyl, Theft Under $5,000 for theft of three lottery tickets, Breach of Trust by using his position of authority to commit the theft of the lottery tickets (without any documentation or adherence to VPD policy), and Theft under $5,000 in connection to Canadian currency that was stolen during an integrity test. The member received a probationary sentence of three years with conditions. During the investigation, the member was dismissed in relation to a separate matter under the Police Act. Possession of a Schedule I substance as defined by the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.","measures":["reduction in rank","suspension","counselling","close supervision"]},{"id":311,"file":"2020-17935","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Public Trust Offence","sublabel":"Discredit Reputation of Department (Conviction)","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"Breach of Trust by using his authority to commit theft of Fentanyl (without any documentation or adherence to VPD Policy)","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. It was revealed that while the member was on duty, in uniform and driving a marked police vehicle, he took drugs off a member of the public and cleared the call with no documentation of the seizure. On the same shift the member attended another police incident where he seized the belongings of another member of the public. It was determined that he seized drugs and lotto tickets and self-administered the drugs. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings in which the member pled guilty to the criminal charges of Theft Under $5,000 for Theft of one ‘flap’ of Fentanyl, Breach of Trust by using his authority to commit theft of Fentanyl (without any documentation or adherence to VPD Policy), Possession of a Schedule I substance for possessing the ‘flap’ of Fentanyl, Theft Under $5,000 for theft of three lottery tickets, Breach of Trust by using his position of authority to commit the theft of the lottery tickets (without any documentation or adherence to VPD policy), and Theft under $5,000 in connection to Canadian currency that was stolen during an integrity test. The member received a probationary sentence of three years with conditions. During the investigation, the member was dismissed in relation to a separate matter under the Police Act. The member’s guilty plea and conviction pertaining to two counts of Theft Under $5,000, contrary to section 334(b) of the Criminal Code; two counts of Breach of Trust contrary to section 122 of the Criminal Code ; and one count of Unlawfully Possessing a Controlled Substance contrary to section 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the former member committed eight counts of misconduct. No prehearing conference was offered to the former member and as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding without the former member’s participation. 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.” The Discipline Authority further noted that the former member’s conduct engaged substantial medical intervention and spawned a complex and costly police investigation. The former member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":312,"file":"2010-5736","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member then pursued a sexual relationship and proceeded to have sex with the Complainant's fiancée while on duty and in uniform","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The member \"pursued a sexual relationship and proceeded to have sex with the Complainant's fianc\\","text":"While attending a domestic dispute call, the member told the complainant's fiancée that he would like to take her for dinner. The member then pursued a sexual relationship and proceeded to have sex with the Complainant's fiancée while on duty and in uniform at the Complainant's residence and at a secure police facility.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":313,"file":"2010-5736","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.95,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":314,"file":"2010-5736","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.9,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["reduction in rank"]},{"id":315,"file":"2010-5736","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.95,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":316,"file":"2010-5736","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.95,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":317,"file":"2010-5736","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Equipment","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.95,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":318,"file":"2015-10503","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2016,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Disorderly Conduct Prejudicial to the Maintenance of Discipline in the Department","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.55,"thin":false,"quote":"The officer was requested to turn the radio back on and responded in an inappropriate manner.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer turned off his/her police radio to complete a report. The officer was requested to turn the radio back on and responded in an inappropriate manner.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":319,"file":"2012-7970","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.5,"thin":false,"quote":"while acting in a supervisory position, acted in an inappropriate manner with female volunteers from the North Delta Community Police Station","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":false,"basis":"The text only says the officer \"acted in an inappropriate manner with female volunteers,\" specifying no sexual touching, comments, or harassment, so any sexualized element is speculative.","text":"Between January 2012 and August 2012, there were several occasions when a police officer, while acting in a supervisory position, acted in an inappropriate manner with female volunteers from the North Delta Community Police Station.","measures":["suspension","training","counselling"]},{"id":320,"file":"2012-7970","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.95,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["suspension","training","counselling"]},{"id":321,"file":"2012-7970","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.95,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above. *The suspensions were to be served consecutively.","measures":["suspension","training","counselling"]},{"id":322,"file":"2019-16855","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.62,"thin":false,"quote":"spoke to the complainant and waved, and made comments to the complainant and a friend that referenced the prior allegations. The Discipline Authority found the member’s conduct to be unnecessary, unprofessional, unwise, and ill advised.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns regarding an interaction the complainant had with members of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) where the complainant alleged police were trying to intimidate and harass them due to a previous complaint. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. Upon request by the VPD, the Commissioner directed the New Westminster Police Department to conduct the investigation and appointed a senior officer at the Delta Police Department as the Discipline Authority. The member stopped to make comments to the complainant and friend while driving by them on patrolling duty. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member did not commit misconduct. The Commissioner disagreed as he was of the view that the Discipline Authority did not properly consider the context in which the comments in question were made. 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. Mr. Pendleton determined that there were questions as to whether the member conducted themself appropriately in carrying out their duties or whether their intention was to harass and intimidate the complainant. Mr. Pendleton commented that a reasonable expectation of the community may be that a police officer will carry out their duties professionally and avoid, whenever possible, having contact with a person who has made a formal misconduct complaint against that officer. 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. Accordingly, Mr. Pendleton determined that the allegation of misconduct appeared to be substantiated and offered a pre-hearing conference to the member. Disciplinary Process The member declined the offer of a pre-hearing conference. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding with retired judge Pendleton as the Discipline Authority. The Discipline Authority was not persuaded that the evidence proved that member threatened or harassed the complainant. However, the Discipline Authority found that the evidence proved that the member recognized the complainant as someone who had filed a complaint against the member. Despite this, the member had a brief encounter with the complainant as the member drove by, spoke to the complainant and waved, and made comments to the complainant and a friend that referenced the prior allegations. The Discipline Authority found the member’s conduct to be unnecessary, unprofessional, unwise, and ill advised. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand","advice future conduct"]},{"id":323,"file":"2019-16727","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"Being involved in outside employment and/or business opportunities while being on a leave of absence from the NWPD for medical reasons.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the New Westminster Police Department (NWPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of an NWPD member who was actively working in outside employment while also being on a leave of absence due to medical reasons contrary to departmental policy and the department’s collective agreement. The member resigned from the NWPD prior to the conclusion of the investigation. The member did not attend the proceedings which commenced in his absence. Being involved in outside employment and/or business opportunities while being on a leave of absence from the NWPD for medical reasons.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":324,"file":"2019-16727","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"actively working in outside employment while also being on a leave of absence due to medical reasons contrary to departmental policy and the department’s collective agreement","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the New Westminster Police Department (NWPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of an NWPD member who was actively working in outside employment while also being on a leave of absence due to medical reasons contrary to departmental policy and the department’s collective agreement. The member resigned from the NWPD prior to the conclusion of the investigation. The member did not attend the proceedings which commenced in his absence. Failing to adhere to departmental policy concerning income earning activities. At the conclusion of the investigation the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed two counts of misconduct. The member was offered a prehearing conference in relation to this matter, but due to the member’s resignation and non-participation in the process, the matter proceeded directly to a discipline proceeding. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":325,"file":"2019-16571","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.82,"thin":false,"quote":"The member made unwanted advances and inappropriate communications toward another member.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The text states the member made \"unwanted advances and inappropriate communications toward a female member,\" repetitive and unwanted conduct constituting gendered sexual harassment by the officer himself.","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department, the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a member for unwanted advances and inappropriate communications toward a female member. The member made unwanted advances and inappropriate communications toward another member. 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. In imposing disciplinary or corrective measures, the DA noted that the evidence did not support that the member acted with malice or intent to harm in relation to the actions. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed the findings and determined that further review was not required and that further review was not in the public interest.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":326,"file":"2013-8554","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"drove his police vehicle in a manner contrary to the provisions of the Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulation and section 122 of the Motor Vehicle Act","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer drove his police vehicle in a manner contrary to the provisions of the Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulation and section 122 of the Motor Vehicle Act.","measures":["advice future conduct","program activity"]},{"id":327,"file":"2010-5247","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to adhere to normal accepted canine training practice that resulted in injury to the complainant","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member failed to adhere to normal accepted canine training practice that resulted in injury to the complainant.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":328,"file":"2017-13143","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"the off-duty officer was found to be intoxicated in public to the point where it was determined there were grounds for an arrest for Causing a Disturbance","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department reported this matter to the OPCC as the off-duty police officer was the subject of a police investigation. An off-duty police officer acted in a manner that prompted a civilian to call police to report suspicious behaviour. When police attended, the off-duty officer was found to be intoxicated in public to the point where it was determined there were grounds for an arrest for Causing a Disturbance. It was subsequently decided that the off-duty police officer would be driven home and placed in the care of their partner. Ms. Baird Ellan, in her capacity as the Discipline Authority, suggested a range of discipline from advice as to future conduct up to and including transferring or reassigning the member within the municipal police department. Ms. Baird Ellan precluded dismissal, reduction in rank and suspension as available disciplinary or corrective measures. A prehearing conference was offered to the member. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed a senior officer at an external police department to act as the Prehearing Conference Authority. An agreement was reached with respect to the proposed discipline of a written reprimand for each allegation: Discreditable Conduct and Corrupt Practice. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. It was the OPCC’s view that the discipline was within the range of appropriate discipline based on the circumstances. The police officer had already admitted to drinking too much that night and arranged for counselling on their own initiative. The police officer accepted full responsibility for their actions and was apologetic both to the police officers that responded to the call and to the civilian that called the police. The intent of the Act is to consider an approach that seeks to correct and educate the police officer concerned as long as that approach does not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute. 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. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":329,"file":"2017-13143","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"the off-duty officer pulled out a small badge wallet and flipped it open to a police badge while stating they were a police officer.To find your ISBN via search enter it into an Amazon search bar with","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department reported this matter to the OPCC as the off-duty police officer was the subject of a police investigation. When police asked the subject of the complaint for their identification, the off-duty officer pulled out a small badge wallet and flipped it open to a police badge while stating they were a police officer. 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. 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. 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. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. In reviewing the investigation and considering all the relevant factors in this case, it was the OPCC’s view that the discipline was on the very low end of the range for appropriate discipline based on the circumstances. However, the police officer took responsibility for their actions at the prehearing conference and passed on their apologies to the civilian who contacted police for assistance and the police officers who attended the call. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference. 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. On November 3, 2017, Ms. 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. Ms. Baird Ellan, in her capacity as the Discipline Authority, suggested a range of discipline from advice as to future conduct up to and including transferring or reassigning the member within the municipal police department. Ms. Baird Ellan precluded dismissal, reduction in rank and suspension as available disciplinary or corrective measures. A prehearing conference was offered to the member. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed a senior officer at an external police department to act as the Prehearing Conference Authority. An agreement was reached with respect to the proposed discipline of a written reprimand for each allegation: Discreditable Conduct and Corrupt Practice. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. It was the OPCC’s view that the discipline was within the range of appropriate discipline based on the circumstances. The police officer had already admitted to drinking too much that night and arranged for counselling on their own initiative. The police officer accepted full responsibility for their actions and was apologetic both to the police officers that responded to the call and to the civilian that called the police. The intent of the Act is to consider an approach that seeks to correct and educate the police officer concerned as long as that approach does not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute. 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. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":330,"file":"2017-13143","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Using or Attempting to Use Police Authority for Personal Gain (e.g., Preferential Treatment)","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"pulled out a small badge wallet and flipped it open to a police badge while stating they were a police officer","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department reported this matter to the OPCC as the off-duty police officer was the subject of a police investigation. When police asked the subject of the complaint for their identification, the off-duty officer pulled out a small badge wallet and flipped it open to a police badge while stating they were a police officer. Ms. Baird Ellan, in her capacity as the Discipline Authority, suggested a range of discipline from advice as to future conduct up to and including transferring or reassigning the member within the municipal police department. Ms. Baird Ellan precluded dismissal, reduction in rank and suspension as available disciplinary or corrective measures. A prehearing conference was offered to the member. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed a senior officer at an external police department to act as the Prehearing Conference Authority. An agreement was reached with respect to the proposed discipline of a written reprimand for each allegation: Discreditable Conduct and Corrupt Practice. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. It was the OPCC’s view that the discipline was within the range of appropriate discipline based on the circumstances. The police officer had already admitted to drinking too much that night and arranged for counselling on their own initiative. The police officer accepted full responsibility for their actions and was apologetic both to the police officers that responded to the call and to the civilian that called the police. The intent of the Act is to consider an approach that seeks to correct and educate the police officer concerned as long as that approach does not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute. 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. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":331,"file":"2020-18532","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Immediate Roadside Prohibition/Impaired Operation of a Motor Vehicle","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"the member operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Delta Police Department (DPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a member who was reported to have been driving while impaired. According to the DPD, the RCMP responded to a civilian’s report of a suspected impaired driver who was believed to be a police officer. The RCMP spoke to the off-duty member over the phone but was unable to locate the member for further investigation of the impaired driving. Through analysis of CCTV video, witness evidence, and an expert opinion, it was determined through the Police Act investigation that the member operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. The member operated a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority considered that the member had also provided an unsolicited apology letter to the Chief Constable for their actions and that the member expressed genuine remorse. The Prehearing Conference Authority also considered that the member was well aware of the hazards associated with impaired driving and that “enforcement action related to impaired driving is a pillar of the police strategic planning to keep the public safe.” The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":332,"file":"2019-16791","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2020,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"Member A conducted up to eight unauthorized queries of individuals and Member B conducted up to nine unauthorized queries of individuals, using police databases, for reasons not associated with their work as police officers.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"It was reported that Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP) members were alleged to be working secondary employment without proper authorization in the private security field. As a result, the Commissioner initiated an investigation upon request by the MVTP (ref: OPCC 2019-15758). During that investigation, it was determined that the members used PRIME and CPIC2 for purposes other than for MVTP investigations. As a result, the Commissioner initiated a further investigation into the conduct of MVTP members for querying names of people arising from these members’ secondary employment in private security. The members resigned from the MVTP prior to the conclusion of the investigation. Specifically, that Member A conducted up to eight unauthorized queries of individuals and Member B conducted up to nine unauthorized queries of individuals, using police databases, for reasons not associated with their work as police officers. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the members committed one count of Corrupt Practice. No prehearing conference was offered to the members and as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The members did not attend the proceedings which commenced in their absence. The Discipline Authority dismissed the members for their conduct, characterizing the conduct as serious because the members used police databases to further their own personal business venture and stood to benefit from the unauthorized use of police databases and the information retrieved. The members did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. Although the members resigned prior to the completion of this matter, their service record of discipline will note that they were dismissed from the MVTP.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":333,"file":"2022-22601","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member unnecessarily kicked the complainant.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns regarding a member of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) said to have used excessive force and kicked the complainant in a jail cell. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The member unnecessarily kicked the complainant. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member accepted responsibility for the misconduct and had no prior substantiated misconduct on their Service Record of Discipline. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":334,"file":"2014-9331","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"disclosed to his supervisor that he accessed the PRIME database for personal reasons","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer disclosed to his supervisor that he accessed the PRIME database for personal reasons.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":335,"file":"2016-12356","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Improper Disclosure of Information","sublabel":"Disclosing Information Acquired as a Police Officer","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"disclosed an internal police document to Family Court as part of a dispute with their partner","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer disclosed an internal police document to Family Court as part of a dispute with their partner.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":336,"file":"2021-19804","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to activate their emergency lights and siren while operating an emergency vehicle under the provisions of s. 122 of the Motor Vehicle Act","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC ordered an investigation after reviewing information and injuries following a collision of a Vancouver police cruiser and a bus. It was reported that the member was responding to a high priority call when the member crossed the dividing concrete median, entered oncoming traffic and collided with a transit bus head on which resulted in extensive vehicle damage, significant injuries to the officers, and minor injuries to those on the bus. The member failed to activate their emergency lights and siren while operating an emergency vehicle under the provisions of s. 122 of the Motor Vehicle Act , the Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulation and Vancouver Police Department Regulations and Procedures Manual Police Vehicles Code 3 Procedure Policy. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":337,"file":"2018-14437","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the member neglected his duty to properly collect and record detailed information about the interaction with the complainant and other responding officers","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The complainant reported that members of the Metro Vancouver Transit Police removed him from a SkyTrain and placed him in handcuffs despite being cooperative with police and providing them with his identification. The complainant stated that one of the members took a photo of him, and reported that he was left in handcuffs for 20 minutes before being released, which he believed breached his rights. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required into the matter. Failing to make adequate notes and/or failing to properly document the incident in a General Occurrence report. The investigation determined that police were responding to a report of a male suspect who had pulled a knife on another passenger. Following the detention of the complainant, police determined that he was not the suspect they were looking for. While the detention was determined to have been reasonable in the circumstances, the Discipline Authority found that the member neglected his duty to properly collect and record detailed information about the interaction with the complainant and other responding officers. The matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the Discipline Authority highlighted the importance of proper documentation, even for interactions when a member of the public is detained for a short period of time. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["advice future conduct","close supervision"]},{"id":338,"file":"2021-19385","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member engaged in a consistent pattern of aggressive bullying and harassment of a co-worker and contravened NWPD’s Respectful Workplace policy.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The department initiated an internal discipline investigation into the conduct of a New Westminster Police Department (NWPD) member for harassment and bullying of a co-worker. According to the NWPD, the member made disparaging and derogatory comments about the co-worker, spread rumours, and created a toxic work environment for the co-worker over a prolonged period. The member engaged in a consistent pattern of aggressive bullying and harassment of a co-worker and contravened NWPD’s Respectful Workplace policy.","measures":["reduction in rank","training","close supervision","transfer reassignment","program activity"]},{"id":339,"file":"2020-18865","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Improper Disclosure of Information","sublabel":"Disclosing Information Acquired as a Police Officer","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member inappropriately disclosed information obtained through CPIC queries, in contravention of departmental policy.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Nelson Police Department (NPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a member for improperly disclosing information obtained through a police database. It was reported that a Special Municipal Constable (SMC) with the NPD queried a number of vehicle license plates on a police database in relation to a file. It appeared that the SMC inappropriately disclosed information obtained through the police database queries to a family member, who was a victim of a crime. The member inappropriately disclosed information obtained through CPIC queries, in contravention of departmental policy. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the inappropriate disclosure and breach of policy was at the low end of what would be considered as private or personal information. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":340,"file":"2011-6346","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The member failed to submit evidence he had in his possession that identified the suspect.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member failed to submit evidence he had in his possession that identified the suspect.","measures":["training","close supervision"]},{"id":341,"file":"2011-6346","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The member also failed to adequately investigate the file.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member also failed to adequately investigate the file.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":342,"file":"2015-11194","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"was involved in a minor collision with a pedestrian and failed to stop","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On October 10, 2015, a police officer was involved in a minor collision with a pedestrian and failed to stop.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":343,"file":"2015-10950","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.93,"thin":false,"quote":"attempted to use their position as a police officer to encourage the complainant to enter into a relationship and sent inappropriate sexual and pornographic texts messages to the complainant","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"Text states the officer used their position to encourage a relationship and \"sent inappropriate sexual and pornographic texts messages to the complainant,\" which is sexualized harassment by the officer.","text":"A police officer attempted to use their position as a police officer to encourage the complainant to enter into a relationship and sent inappropriate sexual and pornographic texts messages to the complainant. 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. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Wally Oppal, Q.C., retired British Columbia Court of Appeal Judge to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. 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. 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. The suspensions were to be served consecutively . The Adjudicator agreed that training for each allegation should also be imposed but the training should be much more specific to the specific misconduct committed. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":344,"file":"2015-10950","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Improper Disclosure of Information","sublabel":"Disclosing Information Acquired as a Police Officer","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer provided the complainant with a DVD of an interview the police officer had conducted with a sexual assault suspect.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer provided the complainant with a DVD of an interview the police officer had conducted with a sexual assault suspect. The interview was conducted as part of the police officer’s duties. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference where an agreement was reached with respect to the proposed discipline. After consideration of all the relevant factors in this case, the OPCC did not approve the discipline agreed to at the prehearing conference as it seemed not appropriate to the circumstances. As a result, this matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the police officer admitted both allegations. 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. The complainant and the police officer were provided with a copy of the Discipline Authority’s findings and determinations on appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures. They were informed that if they were aggrieved by either the findings of substantiation or the disciplinary/corrective measures, they could file a written request with the Police Complaint Commissioner to arrange a Public Hearing or Review on the Record. Neither party made a request. 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. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Wally Oppal, Q.C., retired British Columbia Court of Appeal Judge to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. 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. 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. The suspensions were to be served consecutively . The Adjudicator agreed that training for each allegation should also be imposed but the training should be much more specific to the specific misconduct committed. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":345,"file":"2017-13965","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Intimate Partner Violence","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member intentionally shattered the vehicle windshield while being driven by the complainant and assaulted the complainant on five occasions over several hours.<response_format_reminder>Respond with valid JSON matching the schema above. Do not include any text before or after the JSON.</response_format_reminder>”}Wait — must output valid JSON only.</thinking>{","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The text states the off-duty member \"repeatedly assault[ed] the Complainant\" in \"the context of a relationship,\" with the Commissioner citing \"the dynamics of intimate partner violence.\"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns with a member of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) while off-duty and in the context of a relationship that included a physical assault. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation into the matter. No criminal charge was approved against the member. The member intentionally shattered the vehicle windshield while being driven by the complainant and assaulted the complainant on five occasions over several hours. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The member agreed to the proposed discipline. After review, the Commissioner did not approve the disciplinary or corrective measures as they did not reflect the seriousness of the conduct. As a result, the matter proceeded to a Discipline Proceeding. The Discipline Authority (DA) found that the allegation was substantiated but only in relation to the breaking of the windshield. The DA imposed a suspension for six days and treatment. Following the outcome of a Discipline Proceeding, the Complainant requested a review of this decision. The Commissioner reviewed the outcome and determined that there was a reasonable basis to disagree with the DA as it did not appear appropriate weight was afforded to the evidence provided by the complainant and that the decision of the DA appeared to be lack in an understanding and consideration of the impact of trauma and the dynamics of intimate partner violence. The Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge, Brian Neal, K.C., to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. Mr. Neal issued his decision where he determined that the allegation was substantiated. Mr. Neal found that “the member’s ability to honestly, objectively, consistently and forthrightly observe, recollect and report on the interactions with the Complainant raise[d] serious concerns as to the reliability and credibility of his evidence.” Mr. Neal ultimately determined that the officer committed Discreditable Conduct by shattering the front windshield of the vehicle and by repeatedly assaulting the Complainant. The member was dismissed from the VPD as a result. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":346,"file":"2020-17551","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"the officer appeared to have repeatedly interrupted the complainant, and made admonishments to the complainant which reasonably could lead to one feeling that they were being blamed","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The complainant made a report to the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) that she had been the victim of a sexual assault that had taken place in 2016. Police conducted an investigation and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to recommend criminal charges. In her complaint to the OPCC, she advised that the officer assigned to investigate the sexual assault had treated her inappropriately in his communications with her and the questions that he asked. While she was concerned with the quality of the investigation, her principal concern related to the manner in which she was treated as a victim of sexual assault. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. Failing to appropriately communicate with a person reporting a sexual assault. The Discipline Authority reviewed the investigation and determined that the member did not commit any misconduct in how he communicated with the victim. Upon review of this decision and upon request from the complainant, the Commissioner determined that that there was a reasonable basis to believe that decision of the Discipline Authority was incorrect and appointed Retired Justice of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, Mr. Wally Oppal, Q.C., to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Retired Judge Oppal issued his decision where he determined that the officer appeared to have repeatedly interrupted the complainant, and made admonishments to the complainant which reasonably could lead to one feeling that they were being blamed and that Domestic Violence protocols were not being followed in these circumstances. Disciplinary Process A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that an officer’s communication with a victim of an alleged sexual assault is crucial in developing rapport and trust and that all interactions must demonstrate empathy and sensitivity towards the victim. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/","measures":["training"]},{"id":347,"file":"2020-17551","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discourtesy","sublabel":"Discourteous - Treatment","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"repeatedly interrupted the complainant, and made admonishments to the complainant which reasonably could lead to one feeling that they were being blamed","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The complainant made a report to the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) that she had been the victim of a sexual assault that had taken place in 2016. Police conducted an investigation and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to recommend criminal charges. In her complaint to the OPCC, she advised that the officer assigned to investigate the sexual assault had treated her inappropriately in his communications with her and the questions that he asked. While she was concerned with the quality of the investigation, her principal concern related to the manner in which she was treated as a victim of sexual assault. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. Repeatedly interrupting the victim of a historical sexual assault, and making statements that could draw the inference that he was blaming the victim. The Discipline Authority reviewed the investigation and determined that the member did not commit any misconduct in how he communicated with the victim. Upon review of this decision and upon request from the complainant, the Commissioner determined that that there was a reasonable basis to believe that decision of the Discipline Authority was incorrect and appointed Retired Justice of the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, Mr. Wally Oppal, Q.C., to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Retired Judge Oppal issued his decision where he determined that the officer appeared to have repeatedly interrupted the complainant, and made admonishments to the complainant which reasonably could lead to one feeling that they were being blamed and that Domestic Violence protocols were not being followed in these circumstances. Disciplinary Process A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that an officer’s communication with a victim of an alleged sexual assault is crucial in developing rapport and trust and that all interactions must demonstrate empathy and sensitivity towards the victim. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/","measures":["training"]},{"id":348,"file":"2019-16304","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"The member entered an intersection against a red light without stopping, contrary to section 122 of the Motor Vehicle Act , the Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulations and Vancouver Police Policy.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon receiving notification from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) of an injury to a member of the public during a police-involved motor vehicle collision, the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of the member involved. It was reported that a police officer was responding to an in-progress call, driving an unmarked police vehicle with emergency lights activated, but no siren. The member entered an intersection against a red light without stopping, contrary to section 122 of the Motor Vehicle Act , the Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulations and Vancouver Police Policy. The member struck a limousine which had entered the intersection. The member and two occupants of the limousine were taken to hospital with injuries. Considerable damage was caused to the police vehicle, the limousine, an adjacent property and a city utility box. Failing to comply with section 122 of the Motor Vehicle Ac t, the Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulations and the Vancouver Police Policy. This matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding as the OPCC rejected the proposed discipline at a pre-hearing conference. The member admitted the allegation at the commencement of the discipline proceeding. The member noted that he had already participated in informal re-training regarding section 122 of the Motor Vehicle Act, Emergency Driving Regulations , and VPD Policy. After considering the member’s submissions and previous discipline on similar cases, the Discipline Authority imposed a Written Reprimand. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that a further review was not in the public interest.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":349,"file":"2010-5659","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"attended a common bawdy house and paid money for sex","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer while off duty attended a common bawdy house and paid money for sex.","measures":["suspension","training","close supervision","program activity"]},{"id":350,"file":"2018-14770","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"the member used information the member obtained from the police of jurisdiction to investigate and ultimately arrest the suspect in a criminal matter in which the member was the victim","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the West Vancouver Police Department (WVPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the off duty conduct of a member. According to the WVPD, while off duty, the member called the RCMP to report a theft from their personal vehicle. The theft included police property. The member advised that two males had stolen items from their vehicle before leaving the scene. The member was able to provide the vehicle’s BC license plate. After making the initial theft report, the member came upon RCMP officers. One of the RCMP officers viewed the theft call on his Mobile Data Terminal and the member was able to view the address of the registered owner of the suspect vehicle. The member subsequently attended the address associated with the registered owner of the vehicle and self-identified as a police officer, in an effort to retrieve the missing property. The registered owner contacted the person who had borrowed the vehicle and the member arranged to meet with them to retrieve the belongings. The member met the suspect at the arranged location and subsequently placed the suspect under arrest. RCMP officers arrived and took the suspect into custody. The member involved themselves in an RCMP police investigation of theft, which could have jeopardized the subsequent prosecution and potentially put themselves and others at risk. Following the investigation, the Discipline Authority determined that the member did not commit misconduct. The Commissioner disagreed as the evidence appeared to demonstrate that the member used information the member obtained from the police of jurisdiction to investigate and ultimately arrest the suspect in a criminal matter in which the member was the victim. The member did this while the police of jurisdiction were actively investigating the incident and the actions had the potential to jeopardize the criminal investigation/prosecution. In addition, the Commissioner was of the view that the member’s conduct in relation to leaving the police notebook, magazine, and ammunition insecure in the vehicle was not a temporary oversight but rather a pattern of carelessness for an item that posed a significant risk to the public. The Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge, Mr. David Pendleton, to review this matter and arrive at his own decision on the evidence. Mr. Pendleton issued his decision where he determined that the Discreditable Conduct and Neglect of Duty allegations appeared to be substantiated. Disciplinary Process A prehearing conference was offered but was declined by the member. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where Mr. Pendleton, as the Discipline Authority, found the evidence proved that the member left the vehicle unlocked, allowing two thieves to steal sensitive police information, an access card and dangerous police equipment. He also found the member then involved themselves in an RCMP police investigation of the theft, which could have jeopardized the subsequent prosecution, and potentially put themselves and others at risk. In arriving at an appropriate disciplinary or corrective measure, Mr. Pendleton noted, in part, “It is, in my view, sufficient to provide [the member] with the advice that [the member] follow appropriate police practices and procedures which would include not investigating or take any steps as a police officer in a case where [the member] is a victim, that, when circumstances permit, [the member] consult with [the member’s] superior officers if [the member] has questions or concerns as to how to proceed and that [the member] not involve [themselves] in any police matter whether on or off duty without [the member’s] police department knowing where and what [the member] was doing.” The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":351,"file":"2018-14770","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"left their vehicle unlocked allowing two thieves to steal sensitive police information, an access card and dangerous police equipment","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the West Vancouver Police Department (WVPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the off duty conduct of a member. According to the WVPD, while off duty, the member called the RCMP to report a theft from their personal vehicle. The theft included police property. The member advised that two males had stolen items from their vehicle before leaving the scene. The member was able to provide the vehicle’s BC license plate. After making the initial theft report, the member came upon RCMP officers. One of the RCMP officers viewed the theft call on his Mobile Data Terminal and the member was able to view the address of the registered owner of the suspect vehicle. The member subsequently attended the address associated with the registered owner of the vehicle and self-identified as a police officer, in an effort to retrieve the missing property. The registered owner contacted the person who had borrowed the vehicle and the member arranged to meet with them to retrieve the belongings. The member met the suspect at the arranged location and subsequently placed the suspect under arrest. RCMP officers arrived and took the suspect into custody. The member left their vehicle unlocked allowing two thieves to steal sensitive police information, an access card and dangerous police equipment. Following the investigation, the Discipline Authority determined that the member did not commit misconduct. The Commissioner disagreed as the evidence appeared to demonstrate that the member used information the member obtained from the police of jurisdiction to investigate and ultimately arrest the suspect in a criminal matter in which the member was the victim. The member did this while the police of jurisdiction were actively investigating the incident and the actions had the potential to jeopardize the criminal investigation/prosecution. In addition, the Commissioner was of the view that the member’s conduct in relation to leaving the police notebook, magazine, and ammunition insecure in the vehicle was not a temporary oversight but rather a pattern of carelessness for an item that posed a significant risk to the public. The Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge, Mr. David Pendleton, to review this matter and arrive at his own decision on the evidence. Mr. Pendleton issued his decision where he determined that the Discreditable Conduct and Neglect of Duty allegations appeared to be substantiated. Disciplinary Process A prehearing conference was offered but was declined by the member. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where Mr. Pendleton, as the Discipline Authority, found the evidence proved that the member left the vehicle unlocked, allowing two thieves to steal sensitive police information, an access card and dangerous police equipment. He also found the member then involved themselves in an RCMP police investigation of the theft, which could have jeopardized the subsequent prosecution, and potentially put themselves and others at risk. In arriving at an appropriate disciplinary or corrective measure, Mr. Pendleton noted, in part, “It is, in my view, sufficient to provide [the member] with the advice that [the member] follow appropriate police practices and procedures which would include not investigating or take any steps as a police officer in a case where [the member] is a victim, that, when circumstances permit, [the member] consult with [the member’s] superior officers if [the member] has questions or concerns as to how to proceed and that [the member] not involve [themselves] in any police matter whether on or off duty without [the member’s] police department knowing where and what [the member] was doing.” The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":352,"file":"2019-16071","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"reviewing a police report to ascertain the location of their spouse’s motor vehicle collision","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An Abbotsford Police Department (APD) member’s spouse was involved in a minor motor vehicle collision. The member advised a Sergeant that they had viewed the relevant police report file so they could see where the collision occurred. The Sergeant advised that there was no reason to query the police report to determine the location of the collision given the member was already communicating with their spouse. Failing to comply with departmental policy by reviewing a police report to ascertain the location of their spouse’s motor vehicle collision. A pre-hearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measure considering that the member had accepted responsibility and had disclosed the conduct to her supervisor.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":353,"file":"2020-17764","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the member had made repeated and persistent racialized, disparaging, and harassing comments toward the co-worker","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Commissioner ordered an investigation after receiving information that a seconded member of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) had engaged in ongoing harassment toward a co-worker, which included mocking the co-worker about their clothing, their weight, and making discriminatory comments in relation to the co-worker’s name and ethnicity. The member’s ongoing harassment and discriminatory comments directed at a co-worker. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered to the member which the member declined. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the member denied the allegation. The Discipline Authority determined that over the course of a one-month period, the member had made repeated and persistent racialized, disparaging, and harassing comments toward the co-worker. The Discipline Authority further found that there was no evidence to suggest such comments were welcome by the co-worker, despite the member’s assertion that they were “banter” and mutual in nature. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Discipline Authority noted that, although the member had completed mandatory respectful workplace training after this incident, the member’s actions were “unprofessional, avoidable and…culpable in their nature,” had caused the co-worker mental and emotional distress, and the member had not apologized to the co-worker or fully accepted responsibility for their actions. The member requested a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed the findings and determined that further review was not in the public interest and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension","program activity"]},{"id":354,"file":"2021-20156","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"the member was alleged to have made false or misleading statements","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns with a member of the Nelson Police Department (NPD) alleging that the member intentionally locked the complainant alone in a seclusion room with a patient who had previously acted in an aggressive and hostile manner. In addition, during the Police Act investigation, the member was alleged to have made false or misleading statements. Upon request by the Nelson Police Department, the Commissioner directed the Vancouver Police Department to conduct the investigation. The member provided false or misleading statements during a Police Act investigation.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":355,"file":"2021-20156","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discourtesy","sublabel":"Discourteous - General","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.55,"thin":false,"quote":"The member locked the complainant in a seclusion room with a patient.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns with a member of the Nelson Police Department (NPD) alleging that the member intentionally locked the complainant alone in a seclusion room with a patient who had previously acted in an aggressive and hostile manner. In addition, during the Police Act investigation, the member was alleged to have made false or misleading statements. Upon request by the Nelson Police Department, the Commissioner directed the Vancouver Police Department to conduct the investigation. The member locked the complainant in a seclusion room with a patient. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed two allegations of misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered to the member; the member declined the offer and as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The Discipline Authority found that the member displayed poor judgement and placed the complainant in an uncomfortable and potentially dangerous position. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority noted that the member continued to provide a false narrative during the Police Act investigation and did not take responsibility for their actions. Neither the member nor the complainant requested a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":356,"file":"2010-5709","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Oppressive Conduct","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.5,"thin":false,"quote":"issued a Violation Ticket without grounds to believe the offence had been committed","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer had issued a Violation Ticket without grounds to believe the offence had been committed.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":357,"file":"2018-15584","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"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","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"RCMP responded to a call regarding the off-duty conduct of a West Vancouver Police Department (WVPD) member. During their investigation into the incident, it was reported that the off-duty member was highly intoxicated, was defiant with the investigating officer and refused to provide his identity. 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.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":358,"file":"2018-15584","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"For being highly intoxicated while wearing a West Vancouver Police ceremonial uniform.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"RCMP responded to a call regarding the off-duty conduct of a West Vancouver Police Department (WVPD) member. During their investigation into the incident, it was reported that the off-duty member was highly intoxicated, was defiant with the investigating officer and refused to provide his identity. For being highly intoxicated while wearing a West Vancouver Police ceremonial uniform. A prehearing conference was offered to the member where the member accepted responsibility for his actions. The Discipline Authority noted that although the officer was imbibing amongst other police and fire officers in ceremonial uniform, he was amongst the public and the standards expected of police officers by the public are higher. The OPCC reviewed and approved the disciplinary outcome.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":359,"file":"2020-17311","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"Breach of Saanich Police Department's policy for failing to care for and properly secure Saanich Police Department property.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Saanich Police Department reported that an unencrypted, password-protected USB drive containing information related to a major crime investigation was missing. The member had the USB drive in a backpack which was stolen from his department vehicle. The theft occurred while he was on a personal trip to Seattle. The member was authorized to take the vehicle to Seattle and was also authorized to have the materials outside of his place of employment for work at home purposes. The theft was reported to the Seattle Police at the time but the officer did not realize the USB drive was missing until much later when he reported it to the Chief Constable. The OPCC determined that there were no public trust issues and that no complaint has been received by the OPCC. An internal investigation was initiated as a result. Breach of Saanich Police Department's policy for failing to care for and properly secure Saanich Police Department property.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":360,"file":"2012-7747","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"conducted unauthorized searches utilizing police databases for purposes unrelated to his duties as a police officer","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer conducted unauthorized searches utilizing police databases for purposes unrelated to his duties as a police officer.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":361,"file":"2012-7747","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.55,"thin":false,"quote":"maintained a personal relationship with an individual that he knew was an associate of individuals involved in criminal activity","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"This same officer maintained a personal relationship with an individual that he knew was an associate of individuals involved in criminal activity.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":362,"file":"2012-7747","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"used the services of a prostitute.\"}","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"This same officer, while on duty and off duty, used the services of a prostitute.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":363,"file":"2023-23831","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Entry","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"intentionally or recklessly entered a residence without good and sufficient cause","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns regarding a member of the Nelson Police Department (NPD) entering a residence without a warrant. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation was required into the matter. The member, while in the performance of duties, intentionally or recklessly entered a residence without good and sufficient cause. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted the member accepted responsibility for their actions, expressed remorse, had no prior Service Record of Discipline, and proactively undertook additional training related to police search and seizure following this incident. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":364,"file":"2018-15625","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The RCMP Corporal read the demand for a breath sample to the VPD member and obtained a reading of “Fail”.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that a Surrey RCMP Corporal responded to a motor vehicle collision at an intersection in Surrey. Upon his arrival, the Corporal determined that one of the three vehicles involved in the collision was operated by an off-duty VPD member and was registered to the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit (CFSEU). The RCMP Corporal spoke with the VPD member and noticed an odour of liquor on his breath. The RCMP Corporal read the demand for a breath sample to the VPD member and obtained a reading of “Fail”. An offer to provide a second breath sample was given to the member who provided four additional breath samples; however, none were sufficiently suitable for an analysis to be made. The respondent member was issued a 90-day Immediate Roadside Suspension (IRP) and the police vehicle was towed back to the RCMP office. The information from the VPD also indicated that the member attempted to use his position as a police officer to obtain preferential treatment from RCMP investigators, and was uncooperative and difficult with RCMP investigators. Operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":365,"file":"2018-15625","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"seeking to use his position to gain influence over the attending RCMP members","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that a Surrey RCMP Corporal responded to a motor vehicle collision at an intersection in Surrey. Upon his arrival, the Corporal determined that one of the three vehicles involved in the collision was operated by an off-duty VPD member and was registered to the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit (CFSEU). The RCMP Corporal spoke with the VPD member and noticed an odour of liquor on his breath. The RCMP Corporal read the demand for a breath sample to the VPD member and obtained a reading of “Fail”. An offer to provide a second breath sample was given to the member who provided four additional breath samples; however, none were sufficiently suitable for an analysis to be made. The respondent member was issued a 90-day Immediate Roadside Suspension (IRP) and the police vehicle was towed back to the RCMP office. The information from the VPD also indicated that the member attempted to use his position as a police officer to obtain preferential treatment from RCMP investigators, and was uncooperative and difficult with RCMP investigators. For being rude, uncooperative and seeking to use his position to gain influence over the attending RCMP members.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":366,"file":"2018-15625","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Using or Attempting to Use Police Authority for Personal Gain (e.g., Preferential Treatment)","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"the member attempted to use his position as a police officer to obtain preferential treatment from RCMP investigators, and was uncooperative and difficult with RCMP investigators.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that a Surrey RCMP Corporal responded to a motor vehicle collision at an intersection in Surrey. Upon his arrival, the Corporal determined that one of the three vehicles involved in the collision was operated by an off-duty VPD member and was registered to the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit (CFSEU). The RCMP Corporal spoke with the VPD member and noticed an odour of liquor on his breath. The RCMP Corporal read the demand for a breath sample to the VPD member and obtained a reading of “Fail”. An offer to provide a second breath sample was given to the member who provided four additional breath samples; however, none were sufficiently suitable for an analysis to be made. The respondent member was issued a 90-day Immediate Roadside Suspension (IRP) and the police vehicle was towed back to the RCMP office. The information from the VPD also indicated that the member attempted to use his position as a police officer to obtain preferential treatment from RCMP investigators, and was uncooperative and difficult with RCMP investigators. Using his position to receive preferential treatment. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. Upon review of the disciplinary/corrective measure proposed, the OPCC determined that the discipline did not reflect the seriousness of the conduct by the member. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. 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. 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. The Discipline Authority did not alter the discipline that was accepted by the member at the prehearing conference. Upon review of the outcome of the discipline proceeding and the additional rationale provided by the Discipline Authority, the Police Complaint Commissioner determined that the disciplinary measures proposed were appropriate under the circumstances. The Commissioner determined that a Public Hearing or Review on the Record was not necessary in the public interest.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":367,"file":"2013-8361","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.55,"thin":true,"quote":"A police officer sent an inappropriate email to other police officers.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer sent an inappropriate email to other police officers.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":368,"file":"2019-16853","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Discourtesy","sublabel":"Discourteous - Verbal","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"get away from me, take your shitty phone and go over there","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns regarding an interaction with a member of the Vancouver Police Department and a member of the public. The member of the public was filming members while they were conducting a stolen property investigation in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver. It was alleged that the member stated “get away from me, take your shitty phone and go over there” during the interaction. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The Commissioner also determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the New Westminster Police Department to conduct the investigation and Chief Constable Neil Dubord of the Delta Police Department was designated as the Discipline Authority. The member used a profanity towards a member of the public. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member did not commit misconduct. The Commissioner disagreed as he was of the view that the Discipline Authority failed to properly assess the available evidence. Upon review of the matter, the Commissioner determined there was a reasonable basis to disagree with the Discipline Authority. As a result, the Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge Carol Baird Ellan, K.C. to review the matter and arrive at her own decision based on the evidence. Ms. Baird Ellan determined the member appeared to have committed misconduct during the incident. Disciplinary Process A prehearing conference was offered to the member which the member declined. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding with retired judge Ms. Baird Ellan as the Discipline Authority. Ms. Baird Ellan found the available video and other evidence demonstrated that the response was not an inadvertent slip but rather was said in exasperation or irritation. Ms. Baird Ellan determined that, regardless of the circumstances, the member should not have used street language that amounted to mistreatment of a member of the public. Neither the member nor the complainant requested a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["advice future conduct","program activity"]},{"id":369,"file":"2013-8561","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Police Service Dog","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer released his police service dog on a suspect prior to issuing a warning. The suspect sustained minor puncture wounds.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"This was originally received as a reportable injury pursuant to section 89(1)(b)(i) of the Police Act. The police officer released his police service dog on a suspect prior to issuing a warning. The suspect sustained minor puncture wounds. Unless there are extenuating circumstances present, a dog handler is to obtain a visual on a subject, announce his or her presence and intention, and provide the suspect with the opportunity to surrender. The investigation determined that the officer acted in a manner contrary to training.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":370,"file":"2014-9652-01","agency":"Central Saanich Police Service","year":2015,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"drove over the posted speed limit without activating the police vehicle’s siren","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police member was not in compliance with the Motor Vehicle Ac t and Emergency Driving Regulations when the police member drove over the posted speed limit without activating the police vehicle’s siren.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":371,"file":"2011-6011","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Oppressive Conduct","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"the officer threatened to use his baton to break the window of the complainant’s vehicle","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"During a traffic stop, the officer threatened to use his baton to break the window of the complainant’s vehicle.","measures":["training"]},{"id":372,"file":"2013-9232","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Follow Supervisor's Lawful Order - Verbal","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"Later that same day, the officer attended a police roadside meeting related to that investigation on the officer’s own accord.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer received explicit direction from the officer’s supervisors to refrain from any involvement in a specific police investigation. Later that same day, the officer attended a police roadside meeting related to that investigation on the officer’s own accord.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":373,"file":"2020-17411","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Public Trust Offence","sublabel":"Discredit Reputation of Department (Conviction)","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"recklessly consumed prescription medication, rendering [member] intoxicated, and then drove while ability to do so was impaired, and was convicted in the B.C. Provincial Court of Driving without Due Care and Attention","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Abbotsford Police Department (APD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a member who was reported to have been driving while impaired. According to the APD, a civilian complained of a possible impaired driver after observing the vehicle hit a curb and drive into oncoming traffic lanes. Police were able to identify that the vehicle was registered to an Abbotsford Police officer. Police attended the member’s residence and found the member’s vehicle parked a block away, unsecure and running. The member was located inside the residence. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation. The matter was referred to the BC Prosecution Service and charges were approved. The criminal charges were ultimately stayed and the member pled guilty to the offence of Driving without Due Care and Attention under section 144(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Act and was sentenced to a $1,000 fine and a six-month driving prohibition. The member, without a prescription, recklessly consumed prescription medication, rendering [member] intoxicated, and then drove while ability to do so was impaired, and was convicted in the B.C. Provincial Court of Driving without Due Care and Attention under section 144(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Act. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The investigation revealed that the member mixed significant quantities of alcohol with prescription medication prior to driving. The Pre-hearing Conference Authority noted that the member was reckless in their behaviour and was lucky they did not hit oncoming vehicles or cause an accident. The Pre-hearing Conference Authority referenced a prior incident of mixing prescription drugs and alcohol and that it appeared based on the member’s conduct on this occasion, the member had not learned from their previous behaviour. There were a number of mitigating factors considered as well in arriving at an appropriate discipline. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":374,"file":"2018-15342","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Sexualized Harassment/Touching/Comments","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"For inappropriately touching a woman at a party without her consent.Second sample please.Here is the JSON:</br>Please output only JSON.</br>{\"categories\":[\"gendered_and_sexualized_violence\"]} Sorry — correcting: evidence quote is \"each of the physical contacts were initiated by the member, were sexual in nature, and non-consensual\"The user asked for JSON matching schema. I must output valid JSON with required fields including too_thin (I typo'd). Let me output correctly.- assistant final answer below.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The text states the member himself initiated non-consensual physical contacts that were \"sexual in nature,\" with sexual assault charges approved and touching a woman at a party without consent.","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that they received reports from two female VPD members that another VPD member inappropriately touched them while off-duty and at a party with fellow co-workers. Further allegations were brought forward regarding additional unwanted advances and physical touching by this member. This conduct was investigated criminally by the New Westminster Police Department (NWPD). The BC Prosecution Service approved charges of sexual assault; however, a stay of proceedings was entered for the criminal charges. The investigation revealed that each of the physical contacts were initiated by the member, were sexual in nature, and non-consensual. They included occasions where the women told him to stop or instances where they had to remove themselves from the situation for the behaviour to cease. For inappropriately touching a woman at a party without her consent. The matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the member denied each of the allegations he was facing. The Discipline Authority determined that allegations were not minor and were troubling as they were sexual in nature and were considered to be a “physical violation of each of the victims.” He also noted that the member did not appear to accept responsibility that he acted in a manner that was inappropriate. In arriving at his decision, the Discipline Authority noted “the growing trend within all workplaces, and within society in general, about the impact of inappropriate sexualized actions.” Upon review, the Police Complaint Commissioner determined that the Discipline Authority appropriately considered the aggravating and mitigating factors and determined that disciplinary measures imposed were both correct and appropriate with respect to the circumstances. The Commissioner concluded that a Public Hearing or Review on the Record was not necessary in the public interest noting that the member received the most severe penalty available under the Police Act and that the matter had been investigated criminally and reviewed by the BC Prosecution Service. Although the member resigned from the VPD during the course of these proceedings, the former’s member’s service record of discipline will reflect that he was dismissed from the police department. (Also See File 2018-14524).","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":375,"file":"2020-17730","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"leaving a police notebook in a police vehicle at the end of their shift","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Commissioner initiated an investigation after learning that a Saanich Police officer’s notebook was stolen from an unmarked police car parked at the Saanich Police Department satellite office. It was reported that several other vehicles in the area were broken into by the same person. Surveillance video showed that this notebook sat undisturbed on the roof of another vehicle until it was ultimately recovered. Violating Saanich Police policy OD40 - Journals & Notebooks by leaving a police notebook in a police vehicle at the end of their shift. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures considering that the member had accepted responsibility at the outset and expressed an understanding of the need to ensure the security of information and department property.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":376,"file":"2012-7218","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Public Trust Offence","sublabel":"Discredit Reputation of Department (Conviction)","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"convicted on two counts of Unsafe Storage of a Firearm contrary to section 86(2) of the Criminal Code and two counts of Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm contrary to section 91(1) of the Criminal Code","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer was convicted on two counts of Unsafe Storage of a Firearm contrary to section 86(2) of the Criminal Code and two counts of Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm contrary to section 91(1) of the Criminal Code. The police officer was sentenced to a conditional discharge and was placed on probation for six months.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":377,"file":"2012-7218","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Account For Money/Property Received","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"had property at their residence that was obtained during the course of their duties as a police officer","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer had property at their residence that was obtained during the course of their duties as a police officer.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":378,"file":"2012-7218","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Account For Money/Property Received","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to properly log property seized in the course of the police officer’s duties into the VPD property office","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer failed to properly log property seized in the course of the police officer’s duties into the VPD property office. Upon the conclusion of the criminal matter and the subsequent Police Act investigation, this matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. In reviewing the investigation and considering all the relevant factors in this case, the OPCC determined that the Prehearing Conference Authority had appropriately considered the aggravating and mitigating factors pursuant to section 126 of the Police Act. 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. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":379,"file":"2019-17229","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member neglected, to promptly and diligently supervise the investigation related to a report of sexual assault made by the complainant, which was their duty as a member to do.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns regarding an investigation into the complainant’s report of a sexual assault, which was conducted and concluded under the supervision of a Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO). The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The New Westminster Police Department (NWPD) initiated an internal file review and their Specialized Investigations Unit was assigned to complete several investigative steps that were not completed in the initial criminal investigation. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of the criminal investigation. The investigation into the complainant’s report of a sexual assault was referred to the BC Prosecution Service but charges were not approved. The member neglected, to promptly and diligently supervise the investigation related to a report of sexual assault made by the complainant, which was their duty as a member to do. At the conclusion of the investigation, a prehearing conference was offered to the member; the member declined the offer and as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The Discipline Authority (DA) determined that the member appeared to have committed misconduct in relation to supervision of a sexual assault investigation by failing to ensure certain investigative steps were completed satisfactorily. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measure, the DA noted that the member had learned from this experience and had taken steps to prevent its recurrence, including involvement in a number of training courses. The DA also noted that this matter highlighted structural gaps in NWPD service delivery with regards to sexual assaults. As a result, a number of changes were made to NWPD policy, protocols and training, including: Implementation of a Sexual Assault Review Committee to review all concluded sexual assault investigations on a monthly basis and ensure quality control over how the investigation was conducted, concluded, and categorized; Implementation of mandatory training for all frontline officers: Trauma Informed Practice Foundations; Introduction to Trauma and Sexual Assault Investigations; and Consent Law and Common Sexual Assault Myths; Change in policy (approval pending) to eliminate the investigators ability to conclude investigations based on verbal conversations with Crown Counsel. Neither the member nor the complainant requested a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed this matter and determined that there were insufficient grounds to arrange for a further review, noting that the NWPD had proactively imposed changes to policy and training as a result of this complaint.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":380,"file":"2022-21818","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member operated a police vehicle above the applicable speed limits, both in a playground zone and in a 50 km zone.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns with a member of the Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP). The complainant reported a member was speeding while operating a marked police vehicle and was not operating emergency equipment. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The member operated a police vehicle above the applicable speed limits, both in a playground zone and in a 50 km zone. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member was forthcoming about the incident and took responsibility for the driving behaviour. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":381,"file":"2013-9017","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"accessed CPIC and PRIME for purposes unrelated to the performance of his duties on multiple occasions","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer accessed CPIC and PRIME for purposes unrelated to the performance of his duties on multiple occasions.","measures":["verbal reprimand","program activity"]},{"id":382,"file":"2013-9017","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Improper Disclosure of Information","sublabel":"Disclosing Information Acquired as a Police Officer","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"disclosed CPIC and PRIME information to another person for purposes unrelated to the performance of his duties","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer disclosed CPIC and PRIME information to another person for purposes unrelated to the performance of his duties.","measures":["written reprimand","program activity"]},{"id":383,"file":"2015-11249","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"altered personal prescriptions for hydromorphone on 10 occasions between April 3, 2015, and November 8, 2015","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer altered personal prescriptions for hydromorphone on 10 occasions between April 3, 2015, and November 8, 2015. The results of the disciplinary proceedings were provided to the Police Complaint Commissioner. Upon reviewing them, he found that there was not a reasonable basis to believe that the Discipline Authority’s determination as to whether the misconducts had been proven was incorrect pursuant to section 125(1) of the Police Act. He was, however, of the view that the Discipline Authority’s application of section 126 was incorrect. Accordingly, on June 6, 2018, he ordered a Review on the Record of this matter pursuant to section 137(2) and 141 of the Police Act . The scope of that review was limited to a consideration of the disciplinary and corrective measures that should be imposed for the incidents of misconduct which have been substantiated. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Carole Lazar, retired British Columbia Provincial Court Judge, to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. On October 12, 2018, Adjudicator Lazar issued her decision where she determined, in part, the following: The police officer suffered from serious medical problems and was subject to extraordinary pain throughout 2014. Over a 13-month period he was hospitalized seven or eight times. He had multiple surgeries and to combat the pain he had been prescribed hydromorphone at more than ten times the dosage which would now be permitted. In February 2015 he was released from hospital, told that he was addicted and provided with no guidance about how to get off of these drugs. His doctor, realizing that his prescription practices had made a drug addict out of his patient, simply cut the dosage in half. The police officer approached three different doctors seeking help but this was a new phenomenon for them. They did not seem to know what to do about the problem. One doctor told him that he could buy his drugs off the street or go to a methadone clinic. Once he was charged and the secret addiction was revealed, options opened up almost immediately but this was not something he or most people in his position would have anticipated. The police officer was welcomed back to work. His Sergeant and two of his squad mates attended court with him. Crown counsel dealt with the criminal charges in a compassionate way. Adjudicator Lazar noted that the British Columbia provincial government has launched a class action lawsuit against forty manufacturers of opioids alleging negligence and corruption in the way they marketed their product. The general public is well aware of the crisis that has been created and, in Adjudicator Lazar’s view, would not lose respect for a police disciplinary process that failed to dismiss an otherwise good officer who found himself in the position that this police officer did. Having undertaken her own analysis of the question raised on this review Adjudicator Lazar agreed with the disciplinary and corrective measures imposed by the Discipline Authority and affirmed his decision. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record","measures":["written reprimand","counselling"]},{"id":384,"file":"2015-11249","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.5,"thin":true,"quote":"Once he was charged and the secret addiction was revealed, options opened up almost immediately","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above. The results of the disciplinary proceedings were provided to the Police Complaint Commissioner. Upon reviewing them, he found that there was not a reasonable basis to believe that the Discipline Authority’s determination as to whether the misconducts had been proven was incorrect pursuant to section 125(1) of the Police Act. He was, however, of the view that the Discipline Authority’s application of section 126 was incorrect. Accordingly, on June 6, 2018, he ordered a Review on the Record of this matter pursuant to section 137(2) and 141 of the Police Act . The scope of that review was limited to a consideration of the disciplinary and corrective measures that should be imposed for the incidents of misconduct which have been substantiated. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Carole Lazar, retired British Columbia Provincial Court Judge, to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. On October 12, 2018, Adjudicator Lazar issued her decision where she determined, in part, the following: The police officer suffered from serious medical problems and was subject to extraordinary pain throughout 2014. Over a 13-month period he was hospitalized seven or eight times. He had multiple surgeries and to combat the pain he had been prescribed hydromorphone at more than ten times the dosage which would now be permitted. In February 2015 he was released from hospital, told that he was addicted and provided with no guidance about how to get off of these drugs. His doctor, realizing that his prescription practices had made a drug addict out of his patient, simply cut the dosage in half. The police officer approached three different doctors seeking help but this was a new phenomenon for them. They did not seem to know what to do about the problem. One doctor told him that he could buy his drugs off the street or go to a methadone clinic. Once he was charged and the secret addiction was revealed, options opened up almost immediately but this was not something he or most people in his position would have anticipated. The police officer was welcomed back to work. His Sergeant and two of his squad mates attended court with him. Crown counsel dealt with the criminal charges in a compassionate way. Adjudicator Lazar noted that the British Columbia provincial government has launched a class action lawsuit against forty manufacturers of opioids alleging negligence and corruption in the way they marketed their product. The general public is well aware of the crisis that has been created and, in Adjudicator Lazar’s view, would not lose respect for a police disciplinary process that failed to dismiss an otherwise good officer who found himself in the position that this police officer did. Having undertaken her own analysis of the question raised on this review Adjudicator Lazar agreed with the disciplinary and corrective measures imposed by the Discipline Authority and affirmed his decision. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record","measures":["written reprimand","counselling"]},{"id":385,"file":"2015-11249","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.5,"thin":false,"quote":"Once he was charged and the secret addiction was revealed, options opened up almost immediately","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above. The results of the disciplinary proceedings were provided to the Police Complaint Commissioner. Upon reviewing them, he found that there was not a reasonable basis to believe that the Discipline Authority’s determination as to whether the misconducts had been proven was incorrect pursuant to section 125(1) of the Police Act. He was, however, of the view that the Discipline Authority’s application of section 126 was incorrect. Accordingly, on June 6, 2018, he ordered a Review on the Record of this matter pursuant to section 137(2) and 141 of the Police Act . The scope of that review was limited to a consideration of the disciplinary and corrective measures that should be imposed for the incidents of misconduct which have been substantiated. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Carole Lazar, retired British Columbia Provincial Court Judge, to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. On October 12, 2018, Adjudicator Lazar issued her decision where she determined, in part, the following: The police officer suffered from serious medical problems and was subject to extraordinary pain throughout 2014. Over a 13-month period he was hospitalized seven or eight times. He had multiple surgeries and to combat the pain he had been prescribed hydromorphone at more than ten times the dosage which would now be permitted. In February 2015 he was released from hospital, told that he was addicted and provided with no guidance about how to get off of these drugs. His doctor, realizing that his prescription practices had made a drug addict out of his patient, simply cut the dosage in half. The police officer approached three different doctors seeking help but this was a new phenomenon for them. They did not seem to know what to do about the problem. One doctor told him that he could buy his drugs off the street or go to a methadone clinic. Once he was charged and the secret addiction was revealed, options opened up almost immediately but this was not something he or most people in his position would have anticipated. The police officer was welcomed back to work. His Sergeant and two of his squad mates attended court with him. Crown counsel dealt with the criminal charges in a compassionate way. Adjudicator Lazar noted that the British Columbia provincial government has launched a class action lawsuit against forty manufacturers of opioids alleging negligence and corruption in the way they marketed their product. The general public is well aware of the crisis that has been created and, in Adjudicator Lazar’s view, would not lose respect for a police disciplinary process that failed to dismiss an otherwise good officer who found himself in the position that this police officer did. Having undertaken her own analysis of the question raised on this review Adjudicator Lazar agreed with the disciplinary and corrective measures imposed by the Discipline Authority and affirmed his decision. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record","measures":["written reprimand","counselling"]},{"id":386,"file":"2015-11249","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.5,"thin":true,"quote":"Once he was charged and the secret addiction was revealed, options opened up almost immediately","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above. The results of the disciplinary proceedings were provided to the Police Complaint Commissioner. Upon reviewing them, he found that there was not a reasonable basis to believe that the Discipline Authority’s determination as to whether the misconducts had been proven was incorrect pursuant to section 125(1) of the Police Act. He was, however, of the view that the Discipline Authority’s application of section 126 was incorrect. Accordingly, on June 6, 2018, he ordered a Review on the Record of this matter pursuant to section 137(2) and 141 of the Police Act . The scope of that review was limited to a consideration of the disciplinary and corrective measures that should be imposed for the incidents of misconduct which have been substantiated. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Carole Lazar, retired British Columbia Provincial Court Judge, to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. On October 12, 2018, Adjudicator Lazar issued her decision where she determined, in part, the following: The police officer suffered from serious medical problems and was subject to extraordinary pain throughout 2014. Over a 13-month period he was hospitalized seven or eight times. He had multiple surgeries and to combat the pain he had been prescribed hydromorphone at more than ten times the dosage which would now be permitted. In February 2015 he was released from hospital, told that he was addicted and provided with no guidance about how to get off of these drugs. His doctor, realizing that his prescription practices had made a drug addict out of his patient, simply cut the dosage in half. The police officer approached three different doctors seeking help but this was a new phenomenon for them. They did not seem to know what to do about the problem. One doctor told him that he could buy his drugs off the street or go to a methadone clinic. Once he was charged and the secret addiction was revealed, options opened up almost immediately but this was not something he or most people in his position would have anticipated. The police officer was welcomed back to work. His Sergeant and two of his squad mates attended court with him. Crown counsel dealt with the criminal charges in a compassionate way. Adjudicator Lazar noted that the British Columbia provincial government has launched a class action lawsuit against forty manufacturers of opioids alleging negligence and corruption in the way they marketed their product. The general public is well aware of the crisis that has been created and, in Adjudicator Lazar’s view, would not lose respect for a police disciplinary process that failed to dismiss an otherwise good officer who found himself in the position that this police officer did. Having undertaken her own analysis of the question raised on this review Adjudicator Lazar agreed with the disciplinary and corrective measures imposed by the Discipline Authority and affirmed his decision. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record","measures":["written reprimand","counselling"]},{"id":387,"file":"2015-11249","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.55,"thin":false,"quote":"Once he was charged and the secret addiction was revealed, options opened up almost immediately","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above. The results of the disciplinary proceedings were provided to the Police Complaint Commissioner. Upon reviewing them, he found that there was not a reasonable basis to believe that the Discipline Authority’s determination as to whether the misconducts had been proven was incorrect pursuant to section 125(1) of the Police Act. He was, however, of the view that the Discipline Authority’s application of section 126 was incorrect. Accordingly, on June 6, 2018, he ordered a Review on the Record of this matter pursuant to section 137(2) and 141 of the Police Act . The scope of that review was limited to a consideration of the disciplinary and corrective measures that should be imposed for the incidents of misconduct which have been substantiated. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Carole Lazar, retired British Columbia Provincial Court Judge, to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. On October 12, 2018, Adjudicator Lazar issued her decision where she determined, in part, the following: The police officer suffered from serious medical problems and was subject to extraordinary pain throughout 2014. Over a 13-month period he was hospitalized seven or eight times. He had multiple surgeries and to combat the pain he had been prescribed hydromorphone at more than ten times the dosage which would now be permitted. In February 2015 he was released from hospital, told that he was addicted and provided with no guidance about how to get off of these drugs. His doctor, realizing that his prescription practices had made a drug addict out of his patient, simply cut the dosage in half. The police officer approached three different doctors seeking help but this was a new phenomenon for them. They did not seem to know what to do about the problem. One doctor told him that he could buy his drugs off the street or go to a methadone clinic. Once he was charged and the secret addiction was revealed, options opened up almost immediately but this was not something he or most people in his position would have anticipated. The police officer was welcomed back to work. His Sergeant and two of his squad mates attended court with him. Crown counsel dealt with the criminal charges in a compassionate way. Adjudicator Lazar noted that the British Columbia provincial government has launched a class action lawsuit against forty manufacturers of opioids alleging negligence and corruption in the way they marketed their product. The general public is well aware of the crisis that has been created and, in Adjudicator Lazar’s view, would not lose respect for a police disciplinary process that failed to dismiss an otherwise good officer who found himself in the position that this police officer did. Having undertaken her own analysis of the question raised on this review Adjudicator Lazar agreed with the disciplinary and corrective measures imposed by the Discipline Authority and affirmed his decision. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record","measures":["written reprimand","counselling"]},{"id":388,"file":"2015-11249","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.5,"thin":true,"quote":"Once he was charged and the secret addiction was revealed, options opened up almost immediately","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above. The results of the disciplinary proceedings were provided to the Police Complaint Commissioner. Upon reviewing them, he found that there was not a reasonable basis to believe that the Discipline Authority’s determination as to whether the misconducts had been proven was incorrect pursuant to section 125(1) of the Police Act. He was, however, of the view that the Discipline Authority’s application of section 126 was incorrect. Accordingly, on June 6, 2018, he ordered a Review on the Record of this matter pursuant to section 137(2) and 141 of the Police Act . The scope of that review was limited to a consideration of the disciplinary and corrective measures that should be imposed for the incidents of misconduct which have been substantiated. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Carole Lazar, retired British Columbia Provincial Court Judge, to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. On October 12, 2018, Adjudicator Lazar issued her decision where she determined, in part, the following: The police officer suffered from serious medical problems and was subject to extraordinary pain throughout 2014. Over a 13-month period he was hospitalized seven or eight times. He had multiple surgeries and to combat the pain he had been prescribed hydromorphone at more than ten times the dosage which would now be permitted. In February 2015 he was released from hospital, told that he was addicted and provided with no guidance about how to get off of these drugs. His doctor, realizing that his prescription practices had made a drug addict out of his patient, simply cut the dosage in half. The police officer approached three different doctors seeking help but this was a new phenomenon for them. They did not seem to know what to do about the problem. One doctor told him that he could buy his drugs off the street or go to a methadone clinic. Once he was charged and the secret addiction was revealed, options opened up almost immediately but this was not something he or most people in his position would have anticipated. The police officer was welcomed back to work. His Sergeant and two of his squad mates attended court with him. Crown counsel dealt with the criminal charges in a compassionate way. Adjudicator Lazar noted that the British Columbia provincial government has launched a class action lawsuit against forty manufacturers of opioids alleging negligence and corruption in the way they marketed their product. The general public is well aware of the crisis that has been created and, in Adjudicator Lazar’s view, would not lose respect for a police disciplinary process that failed to dismiss an otherwise good officer who found himself in the position that this police officer did. Having undertaken her own analysis of the question raised on this review Adjudicator Lazar agreed with the disciplinary and corrective measures imposed by the Discipline Authority and affirmed his decision. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record","measures":["written reprimand","counselling"]},{"id":389,"file":"2021-19566","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"created a “poisoned work environment” for a member, engaged in three specific acts of bullying and harassment towards another member, and shunned, isolated, or excluded them from instructing opportunities and mentoring.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The department initiated an internal investigation into the conduct of a West Vancouver Police Department (WVPD) member for breach of their Respectful Workplace Policy. According to the WVPD, the member, who was in a supervisory position, discussed performance issues regarding a member with others without consulting with them first, singled that member out and made critical comments in front of peers, displayed negative body language and ignored input from them, and failed to sufficiently support their development. It was also reported the member, while in a supervisory position, held a meeting to confront a different member about an alleged comment. The member failed to hold the meeting in a sufficiently private setting, was antagonistic, and used an inappropriate tone towards them. The member created a “poisoned work environment” for a member, engaged in three specific acts of bullying and harassment towards another member, and shunned, isolated, or excluded them from instructing opportunities and mentoring.","measures":["training","program activity"]},{"id":390,"file":"2021-19566","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to hold the meeting in a sufficiently private setting, was antagonistic, and used an inappropriate tone towards them","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The department initiated an internal investigation into the conduct of a West Vancouver Police Department (WVPD) member for breach of their Respectful Workplace Policy. According to the WVPD, the member, who was in a supervisory position, discussed performance issues regarding a member with others without consulting with them first, singled that member out and made critical comments in front of peers, displayed negative body language and ignored input from them, and failed to sufficiently support their development. It was also reported the member, while in a supervisory position, held a meeting to confront a different member about an alleged comment. The member failed to hold the meeting in a sufficiently private setting, was antagonistic, and used an inappropriate tone towards them. The member engaged in bullying and harassment towards another member during a meeting.","measures":["training"]},{"id":391,"file":"2015-11249","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.55,"thin":false,"quote":"Once he was charged and the secret addiction was revealed, options opened up almost immediately","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above. The results of the disciplinary proceedings were provided to the Police Complaint Commissioner. Upon reviewing them, he found that there was not a reasonable basis to believe that the Discipline Authority’s determination as to whether the misconducts had been proven was incorrect pursuant to section 125(1) of the Police Act. He was, however, of the view that the Discipline Authority’s application of section 126 was incorrect. Accordingly, on June 6, 2018, he ordered a Review on the Record of this matter pursuant to section 137(2) and 141 of the Police Act . The scope of that review was limited to a consideration of the disciplinary and corrective measures that should be imposed for the incidents of misconduct which have been substantiated. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Carole Lazar, retired British Columbia Provincial Court Judge, to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. On October 12, 2018, Adjudicator Lazar issued her decision where she determined, in part, the following: The police officer suffered from serious medical problems and was subject to extraordinary pain throughout 2014. Over a 13-month period he was hospitalized seven or eight times. He had multiple surgeries and to combat the pain he had been prescribed hydromorphone at more than ten times the dosage which would now be permitted. In February 2015 he was released from hospital, told that he was addicted and provided with no guidance about how to get off of these drugs. His doctor, realizing that his prescription practices had made a drug addict out of his patient, simply cut the dosage in half. The police officer approached three different doctors seeking help but this was a new phenomenon for them. They did not seem to know what to do about the problem. One doctor told him that he could buy his drugs off the street or go to a methadone clinic. Once he was charged and the secret addiction was revealed, options opened up almost immediately but this was not something he or most people in his position would have anticipated. The police officer was welcomed back to work. His Sergeant and two of his squad mates attended court with him. Crown counsel dealt with the criminal charges in a compassionate way. Adjudicator Lazar noted that the British Columbia provincial government has launched a class action lawsuit against forty manufacturers of opioids alleging negligence and corruption in the way they marketed their product. The general public is well aware of the crisis that has been created and, in Adjudicator Lazar’s view, would not lose respect for a police disciplinary process that failed to dismiss an otherwise good officer who found himself in the position that this police officer did. Having undertaken her own analysis of the question raised on this review Adjudicator Lazar agreed with the disciplinary and corrective measures imposed by the Discipline Authority and affirmed his decision. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record","measures":["written reprimand","counselling"]},{"id":392,"file":"2015-11249","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.5,"thin":false,"quote":"Once he was charged and the secret addiction was revealed, options opened up almost immediately","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above. The results of the disciplinary proceedings were provided to the Police Complaint Commissioner. Upon reviewing them, he found that there was not a reasonable basis to believe that the Discipline Authority’s determination as to whether the misconducts had been proven was incorrect pursuant to section 125(1) of the Police Act. He was, however, of the view that the Discipline Authority’s application of section 126 was incorrect. Accordingly, on June 6, 2018, he ordered a Review on the Record of this matter pursuant to section 137(2) and 141 of the Police Act . The scope of that review was limited to a consideration of the disciplinary and corrective measures that should be imposed for the incidents of misconduct which have been substantiated. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Carole Lazar, retired British Columbia Provincial Court Judge, to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. On October 12, 2018, Adjudicator Lazar issued her decision where she determined, in part, the following: The police officer suffered from serious medical problems and was subject to extraordinary pain throughout 2014. Over a 13-month period he was hospitalized seven or eight times. He had multiple surgeries and to combat the pain he had been prescribed hydromorphone at more than ten times the dosage which would now be permitted. In February 2015 he was released from hospital, told that he was addicted and provided with no guidance about how to get off of these drugs. His doctor, realizing that his prescription practices had made a drug addict out of his patient, simply cut the dosage in half. The police officer approached three different doctors seeking help but this was a new phenomenon for them. They did not seem to know what to do about the problem. One doctor told him that he could buy his drugs off the street or go to a methadone clinic. Once he was charged and the secret addiction was revealed, options opened up almost immediately but this was not something he or most people in his position would have anticipated. The police officer was welcomed back to work. His Sergeant and two of his squad mates attended court with him. Crown counsel dealt with the criminal charges in a compassionate way. Adjudicator Lazar noted that the British Columbia provincial government has launched a class action lawsuit against forty manufacturers of opioids alleging negligence and corruption in the way they marketed their product. The general public is well aware of the crisis that has been created and, in Adjudicator Lazar’s view, would not lose respect for a police disciplinary process that failed to dismiss an otherwise good officer who found himself in the position that this police officer did. Having undertaken her own analysis of the question raised on this review Adjudicator Lazar agreed with the disciplinary and corrective measures imposed by the Discipline Authority and affirmed his decision. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record","measures":["written reprimand","counselling"]},{"id":393,"file":"2015-11249","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.5,"thin":false,"quote":"Once he was charged and the secret addiction was revealed, options opened up almost immediately","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above. The results of the disciplinary proceedings were provided to the Police Complaint Commissioner. Upon reviewing them, he found that there was not a reasonable basis to believe that the Discipline Authority’s determination as to whether the misconducts had been proven was incorrect pursuant to section 125(1) of the Police Act. He was, however, of the view that the Discipline Authority’s application of section 126 was incorrect. Accordingly, on June 6, 2018, he ordered a Review on the Record of this matter pursuant to section 137(2) and 141 of the Police Act . The scope of that review was limited to a consideration of the disciplinary and corrective measures that should be imposed for the incidents of misconduct which have been substantiated. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Carole Lazar, retired British Columbia Provincial Court Judge, to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. On October 12, 2018, Adjudicator Lazar issued her decision where she determined, in part, the following: The police officer suffered from serious medical problems and was subject to extraordinary pain throughout 2014. Over a 13-month period he was hospitalized seven or eight times. He had multiple surgeries and to combat the pain he had been prescribed hydromorphone at more than ten times the dosage which would now be permitted. In February 2015 he was released from hospital, told that he was addicted and provided with no guidance about how to get off of these drugs. His doctor, realizing that his prescription practices had made a drug addict out of his patient, simply cut the dosage in half. The police officer approached three different doctors seeking help but this was a new phenomenon for them. They did not seem to know what to do about the problem. One doctor told him that he could buy his drugs off the street or go to a methadone clinic. Once he was charged and the secret addiction was revealed, options opened up almost immediately but this was not something he or most people in his position would have anticipated. The police officer was welcomed back to work. His Sergeant and two of his squad mates attended court with him. Crown counsel dealt with the criminal charges in a compassionate way. Adjudicator Lazar noted that the British Columbia provincial government has launched a class action lawsuit against forty manufacturers of opioids alleging negligence and corruption in the way they marketed their product. The general public is well aware of the crisis that has been created and, in Adjudicator Lazar’s view, would not lose respect for a police disciplinary process that failed to dismiss an otherwise good officer who found himself in the position that this police officer did. Having undertaken her own analysis of the question raised on this review Adjudicator Lazar agreed with the disciplinary and corrective measures imposed by the Discipline Authority and affirmed his decision. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record","measures":["written reprimand","counselling"]},{"id":394,"file":"2015-11249","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.45,"thin":true,"quote":"Once he was charged and the secret addiction was revealed, options opened up almost immediately","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above. The results of the disciplinary proceedings were provided to the Police Complaint Commissioner. Upon reviewing them, he found that there was not a reasonable basis to believe that the Discipline Authority’s determination as to whether the misconducts had been proven was incorrect pursuant to section 125(1) of the Police Act. He was, however, of the view that the Discipline Authority’s application of section 126 was incorrect. Accordingly, on June 6, 2018, he ordered a Review on the Record of this matter pursuant to section 137(2) and 141 of the Police Act . The scope of that review was limited to a consideration of the disciplinary and corrective measures that should be imposed for the incidents of misconduct which have been substantiated. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Carole Lazar, retired British Columbia Provincial Court Judge, to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. On October 12, 2018, Adjudicator Lazar issued her decision where she determined, in part, the following: The police officer suffered from serious medical problems and was subject to extraordinary pain throughout 2014. Over a 13-month period he was hospitalized seven or eight times. He had multiple surgeries and to combat the pain he had been prescribed hydromorphone at more than ten times the dosage which would now be permitted. In February 2015 he was released from hospital, told that he was addicted and provided with no guidance about how to get off of these drugs. His doctor, realizing that his prescription practices had made a drug addict out of his patient, simply cut the dosage in half. The police officer approached three different doctors seeking help but this was a new phenomenon for them. They did not seem to know what to do about the problem. One doctor told him that he could buy his drugs off the street or go to a methadone clinic. Once he was charged and the secret addiction was revealed, options opened up almost immediately but this was not something he or most people in his position would have anticipated. The police officer was welcomed back to work. His Sergeant and two of his squad mates attended court with him. Crown counsel dealt with the criminal charges in a compassionate way. Adjudicator Lazar noted that the British Columbia provincial government has launched a class action lawsuit against forty manufacturers of opioids alleging negligence and corruption in the way they marketed their product. The general public is well aware of the crisis that has been created and, in Adjudicator Lazar’s view, would not lose respect for a police disciplinary process that failed to dismiss an otherwise good officer who found himself in the position that this police officer did. Having undertaken her own analysis of the question raised on this review Adjudicator Lazar agreed with the disciplinary and corrective measures imposed by the Discipline Authority and affirmed his decision. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record","measures":["written reprimand","counselling"]},{"id":395,"file":"2015-11249","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the police officer was untruthful when he stated he had lost the original prescription, that he had not attended the pharmacy that reported the matter, and that he had not altered a prescription.\"}]}</...>","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On November 8, 2015, a pharmacist suspected that a prescription had been altered and reported the matter to police. During a conversation with the investigating officer, the police officer was untruthful when he stated he had lost the original prescription, that he had not attended the pharmacy that reported the matter, and that he had not altered a prescription. The police officer was subsequently charged with the criminal offence of ‘Utter Forged Document’. Crown Counsel approved two charges: one count of ‘Forgery’ and one count of ‘Attempt or cause a person to deal with a forged documents’ pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada. The charges were dealt with by way of ‘Diversion” and the police officer agreed to and completed ten hours of community service. 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. 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. The results of the disciplinary proceedings were provided to the Police Complaint Commissioner. Upon reviewing them, he found that there was not a reasonable basis to believe that the Discipline Authority’s determination as to whether the misconducts had been proven was incorrect pursuant to section 125(1) of the Police Act. He was, however, of the view that the Discipline Authority’s application of section 126 was incorrect. Accordingly, on June 6, 2018, he ordered a Review on the Record of this matter pursuant to section 137(2) and 141 of the Police Act . The scope of that review was limited to a consideration of the disciplinary and corrective measures that should be imposed for the incidents of misconduct which have been substantiated. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Carole Lazar, retired British Columbia Provincial Court Judge, to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. On October 12, 2018, Adjudicator Lazar issued her decision where she determined, in part, the following: The police officer suffered from serious medical problems and was subject to extraordinary pain throughout 2014. Over a 13-month period he was hospitalized seven or eight times. He had multiple surgeries and to combat the pain he had been prescribed hydromorphone at more than ten times the dosage which would now be permitted. In February 2015 he was released from hospital, told that he was addicted and provided with no guidance about how to get off of these drugs. His doctor, realizing that his prescription practices had made a drug addict out of his patient, simply cut the dosage in half. The police officer approached three different doctors seeking help but this was a new phenomenon for them. They did not seem to know what to do about the problem. One doctor told him that he could buy his drugs off the street or go to a methadone clinic. Once he was charged and the secret addiction was revealed, options opened up almost immediately but this was not something he or most people in his position would have anticipated. The police officer was welcomed back to work. His Sergeant and two of his squad mates attended court with him. Crown counsel dealt with the criminal charges in a compassionate way. Adjudicator Lazar noted that the British Columbia provincial government has launched a class action lawsuit against forty manufacturers of opioids alleging negligence and corruption in the way they marketed their product. The general public is well aware of the crisis that has been created and, in Adjudicator Lazar’s view, would not lose respect for a police disciplinary process that failed to dismiss an otherwise good officer who found himself in the position that this police officer did. Having undertaken her own analysis of the question raised on this review Adjudicator Lazar agreed with the disciplinary and corrective measures imposed by the Discipline Authority and affirmed his decision. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":396,"file":"2021-20757","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"unwanted and unwelcome touching contrary to the B.C. Human Rights Code and by causing a detrimental effect on the work environment for a member of the opposite sex","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The text states the member engaged in \"unwanted and unwelcome touching contrary to the B.C. Human Rights Code\" toward \"a member of the opposite sex,\" plainly implying gendered/sexualized harassment by the officer.","text":"The department initiated an internal discipline investigation into the conduct of a Vancouver Police Department (VPD) member for a breach of their Respectful Workplace Policy. It was reported that, while off-duty and engaged in a police team function, the member engaged in an instance of unwanted physical contact toward a member of the opposite sex. The member contravened VPD’s Respectful Workplace Policy by unwanted and unwelcome touching contrary to the B.C. Human Rights Code and by causing a detrimental effect on the work environment for a member of the opposite sex.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":397,"file":"2019-17222","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Using or Attempting to Use Police Authority for Personal Gain (e.g., Preferential Treatment)","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"accessed PRIME and reviewed an electronic file from an RCMP investigation. The file that the member accessed related to a personal matter and was not related to a VPD matter or the member’s duties.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member who accessed PRIME and reviewed an electronic file from an RCMP investigation. The file that the member accessed related to a personal matter and was not related to a VPD matter or the member’s duties. Reviewing an electronic file from an RCMP investigation for personal reasons and outside the scope of their lawful duties. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures considering that the member had accepted responsibility for their actions, apologized, and had no record of discipline on their service record.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":398,"file":"2022-22917","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The members contravened the VPD’s Respectful Workplace Policy by improperly assessing/scoring applicants for an internal job competition which led to adverse job-related consequences for an applicant.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The department initiated an internal discipline investigation into the conduct of Vancouver Police Department (VPD) members. According to the VPD, three members organized an internal job competition and improperly assessed the scoring which led to adverse job-related consequences for an applicant. Additionally, in response to a complaint from the applicant about the hiring process, members failed to provide a safe working environment for the applicant and made inappropriate comments about the applicant’s suitability for the position. The members contravened the VPD’s Respectful Workplace Policy by improperly assessing/scoring applicants for an internal job competition which led to adverse job-related consequences for an applicant.","measures":["written reprimand","training","transfer reassignment"]},{"id":399,"file":"2017-14071","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discourtesy","sublabel":"Discourteous - Behavioural","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"the police officer responded in an unprofessional, inappropriate and aggressive manner","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On October 25, 2017, a lawyer attended traffic court with her client to challenge a ticket. The police officer advised the lawyer that he would agree to a lesser charge under the Motor Vehicle Act if her client agreed to plead guilty. The lawyer rejected the offer and the police officer responded in an unprofessional, inappropriate and aggressive manner. The matter proceeded to a prehearing conference where an agreement was reached with respect to the proposed discipline of a written reprimand. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. The police officer realized that he lost his composure and said some things he would not normally say under the circumstances that made the lawyer feel intimidated. The police officer sent the lawyer a letter of apology. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference. In arriving at this determination, the OPCC considered that a written reprimand was more significant than a verbal reprimand. Further, the police officer retired and therefore, imposing training was not necessary and would not serve to correct or educate the member.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":400,"file":"2016-11962","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"two intoxicated off duty police officers refused to leave a casino after being directed to do so by casino security","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On May 21, 2016, two intoxicated off duty police officers refused to leave a casino after being directed to do so by casino security.","measures":[]},{"id":401,"file":"2019-16937","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.72,"thin":false,"quote":"The DA found that the member committed misconduct in relation to breaching the undertaking.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The member was arrested for \"alleged incidents of intimate partner violence,\" charged with assault of his former partner and breaching a no-contact undertaking meant \"to protect the safety of a victim.\"","text":"Upon request by the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a member who had been arrested by the RCMP in relation to an investigation into alleged incidents of intimate partner violence. The member was released on an Undertaking to Appear (UTA) which included a condition to have no contact with the former partner. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation. The matter was referred to the BC Prosecution Service; charges were approved in relation to an alleged assault and subsequent breaches by the member of an undertaking, but the charges were ultimately stayed. The member resigned from the VPD prior to the conclusion of the investigation. In relation to the interactions between the former member and the former partner and the subsequent breach of an undertaking during an investigation into alleged incidents of intimate partner violence. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority (DA) found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. No prehearing conference was offered to the former member and as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The DA found that the member committed misconduct in relation to breaching the undertaking. The DA found that “any dispassionate reasonable person fully apprised of the circumstances would expect a police officer to uphold the law, including abiding by any conditions imposed on them to protect the safety of a victim.” The DA also noted that “any breach of a UTA by a police officer in the context of a relationship breakdown is indeed very serious.” In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary measure, the DA noted that had the member been a more experienced officer, dismissal may have been the appropriate discipline imposed. In this case, the member was a probationary recruit constable at the time of the incident and had since resigned. The former member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed the findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. Even though the member resigned prior to the conclusion of this matter, his service record of discipline will reflect the discipline imposed.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":402,"file":"2022-22417","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"having their SPD-issued firearm with them while off-duty and on vacation. The member was in contravention of SPD firearms policy.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The department initiated an internal discipline investigation into the conduct of a Saanich Police Department (SPD) member for having their SPD-issued firearm with them while off-duty and on vacation. The member was in contravention of SPD firearms policy. Additionally, while on vacation, the member was issued a violation notice for fishing without a fishing licence contrary to the Wildlife Act. The member neglected to comply with SPD policy in relation to firearms.","measures":["suspension","written reprimand"]},{"id":403,"file":"2022-22417","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"the member was issued a violation notice for fishing without a fishing licence contrary to the Wildlife Act","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The department initiated an internal discipline investigation into the conduct of a Saanich Police Department (SPD) member for having their SPD-issued firearm with them while off-duty and on vacation. The member was in contravention of SPD firearms policy. Additionally, while on vacation, the member was issued a violation notice for fishing without a fishing licence contrary to the Wildlife Act. The member was found to be fishing without a fishing licence contrary to the Wildlife Act while off-duty and on vacation.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":404,"file":"2022-22884","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.72,"thin":false,"quote":"The member failed to abide by the driving prohibition in the signed waiver and did not adhere to the rules established by the JIBC for the Intoximeter Certification course.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Delta Police Department (DPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of three DPD members. It was reported that the three members attended an Advanced Police Training Intoximeter Certification course at the Justice Institute of British Columbia (JIBC). This course allowed the members to volunteer to be drinking subjects on a given day and all members were given instructions that they must get a ride home on the day they were drinking. Further, members were instructed to read and sign a waiver that stated they could not drive on the day they volunteer to be drinking subjects, even if they were at a Blood Alcohol Content of zero. The three members volunteered to be drinking subjects and signed the waivers stating they understood and confirmed they had a ride home. At the end of the day, JIBC instructors observed one member (Member A) drive out of the JIBC parking lot with the other two members (Members B and C) in the vehicle as passengers. The member failed to abide by the driving prohibition in the signed waiver and did not adhere to the rules established by the JIBC for the Intoximeter Certification course.","measures":["training"]},{"id":405,"file":"2022-22884","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"The member failed to adhere to the rules established by the JIBC for the Intoximeter Certification course and the follow-up direction of course instructors and supervisors.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Delta Police Department (DPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of three DPD members. It was reported that the three members attended an Advanced Police Training Intoximeter Certification course at the Justice Institute of British Columbia (JIBC). This course allowed the members to volunteer to be drinking subjects on a given day and all members were given instructions that they must get a ride home on the day they were drinking. Further, members were instructed to read and sign a waiver that stated they could not drive on the day they volunteer to be drinking subjects, even if they were at a Blood Alcohol Content of zero. The three members volunteered to be drinking subjects and signed the waivers stating they understood and confirmed they had a ride home. At the end of the day, JIBC instructors observed one member (Member A) drive out of the JIBC parking lot with the other two members (Members B and C) in the vehicle as passengers. The member failed to adhere to the rules established by the JIBC for the Intoximeter Certification course and the follow-up direction of course instructors and supervisors.","measures":["written reprimand","training","program activity"]},{"id":406,"file":"2022-22884","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"JIBC instructors observed one member (Member A) drive out of the JIBC parking lot with the other two members (Members B and C) in the vehicle as passengers.'","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Delta Police Department (DPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of three DPD members. It was reported that the three members attended an Advanced Police Training Intoximeter Certification course at the Justice Institute of British Columbia (JIBC). This course allowed the members to volunteer to be drinking subjects on a given day and all members were given instructions that they must get a ride home on the day they were drinking. Further, members were instructed to read and sign a waiver that stated they could not drive on the day they volunteer to be drinking subjects, even if they were at a Blood Alcohol Content of zero. The three members volunteered to be drinking subjects and signed the waivers stating they understood and confirmed they had a ride home. At the end of the day, JIBC instructors observed one member (Member A) drive out of the JIBC parking lot with the other two members (Members B and C) in the vehicle as passengers. The members failed to adhere to the rules established by the JIBC for the Intoximeter Certification course and failed to adhere to the follow-up direction of course instructors and supervisors. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the members appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the members. 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. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority noted the seriousness of impaired driving and the prevailing societal efforts to eliminate such from occurring. The Discipline Authority also noted that all three members acknowledged their errors in judgment, showed genuine regret, and apologized. None of the members had any prior substantiated misconduct on their Service Records of Discipline. The members did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand","training","program activity"]},{"id":407,"file":"2021-19272","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The member made derogatory comments and used inappropriate sexual language to a female member.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The text states the member \"made derogatory comments and used inappropriate sexual language to a female member of his squad,\" which is sexualized harassment by the officer himself.","text":"Upon request from the Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a member for Discreditable Conduct. It was reported that on several occasions the member made derogatory comments and used inappropriate sexual language to a female member of his squad. The member made derogatory comments and used inappropriate sexual language to a female member. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. It was determined that the comments made were unacceptable in an inclusive and professional workplace. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension","counselling","program activity"]},{"id":408,"file":"2017-13868","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2018,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer cleaned the pistol, but failed to secure the weapon in a storage box.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On August 25, 2017, a police officer borrowed a Glock pistol from an SCBCTAPS storage box to use for practice at the gun range. Once the police officer was finished at the gun range he attended the gun cleaning station located at SCBCTAPS' headquarters. The police officer cleaned the pistol, but failed to secure the weapon in a storage box. On August 27, 2017, another police officer found the pistol at the gun cleaning station and reported the matter. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. The OPCC reviewed the prehearing conference report and, considering all the relevant factors in this case, the discipline fell within the acceptable range for appropriate discipline in the circumstances. It was determined the member was aware of the relevant policy and accepted full responsibility for their actions. The member advised that they had simply forgot to secure the firearm as required. The OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":409,"file":"2012-8096","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"attempted to evade a parking ticket by using his badge and status as a police officer","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member attempted to evade a parking ticket by using his badge and status as a police officer.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":410,"file":"2012-8096","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.72,"thin":false,"quote":"The member made inappropriate and suggestive remarks to the Commissionaire.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The text states the member made \"inappropriate and suggestive remarks\" to the Commissionaire, and \"suggestive\" plainly implies sexually suggestive comments directed at another person.","text":"The member made inappropriate and suggestive remarks to the Commissionaire.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":411,"file":"2019-15876","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2020,"heading":"Improper Disclosure of Information","sublabel":"Disclosing Information Acquired as a Police Officer","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"A MVTP member came into possession of the suspect’s identifying information and, despite being told not to share that information, provided the information to the two officers who had encountered the suspect.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a police officer following an incident involving a firearm and a suspect. It was reported that a police officer was wounded during an exchange with a suspect, who fled the scene uninjured. As a result of the victim being a police officer, an external police agency completed a criminal investigation into the shooting. The Independent Investigations Office (IIO) was not involved in the matter because the suspect was uninjured. A MVTP member came into possession of the suspect’s identifying information and, despite being told not to share that information, provided the information to the two officers who had encountered the suspect. As a result, investigators were unable to conduct a particular investigative step for the purposes of their criminal investigation. The member also encouraged those two officers to act like they had not received any information from him. Disclosing information after being directed not to by a supervising officer.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":412,"file":"2019-15876","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.82,"thin":false,"quote":"then texting subversive comments about their supervising officer’s direction to cease activities in relation to the external investigation","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a police officer following an incident involving a firearm and a suspect. It was reported that a police officer was wounded during an exchange with a suspect, who fled the scene uninjured. As a result of the victim being a police officer, an external police agency completed a criminal investigation into the shooting. The Independent Investigations Office (IIO) was not involved in the matter because the suspect was uninjured. A MVTP member came into possession of the suspect’s identifying information and, despite being told not to share that information, provided the information to the two officers who had encountered the suspect. As a result, investigators were unable to conduct a particular investigative step for the purposes of their criminal investigation. The member also encouraged those two officers to act like they had not received any information from him. Inserting themselves into an investigation that was being led and managed by an external agency, acting on information obtained, and then texting subversive comments about their supervising officer’s direction to cease activities in relation to the external investigation.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":413,"file":"2019-15876","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2020,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"Attempting to do Any of the Things Described in Subparagraphs (i) or (ii)","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"Attempting to procure a false oral, written, or official record to be made by the two officers involving in the shooting incident.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a police officer following an incident involving a firearm and a suspect. It was reported that a police officer was wounded during an exchange with a suspect, who fled the scene uninjured. As a result of the victim being a police officer, an external police agency completed a criminal investigation into the shooting. The Independent Investigations Office (IIO) was not involved in the matter because the suspect was uninjured. A MVTP member came into possession of the suspect’s identifying information and, despite being told not to share that information, provided the information to the two officers who had encountered the suspect. As a result, investigators were unable to conduct a particular investigative step for the purposes of their criminal investigation. The member also encouraged those two officers to act like they had not received any information from him. Attempting to procure a false oral, written, or official record to be made by the two officers involving in the shooting incident. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member committed three counts of misconduct. The matter proceeded directly to a discipline proceeding where the member admitted to each of the allegations. The Discipline Authority determined that the member’s actions placed the integrity of the criminal investigation at risk but noted that the criminal investigation was ultimately not comprised. 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.” The Discipline Authority also found that the action of asking the other members to “pretend” and “act surprised”, constituted an attempt to hide the member’s action of sharing unauthorized information from his superiors. According to the Discipline Authority, while the member’s state of mind following the shooting incident was a significant contributing factor, it was not a defence to the misconduct. The Discipline Authority further noted that the member had taken responsibility, sought ethics training on their own initiative and apologized to those they had affected. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. *The suspensions were to be served concurrently.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":414,"file":"2013-8484","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"he noticed that the off-duty officer had his police badge displayed","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An off-duty police officer was observed to be driving without any rear lights active on his vehicle and a traffic stop was initiated. When the investigating officer approached the off-duty officer’s vehicle, he noticed that the off-duty officer had his police badge displayed.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":415,"file":"2013-8484","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The off-duty officer registered two “warn” readings and was issued a three-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP).","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The traffic investigation determined that the off-duty officer had consumed alcohol and he was provided with the approved screening device (ASD) breath demand. The off-duty officer registered two “warn” readings and was issued a three-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP).","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":416,"file":"2010-5294","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member conducted an unauthorized search of an individual on police databases.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member conducted an unauthorized search of an individual on police databases. This was the subject of a s.117 review by a retired judge. Please visit the OPCC website for a complete copy of the adjudicator’s decision at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":417,"file":"2010-5294","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Improper Disclosure of Information","sublabel":"Disclosing Information Acquired as a Police Officer","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The member disclosed this information to a third party.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member disclosed this information to a third party. This was the subject of a s.117 review by a retired judge. Please visit the OPCC website for a complete copy of the adjudicator’s decision at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":418,"file":"2010-5294","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"During the subsequent investigation, the member made false statements to the investigator.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"During the subsequent investigation, the member made false statements to the investigator. This was the subject of a s.117 review by a retired judge. Please visit the OPCC website for a complete copy of the adjudicator’s decision at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["suspension","written reprimand"]},{"id":419,"file":"2015-10655-01","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Follow Supervisor's Lawful Order - Written","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to obey a Cease Contact Order issued by the Chief Constable","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer failed to obey a Cease Contact Order issued by the Chief Constable.","measures":["reduction in rank","suspension"]},{"id":420,"file":"2014-9474","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Unsafe Storage of Firearm","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"Inside the safe, investigators located three loaded firearms in contravention of section 86(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada and the Canadian Firearms Act.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On May 5, 2013, an Abbotsford Police Department (APD) drug enforcement officer, Constable Christopher Nicholson, was arrested and charged with several criminal offences including Breach of Trust, Obstructing Justice, and Conspiracy to Traffic a Controlled Substance. Upon request from the APD that another police agency conduct this investigation, the OPCC directed the New Westminster Police Department (NWPD) to complete the investigation and appointed Chief Officer Dave Jones as the Discipline Authority. This investigation was suspended pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings. Constable Christopher Nicholson pled guilty to the criminal charge of Breach of Trust. Upon completion of the criminal proceedings, additional allegations of misconduct were identified and investigated. Two search warrants were executed at Constable Christopher Nicholson’s residence following his arrest. A safe was contained in a closet believed to belong to Constable Christopher Nicholson. Inside the safe, investigators located three loaded firearms in contravention of section 86(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada and the Canadian Firearms Act.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":421,"file":"2014-9474","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"by excessive speeding on several occasions","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On May 5, 2013, an Abbotsford Police Department (APD) drug enforcement officer, Constable Christopher Nicholson, was arrested and charged with several criminal offences including Breach of Trust, Obstructing Justice, and Conspiracy to Traffic a Controlled Substance. Upon request from the APD that another police agency conduct this investigation, the OPCC directed the New Westminster Police Department (NWPD) to complete the investigation and appointed Chief Officer Dave Jones as the Discipline Authority. This investigation was suspended pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings. Constable Christopher Nicholson pled guilty to the criminal charge of Breach of Trust. Upon completion of the criminal proceedings, additional allegations of misconduct were identified and investigated. 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.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":422,"file":"2014-9474","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Using or Attempting to Use Police Authority for Personal Gain (e.g., Preferential Treatment)","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"facilitated the trafficking of a controlled substance to a target residence through a confidential source in order to include this interaction in an Information to Obtain (ITO) for the purposes of obtaining a search warrant","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On May 5, 2013, an Abbotsford Police Department (APD) drug enforcement officer, Constable Christopher Nicholson, was arrested and charged with several criminal offences including Breach of Trust, Obstructing Justice, and Conspiracy to Traffic a Controlled Substance. Upon request from the APD that another police agency conduct this investigation, the OPCC directed the New Westminster Police Department (NWPD) to complete the investigation and appointed Chief Officer Dave Jones as the Discipline Authority. This investigation was suspended pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings. Constable Christopher Nicholson pled guilty to the criminal charge of Breach of Trust. Upon completion of the criminal proceedings, additional allegations of misconduct were identified and investigated. Constable Christopher Nicholson facilitated the trafficking of a controlled substance to a target residence through a confidential source in order to include this interaction in an Information to Obtain (ITO) for the purposes of obtaining a search warrant.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":423,"file":"2014-9474","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Using or Attempting to Use Police Authority for Personal Gain (e.g., Preferential Treatment)","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"Constable Christopher Nicholson facilitated the trafficking of a controlled substance to a target residence through a confidential source.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On May 5, 2013, an Abbotsford Police Department (APD) drug enforcement officer, Constable Christopher Nicholson, was arrested and charged with several criminal offences including Breach of Trust, Obstructing Justice, and Conspiracy to Traffic a Controlled Substance. Upon request from the APD that another police agency conduct this investigation, the OPCC directed the New Westminster Police Department (NWPD) to complete the investigation and appointed Chief Officer Dave Jones as the Discipline Authority. This investigation was suspended pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings. Constable Christopher Nicholson pled guilty to the criminal charge of Breach of Trust. Upon completion of the criminal proceedings, additional allegations of misconduct were identified and investigated. Constable Christopher Nicholson facilitated the trafficking of a controlled substance to a target residence through a confidential source. Information regarding Constable Christopher Nicholson’s role in the facilitation of the trafficking was not included in the ITO. In addition, APD policy, as it relates to Confidential Informant and Agent Relationships, was not adhered to.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":424,"file":"2014-9474","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Public Trust Offence","sublabel":"Discredit Reputation of Department (Conviction)","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"as result of entering a guilty plea to a charge of Breach of Trust by Public Officer pursuant to section 122 of the Criminal Code of Canada","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On May 5, 2013, an Abbotsford Police Department (APD) drug enforcement officer, Constable Christopher Nicholson, was arrested and charged with several criminal offences including Breach of Trust, Obstructing Justice, and Conspiracy to Traffic a Controlled Substance. Upon request from the APD that another police agency conduct this investigation, the OPCC directed the New Westminster Police Department (NWPD) to complete the investigation and appointed Chief Officer Dave Jones as the Discipline Authority. This investigation was suspended pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings. Constable Christopher Nicholson pled guilty to the criminal charge of Breach of Trust. Upon completion of the criminal proceedings, additional allegations of misconduct were identified and investigated. Constable Christopher Nicholson committed the disciplinary default of a Public Trust Offence, contrary to s. 77(2) of the Police Act as result of entering a guilty plea to a charge of Breach of Trust by Public Officer pursuant to section 122 of the Criminal Code of Canada. At the conclusion of the investigation, Chief Officer Jones, as the Discipline Authority, found that Constable Nicholson committed five allegations of misconduct. No pre-hearing conference was offered to the member and as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. Constable Christopher Nicholson was ultimately dismissed from the Abbotsford Police Department. The OPCC did not order a further review.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":425,"file":"2014-9976","agency":"Central Saanich Police Service","year":2016,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Oppressive Conduct","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"It was reported that this police officer conducted themselves in an oppressive manner during their interaction with the teenager.: Central Saanich Police Service","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The complainant reported that on October 20, 2013, her teenage daughter was mistakenly identified by a police officer as being the subject of a missing person complaint. A second police officer, known to the teenager, subsequently attended the scene. It was reported that this police officer conducted themselves in an oppressive manner during their interaction with the teenager.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":426,"file":"2014-9976","agency":"Central Saanich Police Service","year":2016,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"made statements to the Police Act investigator concerning their actions on October 20, 2013, that were determined to be false or misleading","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer also made statements to the Police Act investigator concerning their actions on October 20, 2013, that were determined to be false or misleading. The police officer was required to successfully complete, within a prescribed period of time, the following five Canadian Police Knowledge Network online courses: Note Taking, Report Writing, Theory of Communication and Memory, Customer Service in a Police Environment, and Police Ethics and Accountability. *For mitigating reasons the two periods of suspension were to be concurrent.","measures":["suspension","training","close supervision"]},{"id":427,"file":"2013-8599","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"created notes for a PRIME file which he/she misrepresented as having been made at the time or shortly after the incident","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police member created notes for a PRIME file which he/she misrepresented as having been made at the time or shortly after the incident. This file was the subject of Review on the Record. For further information please go to: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":428,"file":"2013-8599","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"made false and misleading statements to professional standards investigators regarding the time he/she created the police notes in question","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police member made false and misleading statements to professional standards investigators regarding the time he/she created the police notes in question. This file was the subject of Review on the Record. For further information please go to: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":429,"file":"2013-8599","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"created notes for another PRIME file which he/she misrepresented as having been made at the time or shortly after the incident","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police member created notes for another PRIME file which he/she misrepresented as having been made at the time or shortly after the incident. This file was the subject of Review on the Record. For further information please go to: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":430,"file":"2013-8599","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"made false and misleading statements to professional standards investigators regarding the time he/she created the police notes in question","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police member again made false and misleading statements to professional standards investigators regarding the time he/she created the police notes in question. This file was the subject of Review on the Record. For further information please go to: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":431,"file":"2013-8599","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"The police member failed to keep an accurate record in his/her police notebook. The police member failed to maintain his/her police notebook in a manner that conformed to policy and training.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police member failed to keep an accurate record in his/her police notebook. The police member failed to maintain his/her police notebook in a manner that conformed to policy and training. This file was the subject of Review on the Record. For further information please go to: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":432,"file":"2016-12680","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Improper/Inadequate Documentation of Seized Property","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to follow department policy on handling drug exhibits","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer failed to follow department policy on handling drug exhibits. The OPCC reviewed the investigation and the Internal Discipline Authority’s decision. The OPCC determined there were no public trust concerns that required investigation.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":433,"file":"2015-11295","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.92,"thin":false,"quote":"a police officer was involved in a domestic dispute with their partner. The police officer was charged with one count of assault","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The text states the officer \"was involved in a domestic dispute with their partner\" and \"was charged with one count of assault,\" which is intimate partner violence committed by the officer.","text":"On November 18, 2015, a police officer was involved in a domestic dispute with their partner. The police officer was charged with one count of assault pursuant to the Criminal Code . The criminal proceeding was concluded and resulted in the issuance of a Peace Bond, pursuant to Section 810 of the Criminal Code to the police officer.","measures":["suspension","counselling"]},{"id":434,"file":"2010-5741","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2011,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"conducted an unauthorized search on police databases for purposes unrelated to his duties as a police officer","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer conducted an unauthorized search on police databases for purposes unrelated to his duties as a police officer.","measures":["written reprimand","program activity"]},{"id":435,"file":"2012-7226","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2012,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"the member was found to have been driving at a speed that exceeded the 120 km per hour test parameter","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"During the test phase of the new GPS technology, the member was found to have been driving at a speed that exceeded the 120 km per hour test parameter. Citing a traffic stop as the reason for the speed, the member was in violation of the communication policy for not contacting the communications centre that he was conducting a traffic check, nor did he capture any details on the vehicle or driver.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":436,"file":"2018-15623","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Oppressive Conduct","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"The Discipline Authority determined that the member did not have the legal authority to unlock the complainant’s door, open the door, and pull the complainant outside of the residence.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The complainant reported that two Vancouver Police Department (VPD) members attended his residence and arrested him on an outstanding warrant. The complainant reported that excessive force was used during his arrest, that he was forced to walk to the police van while barefoot, and that one member had threatened him. The OPCC reviewed this complaint and determined that an investigation was required. Unlocking and opening the door to the complainant’s residence and pulling him outside to effect his arrest without lawful authority. The Discipline Authority determined that the member did not have the legal authority to unlock the complainant’s door, open the door, and pull the complainant outside of the residence. The Discipline Authority determined that there were no exigent circumstances present to necessitate this action. Accordingly, the Discipline Authority concluded that the manner in which the complainant was arrested was unlawful. A prehearing conference was offered to the member where an agreement was reached with respect to the discipline to be imposed. Upon review, the Police Complaint Commissioner determined that the Prehearing Conference Authority appropriately considered the aggravating and mitigating factors and the discipline measures imposed were both correct and appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":437,"file":"2016-12506","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"knowingly issued/served members of the public with British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act violation tickets on 11 separate occasions for a total of 20 offences which did not occur","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Between June 19, 2016, and July 22, 2016, a police officer knowingly issued/served members of the public with British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act violation tickets on 11 separate occasions for a total of 20 offences which did not occur. When the police officer encountered motorists breaching the rules about cell-phone use, he issued violation tickets for lesser offences. His approach resulted in tickets and fines, but not for the correct offences. Subject of section 137(1) of the Police Act the Police Complaint Commissioner must arrange a public hearing on receiving a request from a police officer where the Discipline Authority has proposed as a disciplinary measure dismissal or reduction in rank. 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. The member in this case requested a public hearing pursuant to section 136(1) of the Police Act. In reviewing the record of the Disciplinary Decision the Police Complaint Commissioner concluded that a public hearing was not necessary as the police officer had the assistance of counsel through the investigation and disciplinary proceedings; each of the motorists were interviewed during the course of the investigation and their evidence thoroughly canvassed as it related to the allegations under investigation; and the police officer did not request any further investigation following the submission of the Final Investigation Report and did not request the attendance of any witnesses at the discipline proceeding. Therefore the Police Complaint Commissioner ordered a Review on the Record. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable James Threlfall, retired British Columbia Provincial Court Judge, to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. On December 7, 2018, Adjudicator Threlfall issued his decision where he determined, in part, that the actions of the police officer amounted to a single episode of misconduct which spanned a number of occasions that his actions were as a result of a misguided understanding of his police discretion. Adjudicator Threlfall stated that he was concerned that a police officer with a significant amount of service, clear skill in interacting with the public, and very good performance reviews, could have such little understanding of the significance of what he did and the potential consequences. Adjudicator Threlfall concluded that a suspension of four days without pay, as a global measure, would be appropriate in these circumstances. He also directed that the police officer undertake training specifically on the procedure and process for the swearing Informations and commencing proceedings for any offences, criminal, driving or otherwise. Adjudicator Threlfall was hopeful that this training would emphasize that any officer faced with an uncertainty should consult with his supervisor, and to use one’s colleagues as an ethical sounding board. Adjudicator Threlfall was confident that had such consultations occurred in this case, this misconduct would not have arisen. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/public-hearings/","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":438,"file":"2016-12506","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.5,"thin":true,"quote":"THIS ALLEGATION: As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above. Subject of section 137(1) of the Police Act the Police Complaint Commissioner must arrange a public hearing on receiving a request from a police officer where the Discipline Authority has proposed as a disciplinary measure dismissal or reduction in rank. 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. The member in this case requested a public hearing pursuant to section 136(1) of the Police Act. In reviewing the record of the Disciplinary Decision the Police Complaint Commissioner concluded that a public hearing was not necessary as the police officer had the assistance of counsel through the investigation and disciplinary proceedings; each of the motorists were interviewed during the course of the investigation and their evidence thoroughly canvassed as it related to the allegations under investigation; and the police officer did not request any further investigation following the submission of the Final Investigation Report and did not request the attendance of any witnesses at the discipline proceeding. Therefore the Police Complaint Commissioner ordered a Review on the Record. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable James Threlfall, retired British Columbia Provincial Court Judge, to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. On December 7, 2018, Adjudicator Threlfall issued his decision where he determined, in part, that the actions of the police officer amounted to a single episode of misconduct which spanned a number of occasions that his actions were as a result of a misguided understanding of his police discretion. Adjudicator Threlfall stated that he was concerned that a police officer with a significant amount of service, clear skill in interacting with the public, and very good performance reviews, could have such little understanding of the significance of what he did and the potential consequences. Adjudicator Threlfall concluded that a suspension of four days without pay, as a global measure, would be appropriate in these circumstances. He also directed that the police officer undertake training specifically on the procedure and process for the swearing Informations and commencing proceedings for any offences, criminal, driving or otherwise. Adjudicator Threlfall was hopeful that this training would emphasize that any officer faced with an uncertainty should consult with his supervisor, and to use one’s colleagues as an ethical sounding board. Adjudicator Threlfall was confident that had such consultations occurred in this case, this misconduct would not have arisen. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/public-hearings/","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":439,"file":"2016-12506","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.5,"thin":true,"quote":"THIS ALLEGATION: As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above. Subject of section 137(1) of the Police Act the Police Complaint Commissioner must arrange a public hearing on receiving a request from a police officer where the Discipline Authority has proposed as a disciplinary measure dismissal or reduction in rank. 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. The member in this case requested a public hearing pursuant to section 136(1) of the Police Act. In reviewing the record of the Disciplinary Decision the Police Complaint Commissioner concluded that a public hearing was not necessary as the police officer had the assistance of counsel through the investigation and disciplinary proceedings; each of the motorists were interviewed during the course of the investigation and their evidence thoroughly canvassed as it related to the allegations under investigation; and the police officer did not request any further investigation following the submission of the Final Investigation Report and did not request the attendance of any witnesses at the discipline proceeding. Therefore the Police Complaint Commissioner ordered a Review on the Record. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable James Threlfall, retired British Columbia Provincial Court Judge, to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. On December 7, 2018, Adjudicator Threlfall issued his decision where he determined, in part, that the actions of the police officer amounted to a single episode of misconduct which spanned a number of occasions that his actions were as a result of a misguided understanding of his police discretion. Adjudicator Threlfall stated that he was concerned that a police officer with a significant amount of service, clear skill in interacting with the public, and very good performance reviews, could have such little understanding of the significance of what he did and the potential consequences. Adjudicator Threlfall concluded that a suspension of four days without pay, as a global measure, would be appropriate in these circumstances. He also directed that the police officer undertake training specifically on the procedure and process for the swearing Informations and commencing proceedings for any offences, criminal, driving or otherwise. Adjudicator Threlfall was hopeful that this training would emphasize that any officer faced with an uncertainty should consult with his supervisor, and to use one’s colleagues as an ethical sounding board. Adjudicator Threlfall was confident that had such consultations occurred in this case, this misconduct would not have arisen. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/public-hearings/","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":440,"file":"2016-12506","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.55,"thin":true,"quote":"THIS ALLEGATION: As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above. Subject of section 137(1) of the Police Act the Police Complaint Commissioner must arrange a public hearing on receiving a request from a police officer where the Discipline Authority has proposed as a disciplinary measure dismissal or reduction in rank. 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. The member in this case requested a public hearing pursuant to section 136(1) of the Police Act. In reviewing the record of the Disciplinary Decision the Police Complaint Commissioner concluded that a public hearing was not necessary as the police officer had the assistance of counsel through the investigation and disciplinary proceedings; each of the motorists were interviewed during the course of the investigation and their evidence thoroughly canvassed as it related to the allegations under investigation; and the police officer did not request any further investigation following the submission of the Final Investigation Report and did not request the attendance of any witnesses at the discipline proceeding. Therefore the Police Complaint Commissioner ordered a Review on the Record. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable James Threlfall, retired British Columbia Provincial Court Judge, to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. On December 7, 2018, Adjudicator Threlfall issued his decision where he determined, in part, that the actions of the police officer amounted to a single episode of misconduct which spanned a number of occasions that his actions were as a result of a misguided understanding of his police discretion. Adjudicator Threlfall stated that he was concerned that a police officer with a significant amount of service, clear skill in interacting with the public, and very good performance reviews, could have such little understanding of the significance of what he did and the potential consequences. Adjudicator Threlfall concluded that a suspension of four days without pay, as a global measure, would be appropriate in these circumstances. He also directed that the police officer undertake training specifically on the procedure and process for the swearing Informations and commencing proceedings for any offences, criminal, driving or otherwise. Adjudicator Threlfall was hopeful that this training would emphasize that any officer faced with an uncertainty should consult with his supervisor, and to use one’s colleagues as an ethical sounding board. Adjudicator Threlfall was confident that had such consultations occurred in this case, this misconduct would not have arisen. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/public-hearings/","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":441,"file":"2016-12506","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.55,"thin":true,"quote":"THIS ALLEGATION: As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above. Subject of section 137(1) of the Police Act the Police Complaint Commissioner must arrange a public hearing on receiving a request from a police officer where the Discipline Authority has proposed as a disciplinary measure dismissal or reduction in rank. 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. The member in this case requested a public hearing pursuant to section 136(1) of the Police Act. In reviewing the record of the Disciplinary Decision the Police Complaint Commissioner concluded that a public hearing was not necessary as the police officer had the assistance of counsel through the investigation and disciplinary proceedings; each of the motorists were interviewed during the course of the investigation and their evidence thoroughly canvassed as it related to the allegations under investigation; and the police officer did not request any further investigation following the submission of the Final Investigation Report and did not request the attendance of any witnesses at the discipline proceeding. Therefore the Police Complaint Commissioner ordered a Review on the Record. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable James Threlfall, retired British Columbia Provincial Court Judge, to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. On December 7, 2018, Adjudicator Threlfall issued his decision where he determined, in part, that the actions of the police officer amounted to a single episode of misconduct which spanned a number of occasions that his actions were as a result of a misguided understanding of his police discretion. Adjudicator Threlfall stated that he was concerned that a police officer with a significant amount of service, clear skill in interacting with the public, and very good performance reviews, could have such little understanding of the significance of what he did and the potential consequences. Adjudicator Threlfall concluded that a suspension of four days without pay, as a global measure, would be appropriate in these circumstances. He also directed that the police officer undertake training specifically on the procedure and process for the swearing Informations and commencing proceedings for any offences, criminal, driving or otherwise. Adjudicator Threlfall was hopeful that this training would emphasize that any officer faced with an uncertainty should consult with his supervisor, and to use one’s colleagues as an ethical sounding board. Adjudicator Threlfall was confident that had such consultations occurred in this case, this misconduct would not have arisen. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/public-hearings/","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":442,"file":"2016-12506","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.5,"thin":true,"quote":"THIS ALLEGATION: As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above. Subject of section 137(1) of the Police Act the Police Complaint Commissioner must arrange a public hearing on receiving a request from a police officer where the Discipline Authority has proposed as a disciplinary measure dismissal or reduction in rank. 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. The member in this case requested a public hearing pursuant to section 136(1) of the Police Act. In reviewing the record of the Disciplinary Decision the Police Complaint Commissioner concluded that a public hearing was not necessary as the police officer had the assistance of counsel through the investigation and disciplinary proceedings; each of the motorists were interviewed during the course of the investigation and their evidence thoroughly canvassed as it related to the allegations under investigation; and the police officer did not request any further investigation following the submission of the Final Investigation Report and did not request the attendance of any witnesses at the discipline proceeding. Therefore the Police Complaint Commissioner ordered a Review on the Record. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable James Threlfall, retired British Columbia Provincial Court Judge, to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. On December 7, 2018, Adjudicator Threlfall issued his decision where he determined, in part, that the actions of the police officer amounted to a single episode of misconduct which spanned a number of occasions that his actions were as a result of a misguided understanding of his police discretion. Adjudicator Threlfall stated that he was concerned that a police officer with a significant amount of service, clear skill in interacting with the public, and very good performance reviews, could have such little understanding of the significance of what he did and the potential consequences. Adjudicator Threlfall concluded that a suspension of four days without pay, as a global measure, would be appropriate in these circumstances. He also directed that the police officer undertake training specifically on the procedure and process for the swearing Informations and commencing proceedings for any offences, criminal, driving or otherwise. Adjudicator Threlfall was hopeful that this training would emphasize that any officer faced with an uncertainty should consult with his supervisor, and to use one’s colleagues as an ethical sounding board. Adjudicator Threlfall was confident that had such consultations occurred in this case, this misconduct would not have arisen. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/public-hearings/","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":443,"file":"2016-12506","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.4,"thin":true,"quote":"his actions were as a result of a misguided understanding of his police discretion","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above. Subject of section 137(1) of the Police Act the Police Complaint Commissioner must arrange a public hearing on receiving a request from a police officer where the Discipline Authority has proposed as a disciplinary measure dismissal or reduction in rank. 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. The member in this case requested a public hearing pursuant to section 136(1) of the Police Act. In reviewing the record of the Disciplinary Decision the Police Complaint Commissioner concluded that a public hearing was not necessary as the police officer had the assistance of counsel through the investigation and disciplinary proceedings; each of the motorists were interviewed during the course of the investigation and their evidence thoroughly canvassed as it related to the allegations under investigation; and the police officer did not request any further investigation following the submission of the Final Investigation Report and did not request the attendance of any witnesses at the discipline proceeding. Therefore the Police Complaint Commissioner ordered a Review on the Record. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable James Threlfall, retired British Columbia Provincial Court Judge, to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. On December 7, 2018, Adjudicator Threlfall issued his decision where he determined, in part, that the actions of the police officer amounted to a single episode of misconduct which spanned a number of occasions that his actions were as a result of a misguided understanding of his police discretion. Adjudicator Threlfall stated that he was concerned that a police officer with a significant amount of service, clear skill in interacting with the public, and very good performance reviews, could have such little understanding of the significance of what he did and the potential consequences. Adjudicator Threlfall concluded that a suspension of four days without pay, as a global measure, would be appropriate in these circumstances. He also directed that the police officer undertake training specifically on the procedure and process for the swearing Informations and commencing proceedings for any offences, criminal, driving or otherwise. Adjudicator Threlfall was hopeful that this training would emphasize that any officer faced with an uncertainty should consult with his supervisor, and to use one’s colleagues as an ethical sounding board. Adjudicator Threlfall was confident that had such consultations occurred in this case, this misconduct would not have arisen. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/public-hearings/","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":444,"file":"2016-12506","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.6,"thin":true,"quote":"THIS ALLEGATION: As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above. Subject of section 137(1) of the Police Act the Police Complaint Commissioner must arrange a public hearing on receiving a request from a police officer where the Discipline Authority has proposed as a disciplinary measure dismissal or reduction in rank. 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. The member in this case requested a public hearing pursuant to section 136(1) of the Police Act. In reviewing the record of the Disciplinary Decision the Police Complaint Commissioner concluded that a public hearing was not necessary as the police officer had the assistance of counsel through the investigation and disciplinary proceedings; each of the motorists were interviewed during the course of the investigation and their evidence thoroughly canvassed as it related to the allegations under investigation; and the police officer did not request any further investigation following the submission of the Final Investigation Report and did not request the attendance of any witnesses at the discipline proceeding. Therefore the Police Complaint Commissioner ordered a Review on the Record. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable James Threlfall, retired British Columbia Provincial Court Judge, to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. On December 7, 2018, Adjudicator Threlfall issued his decision where he determined, in part, that the actions of the police officer amounted to a single episode of misconduct which spanned a number of occasions that his actions were as a result of a misguided understanding of his police discretion. Adjudicator Threlfall stated that he was concerned that a police officer with a significant amount of service, clear skill in interacting with the public, and very good performance reviews, could have such little understanding of the significance of what he did and the potential consequences. Adjudicator Threlfall concluded that a suspension of four days without pay, as a global measure, would be appropriate in these circumstances. He also directed that the police officer undertake training specifically on the procedure and process for the swearing Informations and commencing proceedings for any offences, criminal, driving or otherwise. Adjudicator Threlfall was hopeful that this training would emphasize that any officer faced with an uncertainty should consult with his supervisor, and to use one’s colleagues as an ethical sounding board. Adjudicator Threlfall was confident that had such consultations occurred in this case, this misconduct would not have arisen. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/public-hearings/","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":445,"file":"2016-12506","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.45,"thin":true,"quote":"THIS ALLEGATION: As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above. Subject of section 137(1) of the Police Act the Police Complaint Commissioner must arrange a public hearing on receiving a request from a police officer where the Discipline Authority has proposed as a disciplinary measure dismissal or reduction in rank. 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. The member in this case requested a public hearing pursuant to section 136(1) of the Police Act. In reviewing the record of the Disciplinary Decision the Police Complaint Commissioner concluded that a public hearing was not necessary as the police officer had the assistance of counsel through the investigation and disciplinary proceedings; each of the motorists were interviewed during the course of the investigation and their evidence thoroughly canvassed as it related to the allegations under investigation; and the police officer did not request any further investigation following the submission of the Final Investigation Report and did not request the attendance of any witnesses at the discipline proceeding. Therefore the Police Complaint Commissioner ordered a Review on the Record. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable James Threlfall, retired British Columbia Provincial Court Judge, to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. On December 7, 2018, Adjudicator Threlfall issued his decision where he determined, in part, that the actions of the police officer amounted to a single episode of misconduct which spanned a number of occasions that his actions were as a result of a misguided understanding of his police discretion. Adjudicator Threlfall stated that he was concerned that a police officer with a significant amount of service, clear skill in interacting with the public, and very good performance reviews, could have such little understanding of the significance of what he did and the potential consequences. Adjudicator Threlfall concluded that a suspension of four days without pay, as a global measure, would be appropriate in these circumstances. He also directed that the police officer undertake training specifically on the procedure and process for the swearing Informations and commencing proceedings for any offences, criminal, driving or otherwise. Adjudicator Threlfall was hopeful that this training would emphasize that any officer faced with an uncertainty should consult with his supervisor, and to use one’s colleagues as an ethical sounding board. Adjudicator Threlfall was confident that had such consultations occurred in this case, this misconduct would not have arisen. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/public-hearings/","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":446,"file":"2016-12506","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.45,"thin":true,"quote":"THIS ALLEGATION: As above.','the actions of the police officer amounted to a single episode of misconduct which spanned a number of occasions that his actions were as a result of a misguided understanding of his police discretion","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above. Subject of section 137(1) of the Police Act the Police Complaint Commissioner must arrange a public hearing on receiving a request from a police officer where the Discipline Authority has proposed as a disciplinary measure dismissal or reduction in rank. 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. The member in this case requested a public hearing pursuant to section 136(1) of the Police Act. In reviewing the record of the Disciplinary Decision the Police Complaint Commissioner concluded that a public hearing was not necessary as the police officer had the assistance of counsel through the investigation and disciplinary proceedings; each of the motorists were interviewed during the course of the investigation and their evidence thoroughly canvassed as it related to the allegations under investigation; and the police officer did not request any further investigation following the submission of the Final Investigation Report and did not request the attendance of any witnesses at the discipline proceeding. Therefore the Police Complaint Commissioner ordered a Review on the Record. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable James Threlfall, retired British Columbia Provincial Court Judge, to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. On December 7, 2018, Adjudicator Threlfall issued his decision where he determined, in part, that the actions of the police officer amounted to a single episode of misconduct which spanned a number of occasions that his actions were as a result of a misguided understanding of his police discretion. Adjudicator Threlfall stated that he was concerned that a police officer with a significant amount of service, clear skill in interacting with the public, and very good performance reviews, could have such little understanding of the significance of what he did and the potential consequences. Adjudicator Threlfall concluded that a suspension of four days without pay, as a global measure, would be appropriate in these circumstances. He also directed that the police officer undertake training specifically on the procedure and process for the swearing Informations and commencing proceedings for any offences, criminal, driving or otherwise. Adjudicator Threlfall was hopeful that this training would emphasize that any officer faced with an uncertainty should consult with his supervisor, and to use one’s colleagues as an ethical sounding board. Adjudicator Threlfall was confident that had such consultations occurred in this case, this misconduct would not have arisen. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/public-hearings/","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":447,"file":"2019-16028","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"The member queried the complainant on police databases for purposes unrelated to the performance of their duties.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns with a member of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD). It was reported that the member queried the complainant’s name using a police database for reasons not associated with their duties as a police officer. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The member queried the complainant on police databases for purposes unrelated to the performance of their duties. A prehearing conference was offered to the member; the member declined the offer and as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the Discipline Authority found that the member knew the complainant and had interacted with the complainant on numerous occasions. The Discipline Authority concluded that the member was accessing the police database for personal use when querying the complainant. In arriving at a decision on disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority noted that all VPD employees are trained in the use of police databases and are trained in the rules for conducting queries and the sharing of information. In this case, the member was an experienced officer and would have been aware of the policies and regulations regarding the use of police databases. The Discipline Authority also noted that the member had received numerous personal and unit citations and commendations throughout their career and that the likelihood of future misconduct was low. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":448,"file":"2016-12506","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The Discipline Authority substantiated all 11 allegations of deceit","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above. This matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The Discipline Authority substantiated all 11 allegations of deceit and proposed a reduction in rank for 12 months, a suspension of two days for each of the 11 allegations for a total of 22 days, and to work under close supervision for one year and participate in a return to work plan as the disciplinary or corrective measures. Subject of section 137(1) of the Police Act the Police Complaint Commissioner must arrange a public hearing on receiving a request from a police officer where the Discipline Authority has proposed as a disciplinary measure dismissal or reduction in rank. 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. The member in this case requested a public hearing pursuant to section 136(1) of the Police Act. In reviewing the record of the Disciplinary Decision the Police Complaint Commissioner concluded that a public hearing was not necessary as the police officer had the assistance of counsel through the investigation and disciplinary proceedings; each of the motorists were interviewed during the course of the investigation and their evidence thoroughly canvassed as it related to the allegations under investigation; and the police officer did not request any further investigation following the submission of the Final Investigation Report and did not request the attendance of any witnesses at the discipline proceeding. Therefore the Police Complaint Commissioner ordered a Review on the Record. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable James Threlfall, retired British Columbia Provincial Court Judge, to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. On December 7, 2018, Adjudicator Threlfall issued his decision where he determined, in part, that the actions of the police officer amounted to a single episode of misconduct which spanned a number of occasions that his actions were as a result of a misguided understanding of his police discretion. Adjudicator Threlfall stated that he was concerned that a police officer with a significant amount of service, clear skill in interacting with the public, and very good performance reviews, could have such little understanding of the significance of what he did and the potential consequences. Adjudicator Threlfall concluded that a suspension of four days without pay, as a global measure, would be appropriate in these circumstances. He also directed that the police officer undertake training specifically on the procedure and process for the swearing Informations and commencing proceedings for any offences, criminal, driving or otherwise. Adjudicator Threlfall was hopeful that this training would emphasize that any officer faced with an uncertainty should consult with his supervisor, and to use one’s colleagues as an ethical sounding board. Adjudicator Threlfall was confident that had such consultations occurred in this case, this misconduct would not have arisen. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/public-hearings/","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":449,"file":"2020-17542","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Attend Court","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to attend a criminal court trial as a witness","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Delta Police Department (DPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a DPD member. It was reported that the member failed to attend a criminal court trial as a witness. The member’s failure to attend Court as required was based on a pre-existing trip which was in conflict with the scheduled Court date. The member had attempted to be excused by Crown Counsel from attending Court prior to the trial date. Crown Counsel advised that they could not excuse the member from attending as directed; however, the member decided to take his leave and go on the trip. He ultimately missed the trial. The absence of the member from Court had an adverse impact on the trial as Crown Counsel accepted a guilty plea from the accused rather than moving forward on all charges that had been laid. Did not attend Court as required and failed to complete his duty. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the respondent member. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measure. OPCC considerations included that the member had taken ownership for his actions and had offered a sincere apology to Crown Counsel without direction or suggestion. The OPCC also noted that policy changes were in effect to ensure that all members read the Availability for Duty policy; and that the receipt of a Law Enforcement Notification was sufficient to compel a member to attend court, whether signed, or not, making Court attendance mandatory, unless excused by the Court or Crown.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":450,"file":"2019-16127","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"inappropriately discussed, on one or more occasions with one or more members, issues pertaining to another member’s future in the Unit contrary to the Respectful Workplace Policy I.B. 060","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Abbotsford Police Department (APD) reported receiving information regarding the conduct of an APD Sergeant and comments made about another officer’s limitations as result of required workplace accommodations. This officer felt that the Sergeant had made critical comments to him and others about his disability. The OPCC determined that there were no public trust issues and that no complaint was received. An internal investigation was initiated. That the member inappropriately discussed, on one or more occasions with one or more members, issues pertaining to another member’s future in the Unit contrary to the Respectful Workplace Policy I.B. 060.","measures":["written reprimand","close supervision","program activity"]},{"id":451,"file":"2019-16127","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"questioning him about his limitations and restrictions imposed by WorkSafe BC in a manner which caused the member to be humiliated and/or intimidated contrary to the Respectful Workplace Policy I.B. 060","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Abbotsford Police Department (APD) reported receiving information regarding the conduct of an APD Sergeant and comments made about another officer’s limitations as result of required workplace accommodations. This officer felt that the Sergeant had made critical comments to him and others about his disability. The OPCC determined that there were no public trust issues and that no complaint was received. An internal investigation was initiated. Contacting the member at his home during evening hours, questioning him about his limitations and restrictions imposed by WorkSafe BC in a manner which caused the member to be humiliated and/or intimidated contrary to the Respectful Workplace Policy I.B. 060.","measures":["written reprimand","close supervision","program activity"]},{"id":452,"file":"2019-16127","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"Engaging in a conversation with the member about his limitations and restrictions imposed by WorkSafe BC in a public location following his return to work and doing so in an angry and/or hostile manner which caused the member to be humiliated and/or intimidated","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Abbotsford Police Department (APD) reported receiving information regarding the conduct of an APD Sergeant and comments made about another officer’s limitations as result of required workplace accommodations. This officer felt that the Sergeant had made critical comments to him and others about his disability. The OPCC determined that there were no public trust issues and that no complaint was received. An internal investigation was initiated. Engaging in a conversation with the member about his limitations and restrictions imposed by WorkSafe BC in a public location following his return to work and doing so in an angry and/or hostile manner which caused the member to be humiliated and/or intimidated contrary to the Respectful Workplace Policy I.B. 060.","measures":["written reprimand","close supervision","program activity"]},{"id":453,"file":"2016-11756","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Public Trust Offence","sublabel":"Discredit Reputation of Department (Conviction)","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"being in a position of trust or authority towards Person A, a young person, did for a sexual purpose touch directly the body of Person A on three occurrences","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The text states the member \"did for a sexual purpose touch directly the body of Person A,\" a young person, and pled guilty to Sexual Exploitation.","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. It was reported that the member engaged in instances of sexual contact with two youths who were involved in a police investigation. In addition, it was reported that the member inappropriately used police facilities and resources to communicate with witnesses and victims in criminal trials and that the member used his authority to hide his misconduct. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation in which the member pled guilty to one count of Sexual Exploitation and two counts of Breach of Trust; the member was sentenced to a custodial prison term of 20 months. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The member resigned from the VPD prior to the conclusion of the investigation. The member, being in a position of trust or authority towards Person A, a young person, did for a sexual purpose touch directly the body of Person A on three occurrences, thus rendering him unfit to perform his duties as a member.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":454,"file":"2016-11756","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Using or Attempting to Use Police Authority for Personal Gain (e.g., Preferential Treatment)","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The member obstructed a VPD investigation when he told Person A to lie and/or mislead VPD investigators, thus using his position for personal gain.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. It was reported that the member engaged in instances of sexual contact with two youths who were involved in a police investigation. In addition, it was reported that the member inappropriately used police facilities and resources to communicate with witnesses and victims in criminal trials and that the member used his authority to hide his misconduct. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation in which the member pled guilty to one count of Sexual Exploitation and two counts of Breach of Trust; the member was sentenced to a custodial prison term of 20 months. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The member resigned from the VPD prior to the conclusion of the investigation. The member obstructed a VPD investigation when he told Person A to lie and/or mislead VPD investigators, thus using his position for personal gain.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":455,"file":"2016-11756","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Public Trust Offence","sublabel":"Discredit Reputation of Department (Conviction)","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"being in a position of trust or authority towards Person B, a young person, did for a sexual purpose touch the body of Person B","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The allegation states the member, in a position of trust toward a young person, \"did for a sexual purpose touch the body of Person B,\" plainly sexualized contact by the officer himself.","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. It was reported that the member engaged in instances of sexual contact with two youths who were involved in a police investigation. In addition, it was reported that the member inappropriately used police facilities and resources to communicate with witnesses and victims in criminal trials and that the member used his authority to hide his misconduct. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation in which the member pled guilty to one count of Sexual Exploitation and two counts of Breach of Trust; the member was sentenced to a custodial prison term of 20 months. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The member resigned from the VPD prior to the conclusion of the investigation. The member, being in a position of trust or authority towards Person B, a young person, did for a sexual purpose touch the body of Person B, thus rendering him unfit to perform his duties as a member.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":456,"file":"2016-11756","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Using or Attempting to Use Police Authority for Personal Gain (e.g., Preferential Treatment)","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"attempted to mislead a member of the RCMP, who was conducting an investigation involving Person B, thus using his position for personal gain","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. It was reported that the member engaged in instances of sexual contact with two youths who were involved in a police investigation. In addition, it was reported that the member inappropriately used police facilities and resources to communicate with witnesses and victims in criminal trials and that the member used his authority to hide his misconduct. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation in which the member pled guilty to one count of Sexual Exploitation and two counts of Breach of Trust; the member was sentenced to a custodial prison term of 20 months. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The member resigned from the VPD prior to the conclusion of the investigation. The member attempted to mislead a member of the RCMP, who was conducting an investigation involving Person B, thus using his position for personal gain.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":457,"file":"2016-11756","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Equipment","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"The member used equipment of the VPD, for purposes unrelated to the performance of his duties as a member and provided Person B with information.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. It was reported that the member engaged in instances of sexual contact with two youths who were involved in a police investigation. In addition, it was reported that the member inappropriately used police facilities and resources to communicate with witnesses and victims in criminal trials and that the member used his authority to hide his misconduct. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation in which the member pled guilty to one count of Sexual Exploitation and two counts of Breach of Trust; the member was sentenced to a custodial prison term of 20 months. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The member resigned from the VPD prior to the conclusion of the investigation. The member used equipment of the VPD, for purposes unrelated to the performance of his duties as a member and provided Person B with information. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the former member committed five counts of misconduct. No prehearing conference was offered and as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the former member admitted to the first allegation but denied the other four allegations. The Discipline Authority determined that the former member’s actions, which included kissing two individuals who had placed their trust in him, were serious breaches of misconduct, particularly considering that the member worked in a key unit of the VPD that was designed to assist and protect vulnerable individuals from being exploited. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Discipline Authority noted that the criminal trial resulted in a custodial jail sentence for the former member and that this matter warranted sanctions that would serve as both a general deterrent and as a message to the former member regarding the seriousness of these actions. The former member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required in the public interest. Even though the member resigned prior to the conclusion of this matter, their Service Record of Discipline will reflect that he was dismissed from the VPD.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":458,"file":"2015-10965","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Negligent Discharge","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"unintentionally discharged a police-issued firearm in a locker room located in the police department","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer unintentionally discharged a police-issued firearm in a locker room located in the police department.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":459,"file":"2020-18132","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Arrest","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"the member had neither the subjective or objective reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the male, and that the member recklessly used unnecessary force on the male without reasonable grounds to do so","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. It was reported that the member conducted a traffic stop with three males which resulted in a physical altercation. One of the males was arrested and charged with Assaulting Peace Officer Causing Bodily Harm. The matter went to trial where the Honourable Judge acquitted the male, citing that there was no basis for the member to have arrested the male for assault, and that the male’s response was proportionate and occurred while the member was violently engaging him. Arresting a member of the public in a reckless manner during a routine traffic stop. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member did not commit misconduct. The Commissioner disagreed as he was of the view that the Discipline Authority had failed to properly consider the applicable jurisprudence related to factual findings and determinations made by the Honourable Judge during the criminal proceedings, and that those findings were binding. The Commissioner appointed retired BC Court of Appeal Judge, the Honourable Mr. Wallace T. Oppal, K.C. to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Mr. Oppal issued his decision where he determined that the Discipline Authority’s findings were at odds with the video evidence and the reasons relied on by the Honourable Judge during the criminal proceedings, and that the Honourable Judge’s reasoning on the question of the lawfulness of the member’s arrest of the male was “compelling.” Mr. Oppal found that the member had neither the subjective or objective reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the male, and that the member recklessly used unnecessary force on the male without reasonable grounds to do so. Disciplinary Process A prehearing conference was offered but was not accepted by the member. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding before Mr. Oppal as the Discipline Authority, where the member admitted to the allegations of Abuse of Authority. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, Mr. Oppal noted that the member was faced with disproportionate provocation on behalf of the males that were involved in the traffic stop and suffered serious injuries because of this incident, and considered the member’s testimony regarding how this matter has affected their personal and professional life. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. *The suspensions were to be served concurrently.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":460,"file":"2020-18132","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"the member recklessly used unnecessary force on the male without reasonable grounds to do so","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. It was reported that the member conducted a traffic stop with three males which resulted in a physical altercation. One of the males was arrested and charged with Assaulting Peace Officer Causing Bodily Harm. The matter went to trial where the Honourable Judge acquitted the male, citing that there was no basis for the member to have arrested the male for assault, and that the male’s response was proportionate and occurred while the member was violently engaging him. Intentionally or recklessly applying unnecessary force and striking a member of the public. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member did not commit misconduct. The Commissioner disagreed as he was of the view that the Discipline Authority had failed to properly consider the applicable jurisprudence related to factual findings and determinations made by the Honourable Judge during the criminal proceedings, and that those findings were binding. The Commissioner appointed retired BC Court of Appeal Judge, the Honourable Mr. Wallace T. Oppal, K.C. to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Mr. Oppal issued his decision where he determined that the Discipline Authority’s findings were at odds with the video evidence and the reasons relied on by the Honourable Judge during the criminal proceedings, and that the Honourable Judge’s reasoning on the question of the lawfulness of the member’s arrest of the male was “compelling.” Mr. Oppal found that the member had neither the subjective or objective reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the male, and that the member recklessly used unnecessary force on the male without reasonable grounds to do so. Disciplinary Process A prehearing conference was offered but was not accepted by the member. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding before Mr. Oppal as the Discipline Authority, where the member admitted to the allegations of Abuse of Authority. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, Mr. Oppal noted that the member was faced with disproportionate provocation on behalf of the males that were involved in the traffic stop and suffered serious injuries because of this incident, and considered the member’s testimony regarding how this matter has affected their personal and professional life. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. *The suspensions were to be served concurrently.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":461,"file":"2010-5486","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"recklessly pulling her, causing her to fall into a doorframe/wall","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"During an arrest of a young woman for being intoxicated in a public place, the officer used unnecessary force by recklessly pulling her, causing her to fall into a doorframe/wall.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":462,"file":"2010-5486","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"the officer had made a derogatory remark about the young woman arrested for intoxication in a public place","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"During a subsequent conversation between another officer and a civilian police communications operator on a recorded telephone line, the officer had made a derogatory remark about the young woman arrested for intoxication in a public place.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":463,"file":"2014-10068","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"While off duty and under the influence of alcohol, a police officer attended a female’s residence uninvited, causing the female concern.'","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"While off duty and under the influence of alcohol, a police officer attended a female’s residence uninvited, causing the female concern.","measures":["reduction in rank","counselling","close supervision"]},{"id":464,"file":"2019-16846","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"Completing a WorkSafe BC form with respect to an injury the member sustained, which included inappropriate sexual comments.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The member himself authored a WorkSafe BC form page that \"detailed inappropriate sexual comments,\" which was then received and reviewed by a civilian VPD Human Resources employee.","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation in relation to a member who completed a WorkSafe BC form in an inappropriate manner. The form was written by the member with respect to an injury the member sustained and included an additional page meant as a joke for colleagues. This page outlined a fictional account of how the injury was sustained and detailed inappropriate sexual comments. This page was subsequently received and reviewed by a civilian employee in the VPD Human Resources Section. Completing a WorkSafe BC form with respect to an injury the member sustained, which included inappropriate sexual comments. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. It was noted that member had no record of any other substantiated matters on his Service record of Discipline and that he accepted full responsibility for his actions. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":465,"file":"2011-6142","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Vehicle Pursuit/Emergency Driving","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to adhere to pursuit policy by engaging in a pursuit contrary to department policy","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The members failed to adhere to pursuit policy by engaging in a pursuit contrary to department policy.","measures":["training"]},{"id":466,"file":"2011-6930","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2014,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Handcuffs","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.62,"thin":false,"quote":"An officer placed an elderly woman in handcuffs in a manner that caused concern.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An officer placed an elderly woman in handcuffs in a manner that caused concern. The woman was not manhandled or injured, but was emotionally upset.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":467,"file":"2022-21726","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Negligent Discharge of Firearm/Weapon","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"the member discharged their firearm, and the round impacted a metal filing cabinet","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Abbotsford Police Department (APD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of an APD member who was participating in a training exercise. While the member was removing a trigger lock from the departmentally issued firearm, the member discharged their firearm, and the round impacted a metal filing cabinet; no injury was sustained by any party. The member failed to follow safe firearm handling procedures. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. 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. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority noted that the member accepted responsibility for their actions and had taken self-imposed initiatives to complete remedial training demonstrating proper firearm procedures. The member also reviewed firearm safety rules, departmental firearm policy, safe storage and the procedure for using a cable locking mechanism for the firearm. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":468,"file":"2012-7994","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The officer used unnecessary force to place the female in handcuffs.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Police initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle. The male driver possessed a learner’s licence which required that he be accompanied by a qualified supervising driver over 25 years of age. The officer approached the female passenger in order to determine whether she qualified as a supervising driver. The female passenger provided a false name and then said that she did not have a valid driver’s licence. The female driver continued to provide a false name and was informed she was going to be arrested for obstruction of justice. The officer used unnecessary force to place the female in handcuffs.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":469,"file":"2014-10183","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Negligent Discharge","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"neglected to ensure that a police-issued firearm was not loaded before engaging in practicing “dry firing” prior to attending the range for the officer’s annual firearms qualification","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer neglected to ensure that a police-issued firearm was not loaded before engaging in practicing “dry firing” prior to attending the range for the officer’s annual firearms qualification.","measures":["training","advice future conduct"]},{"id":470,"file":"2018-14810","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2019,"heading":"Discourtesy","sublabel":"Discourteous - Behavioural","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"By using derogatory terms to refer to the complainant, telling him to shut up, making hand gestures about the complainant, and invading his personal space while speaking to him.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The complainant reported that he had an encounter with four members of the Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP) while travelling on the SkyTrain where police asked him to produce his ticket. The complainant alleged that he was wrongfully detained and was not provided a reason for having to provide his identification even though he asked the members why he had to do this. The complainant reported that one of the members stated that he knew how to deal with people like him, told him to shut up, called him an idiot, and got very close to his face. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation was required into the incident. By using derogatory terms to refer to the complainant, telling him to shut up, making hand gestures about the complainant, and invading his personal space while speaking to him. A prehearing conference was held in relation to this matter where a written reprimand was proposed. The OPCC approved the discipline in this matter noting that the member had recently retired from police department and therefore additional training would not be necessary and would not serve to correct or educate the member to prevent future misconduct.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":471,"file":"2019-16873","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"making profane, disrespectful, intimidating, or demeaning written or verbal communications or conduct to another member while in the locker room","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The West Vancouver Police Department (WVPD) initiated an internal investigation into the conduct of one of their members for allegations of workplace harassment, including making profane, disrespectful, intimidating, or demeaning written or verbal communications or conduct to another member while in the locker room. The WVPD requested that an external policy agency conduct this investigation. Breaching the WVPD Respectful Workplace policy. The Internal Discipline Authority determined that the conduct of the member clearly breached the department’s Respectful Workplace policy but noted that the conduct was on the lower end of seriousness and that the concerns seemed to have resolved itself over time. The Discipline Authority concluded that an appropriate outcome would be for the member and the department to come to an agreement on a letter of expectations going forward.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":472,"file":"2019-16709","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - ERIW","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"the last round was fired after the suspect had his hands in the air without movement for at least 30 seconds","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Commissioner initiated an investigation following a use of force incident involving the use of a beanbag shotgun. It was reported that an off-duty member returned to his parked vehicle and observed a male who was not known to him sitting in the driver’s seat of the vehicle. In response, several Vancouver Police Department (VPD) members attended and surrounded the vehicle. The male did not comply with police direction to exit the vehicle. The member then fired three rounds from his beanbag shotgun, hitting the legs of the male. The male continued to ignore commands, and the member fired another three rounds from his beanbag shotgun. Associated video of the incident showed the final round being discharged while the male’s hands were visible, resting on top of the windshield, and appeared to be empty. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and act as the Discipline Authority. Using unnecessary force during an arrest, specifically the deployment of six beanbag rounds. Following an investigation, this matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The Discipline Authority found that the member’s actions were not consistent with the National Use of Force Framework, or VPD Policy. He found that the member reacted quickly without taking the time to properly assess and acquire all the information necessary before deploying the less lethal shotgun and that the last round was fired after the suspect had his hands in the air without movement for at least 30 seconds. The member accepted responsibility for his actions at the discipline proceeding. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":473,"file":"2023-23260","agency":"Surrey Police Service","year":2024,"heading":"Discourtesy","sublabel":"Discourteous - Verbal","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"the language and demeanor of the member was not appropriate in the circumstances","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns regarding an interaction with members of the Surrey Police Service. The complainants reported being stopped by police while driving a motor vehicle. During the traffic stop, the complainants reported that police used inappropriate and unacceptable language. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The member failed to behave with the courtesy due in the circumstances towards the complainants while conducting the traffic stop. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member did not commit misconduct. The Commissioner disagreed as he was of the view that the Discipline Authority failed to properly consider the evidence corroborating the derogatory comments alleged by the complainant, Upon review of the matter, the Commissioner determined that there was a reasonable basis to believe that the decision of the Discipline Authority was incorrect and appointed the retired BC Court of Appeal Judge, the Honourable David Frankel, K.C., to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Mr. Frankel determined that while the passenger of the vehicle was uncooperative and argumentative, the language and demeanor of the member was not appropriate in the circumstances. Accordingly, Mr. Frankel determined that the allegation of misconduct appeared to be substantiated. Disciplinary Process A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted the member had voluntarily offered to apologize for their actions, took full responsibility for their conduct, and recognized the impact of their manner of communication on the complainants. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. For further information on this decision, go to: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":474,"file":"2011-6950","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"conducted queries on the PRIME database for purposes unrelated to his duties as a police officer","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member conducted queries on the PRIME database for purposes unrelated to his duties as a police officer.","measures":["written reprimand","counselling"]},{"id":475,"file":"2015-11044","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"unlawfully detained a male and female for an alleged theft at a home improvement store and made accusatory and derogatory remarks towards them","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On August 2, 2015, an off duty police officer unlawfully detained a male and female for an alleged theft at a home improvement store and made accusatory and derogatory remarks towards them. The police officer’s conduct made store employees feel threatened and nervous.","measures":["written reprimand","training","counselling"]},{"id":476,"file":"2017-13059","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the member pushed the AP backwards in the jail cell and forcefully pulled the mattress out from underneath the AP","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into a use of force incident at the VPD jail following concerns reported by Crown Counsel. It was reported that during the booking process, the affected person (AP) was going through a voluntary fingerprinting process and during this process, a verbal interaction occurred and the member physically took the AP to the ground. The AP was then returned to a jail cell. The verbal interaction continued in the cell, during which time the member pushed the AP against the cell wall, followed a short time later by the member removing the cell mattress from underneath the AP’s body. A criminal investigation into the conduct of the member resulted in the matter being referred to the BC Prosecution Service but no charges were approved. The member used unnecessary force on the AP when the member pushed the AP backwards in the jail cell and forcefully pulled the mattress out from underneath the AP. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority (DA) found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered; however, the member declined the offer and as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The DA did not accept the member’s reasons for re-entering the cell and found that the member intentionally or recklessly entered the jail cell to carry on the interaction with the AP. The DA found that there was no evidence that the AP posed a risk to themselves or others in a closed cell. The DA ultimately determined that the member’s interaction with the AP while in the jail cell, including the push and the method of removing the mattress from underneath the AP met the threshold for misconduct. In arriving at a decision on discipline, the DA noted that the member made an error and that the conduct fell on the lower end of the spectrum of seriousness. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed the findings and determined that further review was not in the public interest.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":477,"file":"2018-15679","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Attend Court","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"In December 2018, the member did not attend provincial court as required and as a result the Crown prosecutor entered a stay of proceedings.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Saanich Police Department (SPD) reported that a member did not adhere to departmental policy respecting court notifications, which states that members will attend court or a prosecutor's interview as required, and are expected to manage their individual court commitments. In December 2018, the member did not attend provincial court as required and as a result the Crown prosecutor entered a stay of proceedings. The nature of the court proceeding involved an offence under the Motor Vehicle Act. The Crown prosecutor called the member after court to inquire about the reason he did not attend. It was at this time that the member realized that he missed his court appearance. The OPCC determined that there were no public trust issues and that no complaint has been received by the OPCC. An internal investigation was initiated as a result. The investigation determined that the member simply forgot about the court proceedings and did not knowingly disregard his responsibility to attend. The member accepted full responsibility for his actions. Failing to attend court proceedings as required pursuant to department policy.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":478,"file":"2016-12502","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"The SMC provided two breath samples into a breathalyser instrument which reported a reading of 180 mg alcohol/100 mL blood.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On August 27, 2016, while off-duty, a Special Municipal Constable (SMC) was the subject of an impaired driving investigation while in another police agency’s jurisdiction. The SMC was reportedly driving in an unsafe manner and, as a result, someone called 9-1-1 to report this driving behaviour. The SMC provided two breath samples into a breathalyser instrument which reported a reading of 180 mg alcohol/100 mL blood. This was more than twice the legal limit. The SMC was subsequently issued a 24 hour driving prohibition, an Administrative Driving Prohibition (ADP – 90 day driving prohibition) and released on a Promise to Appear for Impaired Driving charges. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference where an agreement was reached with respect to the proposed discipline of a four day suspension. A report following the prehearing conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. In considering the proposed four day suspension without pay, this office reviewed a portion of the Reasons for Judgement by Mr. Ian Pitfield, a retired judge, in OPCC file 2015-10904 (available on the OPCC website www.opcc.bc.ca ), which notes: In my opinion, verbal or written reprimands and minimal suspensions for operating a motor vehicle while off-duty and under the influence of alcohol sufficient to result in a \"Fail\" reading on an ASD are woefully inadequate and the Disciplinary Authority rightly decided the sanction should be greater. In my opinion, given the serious consequences associated with drinking and driving, the important role played by police in reducing the incidence of drinking and driving, and the public expectation that police officers will respect the laws they themselves enforce, suspension should be the rule rather than the exception, the minimum should be not less than 3 days, and the maximum, in the range of 7 to 10 days. Mr. Pitfield also noted: The prehearing conference process is intended to promote the just, speedy and cost-efficient conduct of the disciplinary process. The conferences are a vital part of the process. Their use should be encouraged. As a consequence, unless the result clearly falls outside the range of reason, whether below or beyond the appropriate range, I am of the view that acceptance of the prehearing conference result best serves the disciplinary process. Considering all of the factors pursuant to section 126 of the Police Act , the OPCC found that the proposed four day suspension was at the low end of the acceptable range for appropriate discipline based on the circumstances. However, the OPCC did not believe that the discipline imposed would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":479,"file":"2018-15571","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.65,"thin":false,"quote":"used a personal cell phone to take a photograph of a male prisoner committing an indecent act in his jail cell and later showed the photograph to another jail guard and to the jail nurse","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The guard photographed \"a male prisoner committing an indecent act in his jail cell\" and showed it to coworkers, constituting voyeuristic, image-based sexual abuse committed by the officer herself.","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that a Special Municipal Constable (SMC) employed as a jail guard in the Vancouver jail used a personal cell phone to take a photograph of a male prisoner committing an indecent act in his jail cell and later showed the photograph to another jail guard and to the jail nurse. Taking an inappropriate photograph of a male prisoner and showing it to other VPD personnel. The member was offered a prehearing conference. At the prehearing conference, the member accepted responsibility for her actions. It was determined that the member’s inexperience and immaturity contributed to the misconduct; however, the Discipline Authority noted that, “although the member provided a rationale for using her personal phone to take a photograph of the prisoner’s image; that rationale is not keeping with professional practice and is contrary to common sense.” Upon review, the OPCC determined that the Prehearing Conference Authority appropriately considered the aggravating and mitigating factors and that the discipline measure imposed was both correct and appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":480,"file":"2017-13521","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"The member assaulted his estranged spouse.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The text states the member \"assaulted his estranged spouse\" and the Adjudicator found \"the member's misconduct involved intimate partner violence,\" plainly establishing domestic violence committed by the officer.","text":"Upon request from the Abbotsford Police Department (APD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a member in relation to a number of incidents involving the officer’s estranged spouse, These included assaulting his estranged spouse, placing a GPS tracker on the spouse’s vehicle, following his estranged spouse and subjecting her to unwanted communication, identifying himself as a police officer in order to facilitate access to security video, and accessing a police database for non-duty related reasons and making inquiries in respect of his spouse. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings in which the member plead guilty to the criminal charge of Assault and received a conditional discharge. The member assaulted his estranged spouse. Following a discipline proceeding, the Discipline Authority proposed several disciplinary and corrective measures totaling 16 days of suspension without pay. The officer did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The Commissioner determined that a Review on the Record was necessary as the disciplinary or corrective measures proposed by the Abbotsford police did not reflect the serious, sustained and deliberate nature of this behaviour which spanned a number of months. The Commissioner noted that while the Discipline Authority correctly underscored the seriousness of domestic violence and the public’s expectation that those “sworn to protect the vulnerable from intimate partner violence must not engage in it themselves,” those principles were not sufficiently reflected in the proposed penalties. The Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge, David Pendleton, to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. After hearing submissions from the Commissioner and the member’s counsel, the Adjudicator determined that the Abbotsford Discipline Authority correctly considered that the member accepted responsibility for the misconduct and was willing to take steps to prevent its recurrence. Adjudicator Pendleton noted that he found the “six-month period during which the member committed misconduct to be an anomaly” and that the misconduct occurred “during the member’s marriage breakdown when he was experiencing a good deal of stress.” 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. The Adjudicator determined that “the member’s misconduct involved intimate partner violence which occurred during the break up of his marriage. The assault of his wife was serious. The planned and sustained use of the GPS tracker and the unwanted communications, occurring after the member was placed on leave and warned by a superior officer and a lawyer, as well as his accessing the CCTV footage and police database are serious acts of misconduct.” Adjudicator Pendleton imposed disciplinary or corrective measures of a 15-day suspension, without pay, for each allegation of misconduct, to be served consecutively, resulting in a cumulative total of 75 days. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":481,"file":"2017-13521","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The member placed GPS tracking devices on his estranged spouse's vehicle on two separate occasions.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The officer himself placed GPS trackers on his estranged wife's vehicle, conduct the Adjudicator found \"involved intimate partner violence,\" alongside his guilty plea for assaulting her.","text":"Upon request from the Abbotsford Police Department (APD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a member in relation to a number of incidents involving the officer’s estranged spouse, These included assaulting his estranged spouse, placing a GPS tracker on the spouse’s vehicle, following his estranged spouse and subjecting her to unwanted communication, identifying himself as a police officer in order to facilitate access to security video, and accessing a police database for non-duty related reasons and making inquiries in respect of his spouse. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings in which the member plead guilty to the criminal charge of Assault and received a conditional discharge. The member placed GPS tracking devices on his estranged spouse's vehicle on two separate occasions. Following a discipline proceeding, the Discipline Authority proposed several disciplinary and corrective measures totaling 16 days of suspension without pay. The officer did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The Commissioner determined that a Review on the Record was necessary as the disciplinary or corrective measures proposed by the Abbotsford police did not reflect the serious, sustained and deliberate nature of this behaviour which spanned a number of months. The Commissioner noted that while the Discipline Authority correctly underscored the seriousness of domestic violence and the public’s expectation that those “sworn to protect the vulnerable from intimate partner violence must not engage in it themselves,” those principles were not sufficiently reflected in the proposed penalties. The Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge, David Pendleton, to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. After hearing submissions from the Commissioner and the member’s counsel, the Adjudicator determined that the Abbotsford Discipline Authority correctly considered that the member accepted responsibility for the misconduct and was willing to take steps to prevent its recurrence. Adjudicator Pendleton noted that he found the “six-month period during which the member committed misconduct to be an anomaly” and that the misconduct occurred “during the member’s marriage breakdown when he was experiencing a good deal of stress.” 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. The Adjudicator determined that “the member’s misconduct involved intimate partner violence which occurred during the break up of his marriage. The assault of his wife was serious. The planned and sustained use of the GPS tracker and the unwanted communications, occurring after the member was placed on leave and warned by a superior officer and a lawyer, as well as his accessing the CCTV footage and police database are serious acts of misconduct.” Adjudicator Pendleton imposed disciplinary or corrective measures of a 15-day suspension, without pay, for each allegation of misconduct, to be served consecutively, resulting in a cumulative total of 75 days. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":482,"file":"2017-13521","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member followed his estranged spouse, subjected her to unwanted communications via texts, emails, notes, and telephone calls and entered her residence when she was not present.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The member stalked his estranged spouse with unwanted texts, emails, calls and entered her residence; the Adjudicator found the misconduct \"involved intimate partner violence,\" including assaulting his wife.","text":"Upon request from the Abbotsford Police Department (APD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a member in relation to a number of incidents involving the officer’s estranged spouse, These included assaulting his estranged spouse, placing a GPS tracker on the spouse’s vehicle, following his estranged spouse and subjecting her to unwanted communication, identifying himself as a police officer in order to facilitate access to security video, and accessing a police database for non-duty related reasons and making inquiries in respect of his spouse. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings in which the member plead guilty to the criminal charge of Assault and received a conditional discharge. The member followed his estranged spouse, subjected her to unwanted communications via texts, emails, notes, and telephone calls and entered her residence when she was not present. Following a discipline proceeding, the Discipline Authority proposed several disciplinary and corrective measures totaling 16 days of suspension without pay. The officer did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The Commissioner determined that a Review on the Record was necessary as the disciplinary or corrective measures proposed by the Abbotsford police did not reflect the serious, sustained and deliberate nature of this behaviour which spanned a number of months. The Commissioner noted that while the Discipline Authority correctly underscored the seriousness of domestic violence and the public’s expectation that those “sworn to protect the vulnerable from intimate partner violence must not engage in it themselves,” those principles were not sufficiently reflected in the proposed penalties. The Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge, David Pendleton, to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. After hearing submissions from the Commissioner and the member’s counsel, the Adjudicator determined that the Abbotsford Discipline Authority correctly considered that the member accepted responsibility for the misconduct and was willing to take steps to prevent its recurrence. Adjudicator Pendleton noted that he found the “six-month period during which the member committed misconduct to be an anomaly” and that the misconduct occurred “during the member’s marriage breakdown when he was experiencing a good deal of stress.” 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. The Adjudicator determined that “the member’s misconduct involved intimate partner violence which occurred during the break up of his marriage. The assault of his wife was serious. The planned and sustained use of the GPS tracker and the unwanted communications, occurring after the member was placed on leave and warned by a superior officer and a lawyer, as well as his accessing the CCTV footage and police database are serious acts of misconduct.” Adjudicator Pendleton imposed disciplinary or corrective measures of a 15-day suspension, without pay, for each allegation of misconduct, to be served consecutively, resulting in a cumulative total of 75 days. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":483,"file":"2017-13521","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The member identified himself as a police officer while off-duty in order to facilitate access to a third party's security video and obtaining photographs of his estranged spouse from said video.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Abbotsford Police Department (APD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a member in relation to a number of incidents involving the officer’s estranged spouse, These included assaulting his estranged spouse, placing a GPS tracker on the spouse’s vehicle, following his estranged spouse and subjecting her to unwanted communication, identifying himself as a police officer in order to facilitate access to security video, and accessing a police database for non-duty related reasons and making inquiries in respect of his spouse. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings in which the member plead guilty to the criminal charge of Assault and received a conditional discharge. The member identified himself as a police officer while off-duty in order to facilitate access to a third party's security video and obtaining photographs of his estranged spouse from said video. Following a discipline proceeding, the Discipline Authority proposed several disciplinary and corrective measures totaling 16 days of suspension without pay. The officer did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The Commissioner determined that a Review on the Record was necessary as the disciplinary or corrective measures proposed by the Abbotsford police did not reflect the serious, sustained and deliberate nature of this behaviour which spanned a number of months. The Commissioner noted that while the Discipline Authority correctly underscored the seriousness of domestic violence and the public’s expectation that those “sworn to protect the vulnerable from intimate partner violence must not engage in it themselves,” those principles were not sufficiently reflected in the proposed penalties. The Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge, David Pendleton, to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. After hearing submissions from the Commissioner and the member’s counsel, the Adjudicator determined that the Abbotsford Discipline Authority correctly considered that the member accepted responsibility for the misconduct and was willing to take steps to prevent its recurrence. Adjudicator Pendleton noted that he found the “six-month period during which the member committed misconduct to be an anomaly” and that the misconduct occurred “during the member’s marriage breakdown when he was experiencing a good deal of stress.” 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. The Adjudicator determined that “the member’s misconduct involved intimate partner violence which occurred during the break up of his marriage. The assault of his wife was serious. The planned and sustained use of the GPS tracker and the unwanted communications, occurring after the member was placed on leave and warned by a superior officer and a lawyer, as well as his accessing the CCTV footage and police database are serious acts of misconduct.” Adjudicator Pendleton imposed disciplinary or corrective measures of a 15-day suspension, without pay, for each allegation of misconduct, to be served consecutively, resulting in a cumulative total of 75 days. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":484,"file":"2017-13521","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member accessed a police database for non-duty related reasons and made inquiries with respect to his estranged spouse in contravention of departmental policy.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Abbotsford Police Department (APD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a member in relation to a number of incidents involving the officer’s estranged spouse, These included assaulting his estranged spouse, placing a GPS tracker on the spouse’s vehicle, following his estranged spouse and subjecting her to unwanted communication, identifying himself as a police officer in order to facilitate access to security video, and accessing a police database for non-duty related reasons and making inquiries in respect of his spouse. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings in which the member plead guilty to the criminal charge of Assault and received a conditional discharge. The member accessed a police database for non-duty related reasons and made inquiries with respect to his estranged spouse in contravention of departmental policy. Following a discipline proceeding, the Discipline Authority proposed several disciplinary and corrective measures totaling 16 days of suspension without pay. The officer did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The Commissioner determined that a Review on the Record was necessary as the disciplinary or corrective measures proposed by the Abbotsford police did not reflect the serious, sustained and deliberate nature of this behaviour which spanned a number of months. The Commissioner noted that while the Discipline Authority correctly underscored the seriousness of domestic violence and the public’s expectation that those “sworn to protect the vulnerable from intimate partner violence must not engage in it themselves,” those principles were not sufficiently reflected in the proposed penalties. The Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge, David Pendleton, to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. After hearing submissions from the Commissioner and the member’s counsel, the Adjudicator determined that the Abbotsford Discipline Authority correctly considered that the member accepted responsibility for the misconduct and was willing to take steps to prevent its recurrence. Adjudicator Pendleton noted that he found the “six-month period during which the member committed misconduct to be an anomaly” and that the misconduct occurred “during the member’s marriage breakdown when he was experiencing a good deal of stress.” 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. The Adjudicator determined that “the member’s misconduct involved intimate partner violence which occurred during the break up of his marriage. The assault of his wife was serious. The planned and sustained use of the GPS tracker and the unwanted communications, occurring after the member was placed on leave and warned by a superior officer and a lawyer, as well as his accessing the CCTV footage and police database are serious acts of misconduct.” Adjudicator Pendleton imposed disciplinary or corrective measures of a 15-day suspension, without pay, for each allegation of misconduct, to be served consecutively, resulting in a cumulative total of 75 days. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":485,"file":"2023-23622","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"the member admitted to directing profanity and sarcasm towards the other members amounting to discreditable conduct","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VicPD member. It was reported that the member had been operating a motor vehicle while off-duty and was stopped by police from another municipal police department for a traffic offence. The member was alleged to have directed inappropriate comments including profanity at the on-duty members conducting the traffic stop. The member’s inappropriate interaction and dialogue with members from another municipal police department. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered to the member which the member declined. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. At the discipline proceeding, the member admitted to directing profanity and sarcasm towards the other members amounting to discreditable conduct. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority noted that the member has fully accepted responsibility for their actions and reflected on their behaviour during this incident and the conduct occurred over a short period of time. The Discipline Authority also noted that no members of the public observed the incident, and that the member had no substantiated misconduct on his Service Record of Discipline. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":486,"file":"2018-15218","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"activated the emergency lights and siren while driving her children to their elementary school","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On September 4, 2018, a police officer strapped her two children together using one seatbelt in the front seat of a police van, then activated the emergency lights and siren while driving her children to their elementary school. The officer’s actions in activating the police vehicle emergency lights and siren caused several motorists to pull over to the side of the road.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":487,"file":"2018-15218","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Leave Duty Without Permission","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"departed from the policing jurisdiction of the City of Victoria for a purpose not related to her policing duties, without notifying a police supervisor and while already assigned to an investigation","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer departed from the policing jurisdiction of the City of Victoria for a purpose not related to her policing duties, without notifying a police supervisor and while already assigned to an investigation. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. 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. The Prehearing Conference Authority served the police officer with a violation ticket for having her two children seat-belted in a single seat contrary to section 39.02(b) of the Motor Vehicle Act Regulations. The police officer was in the process of retiring and therefore there was little likelihood of this behaviour being repeated. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":488,"file":"2018-15450","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"A speed of 140 km/hr was registered by laser in a posted 90 km/hr zone. The vehicle was then observed to make a sudden lane change in very close proximity to another vehicle, cutting it off.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A New Westminster Police Department (NWPD) member was observed by police to be travelling at a high rate of speed in an HOV lane. A speed of 140 km/hr was registered by laser in a posted 90 km/hr zone. The vehicle was then observed to make a sudden lane change in very close proximity to another vehicle, cutting it off. Police stopped the vehicle and issued the member a violation ticket. It was determined that the member was driving an unmarked police vehicle for which the member had overnight privileges. It was determined that the member was on his way to work and was not actively engaged in police duties. Operating a vehicle at a high rate of speed in the HOV lane, 140 km/hr in a posted 90 km/h zone, and making a sudden lane change in close proximity to another vehicle, cutting it off. A prehearing conference was offered to the member where the member agreed to the proposed discipline. The OPCC reviewed the proposed corrective measure and determined that the proposed discipline was not appropriate considering the circumstances as it did not adequately address the risk to the public safety. In addition, the OPCC disagreed that the member had accepted responsibility for his actions. The matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the member admitted to the allegation of Discreditable Conduct. The member was invited to make submissions with respect to penalty. The Discipline Authority reviewed the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors and imposed a written reprimand. The Police Complaint Commissioner reviewed the outcome of the discipline proceeding and determined that further review of this matter by appointed a retired judge was not required. In arriving at this decision, the Commissioner further considered that in this case the member was issued a violation ticket for excessive speeding.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":489,"file":"2017-13226","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.55,"thin":false,"quote":"A police officer entered into a relationship with a civilian employee of the Nelson Police Department whom the police officer was supervising.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer entered into a relationship with a civilian employee of the Nelson Police Department whom the police officer was supervising. The internal discipline investigation determined that the relationship was consensual and did not take place while the police officer was on duty or on police property. Although the relationship ended, the police officer would not be provided the opportunity to act as the civilian employee’s supervisor again. The OPCC reviewed the investigation and the Internal Discipline Authority’s decision. The OPCC determined there were no public trust concerns that required investigation.","measures":["advice future conduct","transfer reassignment"]},{"id":490,"file":"2018-14475","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Police Service Dog","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"released his canine on that person when a lesser use of force would have been more appropriate in the circumstances","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On February 3, 2018, a police dog handler took an individual into custody and released his canine on that person when a lesser use of force would have been more appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":491,"file":"2018-14475","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"neglected to consider all of the established provincial guidelines for the threshold and circumstances of using a police dog","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On February 3, 2018, the police dog handler neglected to consider all of the established provincial guidelines for the threshold and circumstances of using a police dog. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. The Prehearing Conference Authority found that the police dog handler accepted full responsibility for the decision he made on the night in question. Further the police dog handler was aware of the fact that this was a \"Use of Force\" decision that he made in error and stated that he had learned from this experience. While it was appreciated that many decisions are made in a split second, the police dog handler indicated that he would assess all force options first in the future deployment of his canine. He also understood that further decision making was necessary in this occasion regarding the consideration all of the guidelines of the British Columbia Provincial Policing Standards for Police Service Dogs. The police dog handler was remorseful and accepted that releasing his dog on this occasion was incorrect. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":492,"file":"2018-14679","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"the actions of the member during the search were of \"great concern, whether he misappropriated the money, or played a practical joke\"","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Abbotsford Police Department (APD) reported that one of their members of the APD Drug Squad had been summoned to appear in criminal court in April 2018, for a ‘voir dire' where it was alleged by defense counsel that the member committed a serious criminal act respecting seized currency and other evidence during the course of executing a search warrant at his client’s residence. Upon request by the APD, the OPCC directed the New Westminster Police Department (NWPD) to complete the investigation and appointed Chief Constable Dave Jones as the Discipline Authority. This investigation was suspended while a criminal investigation by the RCMP was undertaken. The RCMP referred the matter to the BC Prosecution Service who elected to not proceed with criminal charges. Inappropriate handling of exhibits, including the placement of cash in his sock while conducting a judicially authorized search. 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. The matter proceeded directly to a discipline proceeding. In arriving at his determination, the Discipline Authority noted that the actions of the member during the search were of “great concern, whether he misappropriated the money, or played a practical joke” and that the member was “unaware that he was being video recorded, and his actions in how he handled some of exhibits, while conducting a judicially authorized search, are clearly inappropriate including the placing of the cash in his sock. Without the video being made available neither the court, nor the public, would have been made aware of [the member’s] actions.” The Discipline Authority found that there were several gaps within the video evidence and that video had been erased or lost which left the Discipline Authority with limited evidence: that the small denomination American bills were not accounted for, and the action of the member putting the cash into his sock, which he admitted to. What the video did not show is what happens after the last thirty second video clip. The Discipline Authority reasoned that there was no confirmation that the cash was taken from the residence, and if the cash was taken there is no evidence about who did. The Discipline Authority had concerns with the missing video and the fact that there were others entering the home and removing items, which prevented in the Discipline Authority having a complete picture of what occurred. While the member stated that he did not carry out the practical joke, the cash that was involved was never accounted for, either in his notes, or as part of any records of seizures from the residence. To this date the member could not state, with any certainty, what happened after he put the money in his sock, and where he left the money after he decided not to perform the practical joke. The Discipline Authority ultimately concluded that the member’s “attempt at humour gave the appearance that [he] had had misappropriated the money, and led to negative public exposure for both [the member] and the Abbotsford Police Department, as a whole.” As a result, the Discipline Authority reduced the member’s rank, had the member transferred out of the major crimes unit and required the member to undertake additional training in police ethical behaviour. The OPCC reviewed this matter and determined that there were insufficient grounds to arrange for a further review of this matter. The OPCC noted that the proposed discipline will ensure continued monitoring of the member’s performance and additional training will assist in preventing this conduct from recurring.","measures":["reduction in rank","training","transfer reassignment"]},{"id":493,"file":"2020-17339","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"verbally abused the on-ice official and projected himself in an unprofessional manner to other spectators, coaches, and players","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Delta Police Department (DPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a DPD member. According to the DPD, the member was ejected from a hockey game after making comments to the referee regarding a call that was made. It was reported that the member verbally abused the on-ice official and projected himself in an unprofessional manner to other spectators, coaches, and players. This behaviour was observed by a number of individuals and led to the DPD being notified of this incident. Engaging in verbal altercation with a minor hockey referee and parents of other players, and refusing to immediately obey the referee’s direction to leave the ice rink. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member authored unsolicited apology letters, had fully accepted responsibility and made no excuses for his actions. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":494,"file":"2015-11071","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2016,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Improper/Inadequate Documentation of Seized Property","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.55,"thin":false,"quote":"It was later determined that four of the items could not be located.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On February 11, 2015, a police officer recovered two backpacks that were left on a bus. The police officer entered the two backpacks and the 23 items contained therein into PRIME. It was later determined that four of the items could not be located.","measures":["close supervision"]},{"id":495,"file":"2015-11071","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2016,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to record the locker number of the seized property in their notebook contrary to departmental policy","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer failed to record the locker number of the seized property in their notebook contrary to departmental policy.","measures":["close supervision"]},{"id":496,"file":"2015-11071","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2016,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to make a notebook entry listing the property seized on February 11, 2015, contrary to departmental policy, and the police officer failed to save or preserve evidence of the returned property","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer failed to make a notebook entry listing the property seized on February 11, 2015, contrary to departmental policy, and the police officer failed to save or preserve evidence of the returned property, which consisted of a sheet of foolscap paper, contrary to department policy. *The police officer was to work under close supervision for a total of 48 working shifts.","measures":["close supervision"]},{"id":497,"file":"2017-14184","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer lost his temper and yelled profanities and derogatory comments at the officers who were conducting the check stop.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On December 3, 2017, the police officer was off duty and on his way home when a police check stop delayed traffic. The police officer lost his temper and yelled profanities and derogatory comments at the officers who were conducting the check stop. The matter proceeded to a prehearing conference where an agreement was reached with respect to the proposed discipline of a verbal reprimand. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. 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. The police officer agreed that his actions brought discredit to the department and made no attempt to mislead or minimize his actions. The police officer admitted he made a mistake and that he said things that were in poor taste. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":498,"file":"2016-12496","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"Submitted overtime claims that to the member’s knowledge was false or misleading.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that a member assigned to a criminal investigation unit submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading. These overtime claims were in relation to various investigations in which the member claimed to be the surveillance coordinator or team leader when the member was not actively engaged in those duties. Submitted overtime claims that to the member’s knowledge was false or misleading.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":499,"file":"2016-12496","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that a member assigned to a criminal investigation unit submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading. These overtime claims were in relation to various investigations in which the member claimed to be the surveillance coordinator or team leader when the member was not actively engaged in those duties. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":500,"file":"2016-12496","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that a member assigned to a criminal investigation unit submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading. These overtime claims were in relation to various investigations in which the member claimed to be the surveillance coordinator or team leader when the member was not actively engaged in those duties. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":501,"file":"2016-12496","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that a member assigned to a criminal investigation unit submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading. These overtime claims were in relation to various investigations in which the member claimed to be the surveillance coordinator or team leader when the member was not actively engaged in those duties. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":502,"file":"2016-12496","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that a member assigned to a criminal investigation unit submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading. These overtime claims were in relation to various investigations in which the member claimed to be the surveillance coordinator or team leader when the member was not actively engaged in those duties. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":503,"file":"2016-12496","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that a member assigned to a criminal investigation unit submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading. These overtime claims were in relation to various investigations in which the member claimed to be the surveillance coordinator or team leader when the member was not actively engaged in those duties. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":504,"file":"2016-12496","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that a member assigned to a criminal investigation unit submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading. These overtime claims were in relation to various investigations in which the member claimed to be the surveillance coordinator or team leader when the member was not actively engaged in those duties. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":505,"file":"2016-12496","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that a member assigned to a criminal investigation unit submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading. These overtime claims were in relation to various investigations in which the member claimed to be the surveillance coordinator or team leader when the member was not actively engaged in those duties. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":506,"file":"2016-12496","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that a member assigned to a criminal investigation unit submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading. These overtime claims were in relation to various investigations in which the member claimed to be the surveillance coordinator or team leader when the member was not actively engaged in those duties. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":507,"file":"2016-12496","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that a member assigned to a criminal investigation unit submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading. These overtime claims were in relation to various investigations in which the member claimed to be the surveillance coordinator or team leader when the member was not actively engaged in those duties. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":508,"file":"2016-12496","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that a member assigned to a criminal investigation unit submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading. These overtime claims were in relation to various investigations in which the member claimed to be the surveillance coordinator or team leader when the member was not actively engaged in those duties. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":509,"file":"2016-12496","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading. These overtime claims were in relation to various investigations in which the member claimed to be the surveillance coordinator or team leader when the member was not actively engaged in those duties.'","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that a member assigned to a criminal investigation unit submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading. These overtime claims were in relation to various investigations in which the member claimed to be the surveillance coordinator or team leader when the member was not actively engaged in those duties. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":510,"file":"2016-12496","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that a member assigned to a criminal investigation unit submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading. These overtime claims were in relation to various investigations in which the member claimed to be the surveillance coordinator or team leader when the member was not actively engaged in those duties. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":511,"file":"2016-12496","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that a member assigned to a criminal investigation unit submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading. These overtime claims were in relation to various investigations in which the member claimed to be the surveillance coordinator or team leader when the member was not actively engaged in those duties. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":512,"file":"2016-12496","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that a member assigned to a criminal investigation unit submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading. These overtime claims were in relation to various investigations in which the member claimed to be the surveillance coordinator or team leader when the member was not actively engaged in those duties. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":513,"file":"2016-12496","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that a member assigned to a criminal investigation unit submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading. These overtime claims were in relation to various investigations in which the member claimed to be the surveillance coordinator or team leader when the member was not actively engaged in those duties. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":514,"file":"2016-12496","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that a member assigned to a criminal investigation unit submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading. These overtime claims were in relation to various investigations in which the member claimed to be the surveillance coordinator or team leader when the member was not actively engaged in those duties. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":515,"file":"2016-12496","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that a member assigned to a criminal investigation unit submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading. These overtime claims were in relation to various investigations in which the member claimed to be the surveillance coordinator or team leader when the member was not actively engaged in those duties. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":516,"file":"2016-12496","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading. These overtime claims were in relation to various investigations in which the member claimed to be the surveillance coordinator or team leader when the member was not actively engaged in those duties.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that a member assigned to a criminal investigation unit submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading. These overtime claims were in relation to various investigations in which the member claimed to be the surveillance coordinator or team leader when the member was not actively engaged in those duties. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":517,"file":"2016-12496","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that a member assigned to a criminal investigation unit submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading. These overtime claims were in relation to various investigations in which the member claimed to be the surveillance coordinator or team leader when the member was not actively engaged in those duties. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":518,"file":"2016-12496","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that a member assigned to a criminal investigation unit submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading. These overtime claims were in relation to various investigations in which the member claimed to be the surveillance coordinator or team leader when the member was not actively engaged in those duties. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":519,"file":"2016-12496","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that a member assigned to a criminal investigation unit submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading. These overtime claims were in relation to various investigations in which the member claimed to be the surveillance coordinator or team leader when the member was not actively engaged in those duties. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":520,"file":"2015-10697","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"used police databases to query one of the contractors and the licence plate of a vehicle being used by the contractors","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A company was contracted to replace and repair the fencing at a townhouse complex where a police officer was a resident owner. The officer used police databases to query one of the contractors and the licence plate of a vehicle being used by the contractors.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":521,"file":"2015-10697","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Improper Disclosure of Information","sublabel":"Disclosing Information Acquired as a Police Officer","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"the officer disclosed that a vehicle being driven by one of the contractors was uninsured and that one of the contractors had a criminal record","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A member of the property management company attended the officer’s residence to update the officer on the progress of the fence repair. During that conversation, the officer disclosed that a vehicle being driven by one of the contractors was uninsured and that one of the contractors had a criminal record.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":522,"file":"2016-12496","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that a member assigned to a criminal investigation unit submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading. These overtime claims were in relation to various investigations in which the member claimed to be the surveillance coordinator or team leader when the member was not actively engaged in those duties. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":523,"file":"2012-8206","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"verbally engaged the investigating officer in an aggressive and abusive manner, impeding the impaired driving investigation","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"During a check stop where a police officer's girlfriend was requested to provide breath samples, the officer verbally engaged the investigating officer in an aggressive and abusive manner, impeding the impaired driving investigation.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":524,"file":"2016-12496","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that a member assigned to a criminal investigation unit submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading. These overtime claims were in relation to various investigations in which the member claimed to be the surveillance coordinator or team leader when the member was not actively engaged in those duties. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":525,"file":"2016-12496","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that a member assigned to a criminal investigation unit submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading. These overtime claims were in relation to various investigations in which the member claimed to be the surveillance coordinator or team leader when the member was not actively engaged in those duties. As above.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":526,"file":"2016-12496","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that a member assigned to a criminal investigation unit submitted 26 overtime claims including call-out overtime and extended-duty overtime that were false or misleading. These overtime claims were in relation to various investigations in which the member claimed to be the surveillance coordinator or team leader when the member was not actively engaged in those duties. As above. Upon conclusion of the investigation, this matter was remitted to a discipline proceeding where the Discipline Authority imposed the penalty of dismissal. During the Police Act process, the member had resigned. The member did not make a request for a review of the decision to dismiss him from the police department and the OPCC determined that no further review was necessary in the public interest. The members’ service record of discipline has been updated to include that he was dismissed.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":527,"file":"2013-9173","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"A police officer delivered a closed-fisted strike to a member of the public who was involved in a fight with another person. This person was rendered unconscious as a result.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer delivered a closed-fisted strike to a member of the public who was involved in a fight with another person. This person was rendered unconscious as a result.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":528,"file":"2019-16216","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"verbally confronting another member about an ongoing Police Act investigation. The member was alleged to have made inappropriate comments in relation to an upcoming promotional competition.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An internal investigation was initiated following a report of a Nelson Police Department (NPD) member verbally confronting another member about an ongoing Police Act investigation. The member was alleged to have made inappropriate comments in relation to an upcoming promotional competition. These comments were contrary to the department’s respectful workplace policy. The OPCC determined that there were no public trust issues and that no complaint was received. Failing to adhere to the Nelson Police Department Respectful Workplace Policy following an interaction with another Nelson Police Department member.","measures":["training","program activity"]},{"id":529,"file":"2019-16379","agency":"Central Saanich Police Service","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"The member was in a conflict of interest by liaising with a person who was under investigation for a criminal offence.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Central Saanich Police Service (CSPS), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a CSPS member. It was reported that the member may have been in a conflict of interest by liaising with a person who was under investigation for a criminal offence. Additionally, the member continued to have supervisory oversight of a CSPS file directly related to the person. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct the investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the Metro Vancouver Transit Police (formerly South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Police Service) to conduct the investigation, and a senior officer was designated as Discipline Authority. The member was in a conflict of interest in liaising with a person who was under investigation for a criminal offence.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":530,"file":"2019-16379","agency":"Central Saanich Police Service","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The member’s review and supervisor approval of a police file directly related to a person that the member had a personal relationship with.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Central Saanich Police Service (CSPS), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a CSPS member. It was reported that the member may have been in a conflict of interest by liaising with a person who was under investigation for a criminal offence. Additionally, the member continued to have supervisory oversight of a CSPS file directly related to the person. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct the investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the Metro Vancouver Transit Police (formerly South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Police Service) to conduct the investigation, and a senior officer was designated as Discipline Authority. The member’s review and supervisor approval of a police file directly related to a person that the member had a personal relationship with. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered to the member; the member declined the offer and as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding which the member did not attend. The discipline proceeding occurred in the member’s absence. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. *The suspensions were to be served concurrently.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":531,"file":"2013-9070","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2014,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The off-duty officer provided two breath samples into two separate Approved Screening Devices, both of which produced a Fail result.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An off-duty officer was stopped at a roadblock. The off-duty officer provided two breath samples into two separate Approved Screening Devices, both of which produced a Fail result. The off-duty officer was issued an Immediate Roadside 90-day Prohibition and his vehicle was impounded for 30 days.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":532,"file":"2013-9070","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2014,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"the off-duty officer identified himself as a police officer in an effort to get the investigating officers to use their discretion.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"During the course of the traffic stop, the off-duty officer identified himself as a police officer in an effort to get the investigating officers to use their discretion. *The suspensions were to be served consecutively.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":533,"file":"2011-6092","agency":"Central Saanich Police Service","year":2011,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"while off duty, was pulled over and issued an Immediate Roadside Prohibition for being impaired and in a state of intoxication while driving","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer, while off duty, was pulled over and issued an Immediate Roadside Prohibition for being impaired and in a state of intoxication while driving.","measures":["suspension","written reprimand"]},{"id":534,"file":"2016-11941","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"Police officers from several policing agencies exchanged inappropriate messages using police Mobile Data Terminals (MDTs).","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Police officers from several policing agencies exchanged inappropriate messages using police Mobile Data Terminals (MDTs). A review of the messages determined that some of the exchanges involved members of the Delta Police Department. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. 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. The OPCC reviewed the prehearing conference report and, considering all the relevant factors in this case, the discipline fell within the acceptable range for appropriate discipline in the circumstances. All three officers took responsibility for their actions. The OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":535,"file":"2012-7669-02","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Discourtesy","sublabel":"Discourteous - Verbal","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"the officer treated the complainant in a discourteous manner","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Members of the Integrated Gang Task Force Unit conducted a traffic stop of the complainant and his friends. During the traffic stop, the officer treated the complainant in a discourteous manner.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":536,"file":"2012-7669-02","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"the officer failed to record in his police notebook any details of his shift’s activities for the dates of October 21, 2011, to October 22, 2011","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A few hours later, the complainant was at a nightclub when members of the Integrated Gang Task Force Unit removed him pursuant to Bar Watch protocol. The investigation into this registered complaint determined that the officer failed to record in his police notebook any details of his shift’s activities for the dates of October 21, 2011, to October 22, 2011. This was contrary to Delta Police Department policy as well as contrary to the expectations of police officers and their duty to record evidence and potentially testify.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":537,"file":"2020-17705","agency":"Port Moody Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"As a result of some manipulation of the firearm, it discharged a single round.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Port Moody Police Department (PMPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a member who had discharged their firearm. According to the PMPD, the member was preparing to go on shift and removed his personal-issued patrol rifle from his changeroom locker. As a result of some manipulation of the firearm, it discharged a single round. The round travelled through the bottom shelf and base of the locker. There were no injuries as a result of this incident. Negligently discharging a firearm in a police station changeroom. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The Prehearing Conference Authority found that the conduct was serious, but that the member had accepted responsibility, had no history of misconduct, and was unlikely to commit similar misconduct in the future. The Prehearing Conference Authority also determined that the discipline was consistent with past Police Act matters. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":538,"file":"2020-17449","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Immediate Roadside Prohibition/Impaired Operation of a Motor Vehicle","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"Operating a motor vehicle while his ability to do so was impaired by the use of prescription drugs and alcohol.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Abbotsford Police Department (APD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the off-duty conduct of an APD member who was reported to have been driving while impaired. According to the APD, one of their members initiated a traffic stop on a vehicle for driving on a flat tire. Following an investigation roadside, police determine that the driver was impaired by the use of prescription drugs. Operating a motor vehicle while his ability to do so was impaired by the use of prescription drugs and alcohol. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. An agreement was reached with respect to the proposed discipline of a 3-day suspension without pay. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":539,"file":"2019-16072","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"using a personal cellphone to take a photograph of a \"protected\" document and posting this to a police chat group for a purpose unrelated to work duties","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Abbotsford Police Department (APD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of an APD member. It was reported that the member sent a photograph from an internal Intelligence Bulletin to a chat group with coworkers. The internal bulletin was distributed by the APD’s Intelligence Unit and contained language prohibiting disclosure or distribution of the contents. In the group chat, the member commented on the subject of the photograph stating, \"this is why you don't do drugs.\" Failing to follow the direction of a supervisor and, using a personal cellphone to take a photograph of a \"protected\" document and posting this to a police chat group for a purpose unrelated to work duties, which violated Abbotsford Police Department Policy. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The OPCC reviewed the proposed corrective measure and determined that the proposed discipline was not appropriate considering the circumstances. The matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the member admitted to the allegation of Neglect of Duty. The Discipline Authority imposed a Written Reprimand noting that the only recipients of the photograph were other police officers and that this conduct was a misguided attempt at humour. The Discipline Authority also noted that the member made no attempt to minimize their conduct. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not in the public interest.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":540,"file":"2021-19378","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"knowingly gave false and/or misleading evidence during court testimony for personal financial gain","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation in relation to a member’s off-duty conduct while testifying in a case before the Supreme Court of British Columbia. According to the VPD, the case was in relation to two motor vehicle accidents the member had been in, where the member had sustained injuries and was seeking compensation. In his reasoning for judgement, the presiding Justice made adverse comments on the member’s credibility and reliability. The member, while off duty, knowingly gave false and/or misleading evidence during court testimony for personal financial gain. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension","program activity"]},{"id":541,"file":"2019-16226","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Using or Attempting to Use Police Authority for Personal Gain (e.g., Preferential Treatment)","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"the only rationale for the member displaying his badge to the civilian was to identify himself as a police officer in order to convince the civilian to comply with his demand to produce identification, which was purely personal and for the benefit or gain of the member","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a Vancouver Police Department (VPD) member following information that the member became involved in an argument with a civilian about the member’s vehicle which was parked in the parking lot. The argument continued inside a medical facility. During the incident, the member produced his police badge in order to have the civilian provide their identification. The RCMP subsequently reported the member’s conduct to the VPD. Identifying oneself as a police officer to a civilian for personal gain, or other purposes unrelated to the proper performance of his duties as a member. The Discipline Authority determined that the member did not commit any misconduct during this incident. After reviewing the investigation and the Discipline Authority’s decision, the Commissioner determined that there was a reasonable basis to disagree with the decision and appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge, Brian Neal, Q.C., to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Retired Judge Neal issued his decision as the Discipline Authority, substantiating the allegations of Corrupt Practice, Discreditable Conduct, and Discourtesy. Retired Judge Neal determined that the only rationale for the member displaying his badge to the civilian was to identify himself as a police officer in order to convince the civilian to comply with his demand to produce identification, which was purely personal and for the benefit or gain of the member. Retired Judge Neal also found that it was reasonable for a medical facility to be a place of peace and security, and not the focus of an animated and persistent argument in respect of a personal matter. Lastly, retired Judge Neal determined that the member’s pursuit of the civilian into the medical facility while identifying himself as a VPD officer appeared to have lacked courtesy in the circumstances. Disciplinary Process A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the proposed discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member was a junior employee with no past incidents of misconduct, had expressed remorse and had voluntarily undertaken training. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":542,"file":"2019-16226","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"the only rationale for the member displaying his badge to the civilian was to identify himself as a police officer in order to convince the civilian to comply with his demand to produce identification, which was purely personal and for the benefit or gain of the member","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a Vancouver Police Department (VPD) member following information that the member became involved in an argument with a civilian about the member’s vehicle which was parked in the parking lot. The argument continued inside a medical facility. During the incident, the member produced his police badge in order to have the civilian provide their identification. The RCMP subsequently reported the member’s conduct to the VPD. Specifically, in relation to his interaction with a civilian within a public medical facility. The Discipline Authority determined that the member did not commit any misconduct during this incident. After reviewing the investigation and the Discipline Authority’s decision, the Commissioner determined that there was a reasonable basis to disagree with the decision and appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge, Brian Neal, Q.C., to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Retired Judge Neal issued his decision as the Discipline Authority, substantiating the allegations of Corrupt Practice, Discreditable Conduct, and Discourtesy. Retired Judge Neal determined that the only rationale for the member displaying his badge to the civilian was to identify himself as a police officer in order to convince the civilian to comply with his demand to produce identification, which was purely personal and for the benefit or gain of the member. Retired Judge Neal also found that it was reasonable for a medical facility to be a place of peace and security, and not the focus of an animated and persistent argument in respect of a personal matter. Lastly, retired Judge Neal determined that the member’s pursuit of the civilian into the medical facility while identifying himself as a VPD officer appeared to have lacked courtesy in the circumstances. Disciplinary Process A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the proposed discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member was a junior employee with no past incidents of misconduct, had expressed remorse and had voluntarily undertaken training. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":543,"file":"2019-16226","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Discourtesy","sublabel":"Discourteous - General","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"the only rationale for the member displaying his badge to the civilian was to identify himself as a police officer in order to convince the civilian to comply with his demand to produce identification, which was purely personal and for the benefit or gain of the member","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a Vancouver Police Department (VPD) member following information that the member became involved in an argument with a civilian about the member’s vehicle which was parked in the parking lot. The argument continued inside a medical facility. During the incident, the member produced his police badge in order to have the civilian provide their identification. The RCMP subsequently reported the member’s conduct to the VPD. Specifically, in relation to his dealings with a civilian while other members of the public were present at a public medical facility. The Discipline Authority determined that the member did not commit any misconduct during this incident. After reviewing the investigation and the Discipline Authority’s decision, the Commissioner determined that there was a reasonable basis to disagree with the decision and appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge, Brian Neal, Q.C., to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Retired Judge Neal issued his decision as the Discipline Authority, substantiating the allegations of Corrupt Practice, Discreditable Conduct, and Discourtesy. Retired Judge Neal determined that the only rationale for the member displaying his badge to the civilian was to identify himself as a police officer in order to convince the civilian to comply with his demand to produce identification, which was purely personal and for the benefit or gain of the member. Retired Judge Neal also found that it was reasonable for a medical facility to be a place of peace and security, and not the focus of an animated and persistent argument in respect of a personal matter. Lastly, retired Judge Neal determined that the member’s pursuit of the civilian into the medical facility while identifying himself as a VPD officer appeared to have lacked courtesy in the circumstances. Disciplinary Process A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the proposed discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member was a junior employee with no past incidents of misconduct, had expressed remorse and had voluntarily undertaken training. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":544,"file":"2010-5901","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Negligent Discharge","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"was at home practicing dry firing with her firearm and accidently shot a bullet into a wall at her residence","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer was at home practicing dry firing with her firearm and accidently shot a bullet into a wall at her residence.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":545,"file":"2014-9904","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Disorderly Conduct Prejudicial to the Maintenance of Discipline in the Department","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer was disrespectful to a supervisor.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer was disrespectful to a supervisor.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":546,"file":"2010-5682","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Attend Court","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The officer failed to attend scheduled traffic court, resulting in 3 of the 7 issued violation tickets being withdrawn.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer failed to attend scheduled traffic court, resulting in 3 of the 7 issued violation tickets being withdrawn.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":547,"file":"2018-15467","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Using or Attempting to Use Police Authority for Personal Gain (e.g., Preferential Treatment)","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"identified himself as an off-duty Vancouver police officer and requested that the ticket be waived","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that members of the North Vancouver RCMP attended a house party in response to a noise complaint and gave the homeowner a warning to turn down the loud music. Later that evening, RCMP members were called back to the residence as the noise had resumed. A bylaw ticket was issued to the homeowner for violation of the noise by-law. A male guest approached the RCMP members as they were leaving, identified himself as an off-duty Vancouver police officer and requested that the ticket be waived. By attempting to have attending police officers waive the bylaw ticket, implying they were “on the same team.” A prehearing conference was offered to the member where a disciplinary measure was proposed. The OPCC did not approve this proposed discipline noting it did not adequately address the seriousness of the member’s conduct. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the discipline proposed was increased to a 3-day suspension. The Discipline Authority noted that seeking favour or special consideration based on being an off-duty police officer is serious. The member acknowledged that he put the RCMP in an uncomfortable position and apologized to the RCMP and the VPD for his actions. Upon review, the OPCC determined that the Discipline Authority appropriately considered the aggravating and mitigating factors and the discipline measure imposed was both correct and appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":548,"file":"2011-6358","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Negligent Discharge","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"While unloading a C8 patrol rifle, the member accidentally discharged a single round.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"While unloading a C8 patrol rifle, the member accidentally discharged a single round.","measures":["training","advice future conduct"]},{"id":549,"file":"2021-20377","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"engaged in several instances of unwanted physical contact with a junior officer and directed sexualized comments toward that junior officer and a Special Municipal Constable","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The text states the member engaged in \"several instances of unwanted physical contact with a junior officer and directed sexualized comments\" toward that officer and a Special Municipal Constable.","text":"The department initiated an internal discipline investigation into the conduct of a Victoria Police Department (VicPD) member for breach of their Respectful Workplace Policy. It was reported that, while on duty, the member engaged in several instances of unwanted physical contact with a junior officer and directed sexualized comments toward that junior officer and a Special Municipal Constable. The member breached VicPD’s Workplace Harassment and Improper Activity policy.","measures":["written reprimand","training","transfer reassignment"]},{"id":550,"file":"2019-16478","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Improper Disclosure of Information","sublabel":"Disclosing Information Acquired as a Police Officer","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"Disclosing information acquired during the performance of their duties as a Saanich Police Department employee to a personal friend.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Saanich Police Department reported that a Reserve Constable completed a pre-employment polygraph exam as part of the application process with another police agency. During this exam, the Reserve Constable disclosed that while working as a civilian at the police department they became aware of information regarding a third-party which they later disclosed to a person who was not entitled to know this information. Disclosing information acquired during the performance of their duties as a Saanich Police Department employee to a personal friend. A prehearing conference was offered where an agreement was reached with respect to the proposed discipline of a verbal reprimand. In light of the recent decision from Retired Provincial Court Judge, Brian Neal, Q.C. (OPCC file no. 2017-14249) which provided guidance for allegations involving the disclosure of private and confidential information, the OPCC determined that that the discipline/corrective measure imposed was on the low end of the range of acceptable outcomes. However, it was noted that based on the circumstances, there is a low likelihood of future misconduct. Further, the OPCC considered that in light of the Special Municipal Constable’s status as an unpaid Reserve Constable, a suspension would be ineffective as there would be no monetary consequences. Therefore, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":551,"file":"2011-6479","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"made complaints against other officers he knew to be false","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer made complaints against other officers he knew to be false.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":552,"file":"2011-6479","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.9,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above. (Also see #2011-6379)","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":553,"file":"2012-7434","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Follow Supervisor's Lawful Order - Written","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"The member failed to attend an interview as ordered by his supervisor.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member failed to attend an interview as ordered by his supervisor.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":554,"file":"2013-8915","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.62,"thin":false,"quote":"involved in an inappropriate relationship with an individual while assigned as the primary investigator of a police file","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":false,"basis":"The text alleges only an unspecified \"inappropriate relationship with an individual\" during an investigation, without stating any sexual, sexualized, or violent conduct.","text":"A police officer was involved in an inappropriate relationship with an individual while assigned as the primary investigator of a police file.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":555,"file":"2013-8915","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to follow procedure in relation to maintaining adequate documentation","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer failed to follow procedure in relation to maintaining adequate documentation.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":556,"file":"2013-8915","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"accessed police databases for a purpose unrelated to his duties as a police officer and used his department-issued cell phone for personal reasons","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer accessed police databases for a purpose unrelated to his duties as a police officer and used his department-issued cell phone for personal reasons.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":557,"file":"2013-8915","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to comply with departmental policy/regulations in relation to the handling of monies","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer failed to comply with departmental policy/regulations in relation to the handling of monies.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":558,"file":"2019-17025","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"Failing to make sufficient notes in his notebook and failing to record and retain a log of his adjusted time or \"black book\" so as to accurately reflect all hours worked and time used for days off.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the West Vancouver Police Department (WVPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a WVPD member following the identification of discrepancies between a member’s time off and the hours the member had reported to payroll. Failing to make sufficient notes in his notebook and failing to record and retain a log of his adjusted time or \"black book\" so as to accurately reflect all hours worked and time used for days off.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":559,"file":"2019-17025","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"Sending false or misleading payroll submissions to WVPD Payroll on multiple occasions between 2016 and 2019.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the West Vancouver Police Department (WVPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a WVPD member following the identification of discrepancies between a member’s time off and the hours the member had reported to payroll. Sending false or misleading payroll submissions to WVPD Payroll on multiple occasions between 2016 and 2019. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member committed two counts of misconduct. No prehearing conference was offered to the member and as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The member resigned from the department prior to the conclusion of this matter and they did not elect to participate in the discipline proceeding. The Discipline Authority dismissed the member for their deceitful conduct and imposed a written reprimand for the Neglect of Duty allegation. 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. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. Although the member resigned prior to the completion of this matter, their Service record of Discipline will note that they were dismissed from the WVPD.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":560,"file":"2022-22167","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The member contacted the store employee to receive discounts on merchandise which was in violation of the staff discount policy.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member which occurred during a shoplifting investigation. It was reported that the member, after dealing with the details of the theft report, engaged in a conversation with a store employee about employee discounts and obtained the employee’s contact information. The member subsequently began contacting the employee for the purpose of purchasing store merchandise using the employee’s discount, despite this being a violation of store policy. The member contacted the store employee to receive discounts on merchandise which was in violation of the staff discount policy. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The Prehearing Conference Authority found that, based on the circumstances, the member ought to have known the employee’s offer was contrary to store policy. In arriving at the decision on disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member never actually received any discounts on merchandise and ceased making requests once the employee advised they could no longer offer any discount on merchandise to the member. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":561,"file":"2015-11200","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"while off duty, a police officer operated a motor vehicle while impaired in contravention of the Motor Vehicle Act","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On October 11, 2015, while off duty, a police officer operated a motor vehicle while impaired in contravention of the Motor Vehicle Act. Pursuant to section 137 of the Police Act , where a Discipline Authority proposes a disciplinary measure of dismissal or reduction in rank, upon written request from the police officer, the Commissioner must promptly arrange a Public Hearing or Review on the Record. On September 26, 2016, the police officer requested a Public Hearing. The Police Complaint Commissioner determined that it was not necessary to examine witnesses or receive evidence not currently part of the record of the disciplinary decision and, on October 26, 2016, ordered a Review on the Record. The Honourable Carol Baird Ellan, retired British Columbia Provincial Court Justice, was appointed to preside as adjudicator in these proceedings, pursuant to section 142(2) of the Police Act. On December 19, 2016, Ms. Baird Ellan issued her Decision of the Adjudicator, wherein she imposed the above discipline and/or correct measures. However, in light of the police officer having been suspended without pay by the police department for over a month in December 2015 and January 2016, and was off work again without pay since late September 2016, following the dismissal imposed by the Discipline Authority, the adjudicator specified that the 10 day suspension and 2 day suspension (to occur consecutively) has already been long satisfied the purposes of the Police Act. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/public-hearings/","measures":["suspension","counselling","transfer reassignment"]},{"id":562,"file":"2015-11200","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"identified themselves as a police officer during the impaired driving investigation and asked for preferential treatment","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On October 11, 2015, while off duty, the police officer identified themselves as a police officer during the impaired driving investigation and asked for preferential treatment. At the end of the Police Act investigation, the Discipline Authority proposed dismissal as the disciplinary or corrective measure for each count of misconduct. Pursuant to section 137 of the Police Act , where a Discipline Authority proposes a disciplinary measure of dismissal or reduction in rank, upon written request from the police officer, the Commissioner must promptly arrange a Public Hearing or Review on the Record. On September 26, 2016, the police officer requested a Public Hearing. The Police Complaint Commissioner determined that it was not necessary to examine witnesses or receive evidence not currently part of the record of the disciplinary decision and, on October 26, 2016, ordered a Review on the Record. The Honourable Carol Baird Ellan, retired British Columbia Provincial Court Justice, was appointed to preside as adjudicator in these proceedings, pursuant to section 142(2) of the Police Act. On December 19, 2016, Ms. Baird Ellan issued her Decision of the Adjudicator, wherein she imposed the above discipline and/or correct measures. However, in light of the police officer having been suspended without pay by the police department for over a month in December 2015 and January 2016, and was off work again without pay since late September 2016, following the dismissal imposed by the Discipline Authority, the adjudicator specified that the 10 day suspension and 2 day suspension (to occur consecutively) has already been long satisfied the purposes of the Police Act. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/public-hearings/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":563,"file":"2018-15350","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"the instructor responded angrily and declined to speak to the officer about the incident in private","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported that during a mandatory team training day at the VPD Tactical Training Centre, attending officers were conducting practical scenario training. During a self-defence scenario, an officer discharged his simulated sidearm at a role player after the role player was already lying on the ground. As a result, the instructor responded angrily and declined to speak to the officer about the incident in private. An internal investigation was initiated as a result. The OPCC determined there no public trust concerns and no complaint was received. Contravening VPD's Respectful Workplace Policy by failing to maintain a respectful workplace that is supportive, equitable, productive, and fosters the well-being of professional relationships of all persons who are employed, volunteer, or contracted with the VPD.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":564,"file":"2015-11048-05","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"Attempting to do Any of the Things Described in Subparagraphs (i) or (ii)","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"attempted to procure the making of an oral or written statement from a potential witness, knowing the statement to be false or misleading.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The (former) Chief Constable attempted to procure the making of an oral or written statement from a potential witness, knowing the statement to be false or misleading. Due to the fact that the BC Supreme Court ruled that two allegations could not proceed, and the time it took for the BC Court of Appeal to hear the case and subsequently overturn the lower court’s decision, two discipline proceedings were held with two sets of decisions. The findings in each case are noted above. Although the (former) Chief Constable did not exercise his right to a mandatory Public Hearing in this matter, he asserted that he had been treated unfairly. Based on the Police Complaint Commissioner’s review of the evidence, he was satisfied that Retired Judge Baird Ellan appropriately determined that the allegations against the (former) Chief Constable were proven. In the Police Complaint Commissioner’s view, her conduct of the discipline proceedings, her substantive findings and her determination of the appropriate disciplinary/corrective measures were unassailable. Every aspect of procedural fairness was afforded to the (former) Chief Constable during these proceedings. With respect to the public interest, the Police Complaint Commissioner considered the fact that the conduct in question was of a most serious nature, particularly given the high office that the (former) Chief Constable occupied. The Police Complaint Commissioner was also of the view that the (former) Chief Constable’s conduct would undoubtedly undermine public confidence in the police. The conduct itself, for a Chief Constable, would have a negative impact on the public’s perception of the department, and policing as a whole. 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. The Police Complaint Commissioner found the investigation into this matter extensive, thorough and fair. The investigative team was highly trained and professional. They applied major case management principles to effectively manage the investigation and pursued every possible investigative avenue fairly, impartially and transparently. The interviews of the (former) Chief Constable were also fair and done in accordance with accepted best practices. The Police Complaint Commissioner identified no flaws in the investigation. In terms of the appropriateness of the disciplinary/corrective measures, the Police Complaint Commissioner was of the view that dismissal was the only appropriate outcome in circumstances such as this, where a Chief Constable knowingly misled an officer under his command and an investigator, and attempted to procure misleading statements to avoid culpability. Demotion to the rank of constable appropriately captured the fact that a Chief Constable ought to lead by example, to be a beacon for all members of the department, and the public whom he/she serves. For these reasons, the Police Complaint Commissioner determined that ordering a Public Hearing or Review on the Record was not in the public interest. The seriousness of the conduct and the impact on the department, the community and the public’s perception of police, had been addressed through the exemplary professionalism exhibited by the investigative team and the adjudication undertaken by Retired Judge Baird Ellan.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":565,"file":"2011-6414","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Improper Off-Duty Conduct","sublabel":"Asserting/Purporting Police Authority and Committing a Default","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"while off duty, drove a police vehicle for purposes unrelated to his duties as a police officer","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer, while off duty, drove a police vehicle for purposes unrelated to his duties as a police officer.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":566,"file":"2014-9325","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The off-duty officer provided two samples into an Approved Screening Device (ASD); both indicating a “fail”. The off-duty officer was issued a 90-day driving prohibition","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An off-duty police officer’s driving behaviour drew the attention of an on-duty police officer who proceeded to initiate a traffic stop. (The traffic investigation determined that the off-duty officer had consumed alcohol and a breath demand was given. The off-duty officer provided two samples into an Approved Screening Device (ASD); both indicating a “fail”. The off-duty officer was issued a 90-day driving prohibition pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Act and his vehicle was impounded and held for 30 days).","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":567,"file":"2021-19733","agency":"Organized Crime Agency of BC (CFSEU)","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The member communicated with a witness in a homicide investigation, in contravention to the direct orders of superior officers and supervisors.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit – British Columbia (CFSEU-BC), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a CFSEU-BC member. It was reported that the member was advised by their supervisors not to contact any witnesses from a specific investigation into the death of a person which was under the conduct of another police agency. The member subsequently communicated by way of letter to the sister of the deceased, who was a witness in the investigation. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The member communicated with a witness in a homicide investigation, in contravention to the direct orders of superior officers and supervisors. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member; the member agreed to the proposed discipline. After review, the Commissioner did not approve the disciplinary or corrective measure as it did not reflect the seriousness of the conduct. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the member admitted the allegation and the Discipline Authority imposed a one-day suspension without pay. The Commissioner reviewed the outcome of the discipline proceeding and determined that a Review on the Record was necessary in the public interest as the disciplinary or corrective measure proposed by the Discipline Authority still did not reflect the seriousness of the misconduct. The Commissioner noted that the member’s conduct occurred in the context of a significant investigation that was under the conduct of another police agency, that the member was an experienced officer who understood the potential detrimental consequences of contacting material witnesses in matters of which they had no role as a police officer and that the member’s decision to ignore the directions of their supervisors was planned and premeditated. The Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge, the Honourable Mr. James Threlfall, to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Adjudicator Threlfall found that, aside from the member’s general admission to the alleged misconduct, there was no evidence to suggest that the member was aware that the individual they sent the letter to was a witness in the criminal investigation, and that the evidentiary record was “unclear in terms of what the ‘direct order of superior officers and supervisors’ actually involved.” In arriving at his decision, Adjudicator Threlfall found that the letter did not contain information that was not already publicly known and was not apparently detrimental to the criminal investigation. 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. In terms of discipline, Adjudicator Threlfall determined that a written reprimand was a serious penalty for an experienced police officer with the member’s history of high-ranking positions. He found that a corrective and educative approach was appropriate and concluded that “a reasonable person who is dispassionate and fully apprised of the circumstances would agree that a Written Reprimand is a more than appropriate penalty.” For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":568,"file":"2021-19307","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"For taking pictures of another member who posed beside a deceased person on the beach.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of two VPD members following the posting of a video to social media. The video depicted an individual who appeared to be deceased. Member A could be seen and heard laughing and posing for what appears to be a photograph taken by Member B. For taking pictures of another member who posed beside a deceased person on the beach.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":569,"file":"2021-19307","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.55,"thin":false,"quote":"Being photographed by another member while posing beside a deceased person on the beach.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of two VPD members following the posting of a video to social media. The video depicted an individual who appeared to be deceased. Member A could be seen and heard laughing and posing for what appears to be a photograph taken by Member B. Being photographed by another member while posing beside a deceased person on the beach.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":570,"file":"2021-19307","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"The member shared the photograph with other VPD members.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of two VPD members following the posting of a video to social media. The video depicted an individual who appeared to be deceased. Member A could be seen and heard laughing and posing for what appears to be a photograph taken by Member B. The member shared the photograph with other VPD members. Following an investigation, the Discipline Authority determined that the members committed misconduct and offered them a pre-hearing conference. In determining appropriate disciplinary/corrective measures, the Pre-Hearing Conference Authority highlighted the seriousness of the extremely poor judgement of the members, the violation of the department’s core values (notably “compassion”) and the ethical and professional standard expected of members. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. The OPCC noted that both members accepted full responsibility for their actions and were both remorseful about their conduct.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":571,"file":"2012-7820","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Follow Supervisor's Lawful Order - Verbal","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"initiated a pursuit of a stolen vehicle in breach of the department’s Pursuit Driving Policy and against his supervisor’s instructions","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member, while conducting traffic enforcement, initiated a pursuit of a stolen vehicle in breach of the department’s Pursuit Driving Policy and against his supervisor’s instructions.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":572,"file":"2011-6184","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Accessory to Misconduct","sublabel":"Aiding, Abetting or Counselling Misconduct","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.85,"thin":true,"quote":"The officer was found to have aided in the misconduct committed by another member.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer was found to have aided in the misconduct committed by another member.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":573,"file":"2020-17355","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Sexualized Harassment/Touching/Comments","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.93,"thin":false,"quote":"The member inappropriately touched the victim while out with colleagues at a social event at a licensed establishment.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The text states the off-duty member \"inappropriately touched\" a civilian co-worker at a social event, prompting a criminal investigation and dismissal-level discipline, plainly implying sexualized touching by the officer.","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation in relation to an incident which occurred in 2009, where an off-duty member was reported to have inappropriately touched a civilian co-worker at a social event. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation. Charges were forwarded to the BC Prosecution Service but were not approved. The member inappropriately touched the victim while out with colleagues at a social event at a licensed establishment. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority (DA) determined that the allegation appeared to be substantiated. As the proposed range of discipline included reduction in rank and dismissal, no prehearing conference was offered to the member and the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The member had retired prior to the discipline proceeding and did not participate in the process. In arriving at a decision on discipline, the DA considered the misconduct to be “serious in nature and [went] to the heart of the principles of trust, decision making, ethics’ and integrity; all of which are essential in policing.” Even though the member retired prior to the conclusion of this matter, their service record of discipline reflects that they were dismissed from the VPD. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed and approved the discipline imposed as appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":574,"file":"2021-20507","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"used a police database to query the residence of a relative who was under criminal investigation","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation in relation to a VPD member who used a police database to query the residence of a relative who was under criminal investigation. The VPD Professional Standards Section conducted a review of CPIC and PRIME activity associated to the member and discovered the query. According to information provided by the VPD, the member accessed a police database for purposes unrelated to their duties as a member. The member accessed the police databases for a personal purpose and unrelated to their duties as a member. Following an investigation, the Discipline Authority determined that the member committed misconduct and offered them a prehearing conference. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that while the member did not report this query to their supervisor, the member was forthcoming about accessing this information during the investigation. The Prehearing Conference Authority determined that the member had no prior substantiated misconduct on their Service Record of Discipline, and that there was no evidence supporting that any of the information queried had been disclosed or otherwise used for any purpose. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":575,"file":"2011-6405-01","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Attend Court","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"failing to attend Court as a police witness for an Impaired driving charge","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer neglected his duty by failing to attend Court as a police witness for an Impaired driving charge.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":576,"file":"2015-10560","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"had inappropriate contact with the female victim of a sexual assault that the police officer was investigating","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":false,"basis":"The text says only that the officer had \"inappropriate contact with the female victim\" of a sexual assault he was investigating, without stating any sexual or gendered conduct by the officer.","text":"A police officer had inappropriate contact with the female victim of a sexual assault that the police officer was investigating.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":577,"file":"2022-22612","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member drove into an intersection at a speed that was too great to avoid a collision with a civilian vehicle.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a MVTP member. It was reported that a MVTP member was operating a police vehicle with emergency equipment activated and collided with the rear of a civilian vehicle in an intersection contrary to the Motor Vehicle Act and Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulation. The member drove into an intersection at a speed that was too great to avoid a collision with a civilian vehicle. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that at the time of the collision the member was a recruit still in training, and the member took responsibility for the driving behaviour including retaking course training on emergency vehicle driving on their own initiative. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":578,"file":"2010-5208","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Oppressive Conduct","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.4,"thin":false,"quote":"issued the complainant Violation Tickets when he did not have reasonable grounds to believe an offence had been committed","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer issued the complainant Violation Tickets when he did not have reasonable grounds to believe an offence had been committed.","measures":["training","advice future conduct"]},{"id":579,"file":"2016-11719","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"shared information received from the West Vancouver Bylaw Department with a member of the public and attempted to influence the West Vancouver Bylaw Department not to get a warrant to seize a dog","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer shared information received from the West Vancouver Bylaw Department with a member of the public and attempted to influence the West Vancouver Bylaw Department not to get a warrant to seize a dog. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. In reviewing the investigation and, considering all the relevant factors in this case, the OPCC determined that the Prehearing Conference Authority had appropriately considered the aggravating and mitigating factors pursuant to section 126 of the Police Act . 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. In this case, the police officer admitted and accepted full responsibility for their actions, and it was determined that the officer’s actions were as a result of poor judgement and not related to the normal course of their duties as a police officer. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["verbal reprimand","training"]},{"id":580,"file":"2012-7684","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2012,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"The member contacted the Ops Communication Centre to gain information without authorization regarding a motor vehicle accident.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member contacted the Ops Communication Centre to gain information without authorization regarding a motor vehicle accident.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":581,"file":"2019-15908","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The Sergeant engaged in harassing/bullying behaviour towards Constable “A” by yelling, screaming, making derogatory, berating and degrading remarks including swearing contrary to departmental policy.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An internal investigation was initiated after four constables submitted complaints against their supervisor regarding ongoing incidents which included harassing and bullying behavior. These incidents occurred over a two-year period commencing in 2018. The supervisor was alleged to have made remarks that could be considered derogatory and degrading, and to have screamed and sworn at his members, all contrary to departmental policy. The Sergeant engaged in harassing/bullying behaviour towards Constable “A” by yelling, screaming, making derogatory, berating and degrading remarks including swearing contrary to departmental policy.","measures":["reduction in rank","training","advice future conduct","transfer reassignment"]},{"id":582,"file":"2019-15908","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"making intimidating and humiliating comments regarding his family situation contrary to departmental policy","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An internal investigation was initiated after four constables submitted complaints against their supervisor regarding ongoing incidents which included harassing and bullying behavior. These incidents occurred over a two-year period commencing in 2018. The supervisor was alleged to have made remarks that could be considered derogatory and degrading, and to have screamed and sworn at his members, all contrary to departmental policy. The Sergeant engaged in harassing/bullying behaviour toward Constable “B” by making intimidating and humiliating comments regarding his family situation contrary to departmental policy.","measures":["reduction in rank","training","advice future conduct","transfer reassignment"]},{"id":583,"file":"2019-15908","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"engaged in harassing/bullying behaviour toward Constable “C” by defacing his personal calendar by pasting derogatory, degrading homophobic and inappropriate sexual comments on each page contrary to departmental policy: Abbotsford Police Department Note: I need to include too_thin field.](too_thin)</evidence_quote>","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The Sergeant allegedly defaced Constable \"C\"'s personal calendar by pasting \"derogatory, degrading homophobic and inappropriate sexual comments on each page,\" constituting sexualized, gendered harassment he personally committed.","text":"An internal investigation was initiated after four constables submitted complaints against their supervisor regarding ongoing incidents which included harassing and bullying behavior. These incidents occurred over a two-year period commencing in 2018. The supervisor was alleged to have made remarks that could be considered derogatory and degrading, and to have screamed and sworn at his members, all contrary to departmental policy. The Sergeant engaged in harassing/bullying behaviour toward Constable “C” by defacing his personal calendar by pasting derogatory, degrading homophobic and inappropriate sexual comments on each page contrary to departmental policy.","measures":["reduction in rank","training","advice future conduct","transfer reassignment"]},{"id":584,"file":"2019-15908","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"creating a poster depicting unwelcome remarks, inappropriate humour, innuendoes, taunting, teasing, and insulting conduct contrary to departmental policy","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An internal investigation was initiated after four constables submitted complaints against their supervisor regarding ongoing incidents which included harassing and bullying behavior. These incidents occurred over a two-year period commencing in 2018. The supervisor was alleged to have made remarks that could be considered derogatory and degrading, and to have screamed and sworn at his members, all contrary to departmental policy. The Sergeant engaged in harassing/bullying behaviour toward Constable “C” by creating a poster depicting unwelcome remarks, inappropriate humour, innuendoes, taunting, teasing, and insulting conduct contrary to departmental policy.","measures":["reduction in rank","training","advice future conduct","transfer reassignment"]},{"id":585,"file":"2019-15908","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"prevented Constable “C” from attending a community appreciation event with the rest of his team, telling him that it was punishment for \"faking\" an injury","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An internal investigation was initiated after four constables submitted complaints against their supervisor regarding ongoing incidents which included harassing and bullying behavior. These incidents occurred over a two-year period commencing in 2018. The supervisor was alleged to have made remarks that could be considered derogatory and degrading, and to have screamed and sworn at his members, all contrary to departmental policy. The Sergeant engaged in harassing/bullying behaviour toward Constable “C” through shunning and purposeful isolation and engaged in disrespectful, intimidating, insulting, behaviour contrary to departmental policy. Specifically, this Sergeant prevented Constable “C” from attending a community appreciation event with the rest of his team, telling him that it was punishment for \"faking\" an injury.","measures":["reduction in rank","training","advice future conduct","transfer reassignment"]},{"id":586,"file":"2019-15908","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"yelling, screaming, making derogatory, berating, and degrading remarks including swearing contrary to departmental policy","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An internal investigation was initiated after four constables submitted complaints against their supervisor regarding ongoing incidents which included harassing and bullying behavior. These incidents occurred over a two-year period commencing in 2018. The supervisor was alleged to have made remarks that could be considered derogatory and degrading, and to have screamed and sworn at his members, all contrary to departmental policy. The Sergeant engaged in bullying behaviour toward Constable “C” regarding his obtaining new computer monitors by yelling, screaming, making derogatory, berating, and degrading remarks including swearing contrary to departmental policy.","measures":["reduction in rank","training","advice future conduct","transfer reassignment"]},{"id":587,"file":"2019-15908","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"yelling, screaming, making derogatory, berating, and degrading remarks including swearing contrary to departmental policy","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An internal investigation was initiated after four constables submitted complaints against their supervisor regarding ongoing incidents which included harassing and bullying behavior. These incidents occurred over a two-year period commencing in 2018. The supervisor was alleged to have made remarks that could be considered derogatory and degrading, and to have screamed and sworn at his members, all contrary to departmental policy. The Sergeant engaged in harassing/bullying behaviour toward Constable “D” by yelling, screaming, making derogatory, berating, and degrading remarks including swearing contrary to departmental policy.","measures":["reduction in rank","training","advice future conduct","transfer reassignment"]},{"id":588,"file":"2020-17317","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Arrest","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The members removed the complainants from a bank to a public street without reasonable cause and recklessly arrested the complainants without good and sufficient cause.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC initiated an investigation after receiving information that two members of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) attended a bank and placed an Indigenous man and his granddaughter in handcuffs after a bank employee had suspected fraudulent activity and called police. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The affected person in this matter filed a complaint and was added to the record and recognized as a complainant to the investigation. The members removed the complainants from a bank to a public street without reasonable cause and recklessly arrested the complainants without good and sufficient cause. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member did not commit misconduct. After review, the Commissioner determined that there was a reasonable basis to believe that the decision of the Discipline Authority was incorrect and appointed the Honourable Mr. Brian Neal, K.C., retired BC Provincial Court Judge, to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Mr. Neal issued his decision where he determined that there was sufficient evidence to support that police committed misconduct during the arrest and handcuffing of the complainants. Disciplinary Process A pre-hearing conference was offered but ultimately declined by the members. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding in front of Mr. Neal as the Discipline Authority. Mr. Neal found that the members acted oppressively in dealing with the complainants before their arrest and handcuffing and showed no consideration as to how their intervention might have been perceived by two Indigenous customers of a large bank in confusing and uncertain circumstances. Mr. Neal was unable to find any compelling reason to remove the complainants from the bank area, even if an arrest was contemplated. Mr. Neal determined that the members acted oppressively by failing to take any steps to clarify the granddaughters age before proceeding to arrest and handcuffing. In addition, Mr. Neal found that the arrests made by police were made “precipitously, recklessly and without good and sufficient cause” and that the actions of the members demonstrated serious blameworthy conduct. Mr. Neal further found that each member acted “unreasonably”, “recklessly” and “without due consideration of his lawful authority” in handcuffing the complainants. Neither the members nor the complainant requested a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/","measures":["suspension","training","close supervision","program activity"]},{"id":589,"file":"2020-17317","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Handcuffs","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"recklessly used unnecessary force on the complainants through the application of handcuffs without good and sufficient cause","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC initiated an investigation after receiving information that two members of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) attended a bank and placed an Indigenous man and his granddaughter in handcuffs after a bank employee had suspected fraudulent activity and called police. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The affected person in this matter filed a complaint and was added to the record and recognized as a complainant to the investigation. The members recklessly used unnecessary force on the complainants through the application of handcuffs without good and sufficient cause. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member did not commit misconduct. After review, the Commissioner determined that there was a reasonable basis to believe that the decision of the Discipline Authority was incorrect and appointed the Honourable Mr. Brian Neal, K.C., retired BC Provincial Court Judge, to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Mr. Neal issued his decision where he determined that there was sufficient evidence to support that police committed misconduct during the arrest and handcuffing of the complainants. Disciplinary Process A pre-hearing conference was offered but ultimately declined by the members. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding in front of Mr. Neal as the Discipline Authority. Mr. Neal found that the members acted oppressively in dealing with the complainants before their arrest and handcuffing and showed no consideration as to how their intervention might have been perceived by two Indigenous customers of a large bank in confusing and uncertain circumstances. Mr. Neal was unable to find any compelling reason to remove the complainants from the bank area, even if an arrest was contemplated. Mr. Neal determined that the members acted oppressively by failing to take any steps to clarify the granddaughters age before proceeding to arrest and handcuffing. In addition, Mr. Neal found that the arrests made by police were made “precipitously, recklessly and without good and sufficient cause” and that the actions of the members demonstrated serious blameworthy conduct. Mr. Neal further found that each member acted “unreasonably”, “recklessly” and “without due consideration of his lawful authority” in handcuffing the complainants. Neither the members nor the complainant requested a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/","measures":["suspension","training","close supervision","program activity"]},{"id":590,"file":"2012-7887","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Detention","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"A police officer arrested the complainant without sufficient grounds.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer arrested the complainant without sufficient grounds.","measures":["training"]},{"id":591,"file":"2019-16943","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"exceeded the posted speed limit to respond to a call for cover by another officer, reaching a top speed of 127 km/hr... lost control of the vehicle and collided with a concrete divider","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the West Vancouver Police Department (WVPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a member for a single motor vehicle collision. It was reported that the member was traveling on a highway and exceeded the posted speed limit to respond to a call for cover by another officer, reaching a top speed of 127 km/hr. The roadway conditions were wet and the member did not activate emergency lights or siren. The member exited the highway at an offramp but, due to the vehicle’s speed, lost control of the vehicle and collided with a concrete divider. Neglecting their duty to operate their police vehicle in a safe manner. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The Prehearing Conference Authority considered past similar cases and that the member had previous at fault accidents and a prior Motor Vehicle Act violation, but no prior substantiated Police Act matters. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["verbal reprimand","training"]},{"id":592,"file":"2013-9033-01","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"attempted to perform a low speed U-turn at an intersection","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer became involved in a motor vehicle accident when he attempted to perform a low speed U-turn at an intersection. No one was injured as a result of the low-speed collision.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":593,"file":"2017-13174","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"continued an informant relationship after the department ordered the relationship be terminated","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer continued an informant relationship after the department ordered the relationship be terminated.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":594,"file":"2017-13174","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"inappropriately shared personal information with the informant through text messaging","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer inappropriately shared personal information with the informant through text messaging. This matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the Discipline Authority substantiated both allegations of misconduct and determined that the conduct warranted a 30 day suspension for each allegation that was to be served concurrently. The police officer was informed that if they were aggrieved by these findings, they could request the Police Complaint Commissioner arrange a Public Hearing or Review on the Record. The OPCC did not receive a request from the police officer. Based on a review of the evidence, the OPCC was satisfied that the decision of the Discipline Authority was appropriate considering the circumstances.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":595,"file":"2014-10016","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Improper Disclosure of Information","sublabel":"Disclosing Information Acquired as a Police Officer","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"disclosed information acquired as a police officer to their spouse","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer disclosed information acquired as a police officer to their spouse.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":596,"file":"2014-10016","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.5,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer had knowledge of matters that the police officer should have brought to the attention of the police department.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer had knowledge of matters that the police officer should have brought to the attention of the police department. This matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the Discipline Authority determined that the allegations were substantiated. The police officer was informed that if they were aggrieved by either the findings or determinations, they could request the Police Complaint Commissioner arrange a Public Hearing or Review on the Record. The OPCC did not receive a request from the police officer. Based on a review of the evidence, the OPCC was satisfied that the decision of the Discipline Authority was appropriate considering the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":597,"file":"2010-5158","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"used unnecessary force while placing a male under arrest","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer used unnecessary force while placing a male under arrest.","measures":["suspension","counselling"]},{"id":598,"file":"2010-5158","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"made misleading or false statements in a duty report during the Police Act investigation","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"This same police officer made misleading or false statements in a duty report during the Police Act investigation.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":599,"file":"2010-5158","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"made misleading or false statements during an interview with a Professional Standards investigator conducting the Police Act investigation","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"This same police officer made misleading or false statements during an interview with a Professional Standards investigator conducting the Police Act investigation. *The suspensions were to run concurrently.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":600,"file":"2014-9529","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Misuse of Intoxicants","sublabel":"Unfit For Duty Due to Intoxicants","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"reported to work unfit for duty due to the effects of intoxicating liquor","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer reported to work unfit for duty due to the effects of intoxicating liquor.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":601,"file":"2014-9529","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"drove away from the police station in a private vehicle knowing his/her alcohol level was over the legal limit","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer drove away from the police station in a private vehicle knowing his/her alcohol level was over the legal limit.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":602,"file":"2016-12323","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Follow Supervisor's Lawful Order - Verbal","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to engage or involve his/her direct supervisor in this conversation or process despite being told on a previous occasion not to go outside the chain of command","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On April 14, 2016, a police officer failed to attend the department’s annual firearms qualifications. The police officer spoke directly to the firearms instructor and made alternative arrangements. The police officer failed to engage or involve his/her direct supervisor in this conversation or process despite being told on a previous occasion not to go outside the chain of command.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":603,"file":"2023-23625","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Immediate Roadside Prohibition/Impaired Operation of a Motor Vehicle","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"The member drove a motor vehicle after having consumed alcohol and provided two \"warn\" breath samples on an ASD.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Abbotsford Police Department (APD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the off duty conduct of a member. According to the APD, the off-duty member was driving their personal vehicle when they were stopped at a Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) roadblock. The member subsequently provided two breath samples that resulted in “warn” readings on an Approved Screening Device (ASD) which resulted in a three-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) being issued. The member drove a motor vehicle after having consumed alcohol and provided two \"warn\" breath samples on an ASD. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member accepted full responsibility for their actions, was honest, forthcoming, and cooperative with the RCMP member, and diligently self-reported the incident to their supervisor on their own accord. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined thar further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":604,"file":"2016-12004","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"intentionally discharged a live simunition round at a police recruit during a training exercise","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On June 6, 2016, a police officer intentionally discharged a live simunition round at a police recruit during a training exercise. The OPCC noted that the police officer lost their secondary employment status as an instructor due to this incident, which will have a significant impact on their personal situation in the future, which mitigated the need for a more significant penalty than the one imposed.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":605,"file":"2010-5791","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2012,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"the member disobeyed a family court order and participated in or actively condoned possible criminal activities","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The complainant and the member were involved in a custody battle. It was reported that the member disobeyed a family court order and participated in or actively condoned possible criminal activities.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":606,"file":"2010-5791","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2012,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to take action knowing that cocaine was being purchased from a trafficker","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member failed to take action knowing that cocaine was being purchased from a trafficker.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":607,"file":"2010-5791","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2012,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to act after observing two males smoking crack after leaving a residence and instead solicited their assistance in pushing his car","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member failed to act after observing two males smoking crack after leaving a residence and instead solicited their assistance in pushing his car.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":608,"file":"2018-15080","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"Inappropriate comments towards other co-workers in contravention of the department’s Respectful Workplace Policy.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported an internal matter respecting two Special Municipal Constables (SMC’s) both employed as clerks who had accused each other of bullying and harassing behaviour. The identified concerning behaviour included derogatory comments, monitoring other employee’s punctuality, making inappropriate comments about co-workers and their physical appearance, and for spreading rumors about other co-workers. The OPCC did not identify any public trust concerns and no complaint was received at the OPCC. An internal investigation was initiated as a result. Inappropriate comments towards other co-workers in contravention of the department’s Respectful Workplace Policy.","measures":["verbal reprimand","training"]},{"id":609,"file":"2018-15080","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"Inappropriate comments towards other co-workers in contravention of the department’s Respectful Workplace Policy.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported an internal matter respecting two Special Municipal Constables (SMC’s) both employed as clerks who had accused each other of bullying and harassing behaviour. The identified concerning behaviour included derogatory comments, monitoring other employee’s punctuality, making inappropriate comments about co-workers and their physical appearance, and for spreading rumors about other co-workers. The OPCC did not identify any public trust concerns and no complaint was received at the OPCC. An internal investigation was initiated as a result. Inappropriate comments towards other co-workers in contravention of the department’s Respectful Workplace Policy.","measures":["verbal reprimand","training"]},{"id":610,"file":"2018-15080","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"Making negative and inappropriate workplace comments and engaging in bullying and harassing behaviour.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported an internal matter respecting two Special Municipal Constables (SMC’s) both employed as clerks who had accused each other of bullying and harassing behaviour. The identified concerning behaviour included derogatory comments, monitoring other employee’s punctuality, making inappropriate comments about co-workers and their physical appearance, and for spreading rumors about other co-workers. The OPCC did not identify any public trust concerns and no complaint was received at the OPCC. An internal investigation was initiated as a result. Making negative and inappropriate workplace comments and engaging in bullying and harassing behaviour.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":611,"file":"2018-15080","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"Making negative and inappropriate workplace comments and engaging in bullying and harassing behaviour.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported an internal matter respecting two Special Municipal Constables (SMC’s) both employed as clerks who had accused each other of bullying and harassing behaviour. The identified concerning behaviour included derogatory comments, monitoring other employee’s punctuality, making inappropriate comments about co-workers and their physical appearance, and for spreading rumors about other co-workers. The OPCC did not identify any public trust concerns and no complaint was received at the OPCC. An internal investigation was initiated as a result. Making negative and inappropriate workplace comments and engaging in bullying and harassing behaviour.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":612,"file":"2018-15080","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"Making negative and inappropriate workplace comments and engaging in bullying and harassing behaviour.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported an internal matter respecting two Special Municipal Constables (SMC’s) both employed as clerks who had accused each other of bullying and harassing behaviour. The identified concerning behaviour included derogatory comments, monitoring other employee’s punctuality, making inappropriate comments about co-workers and their physical appearance, and for spreading rumors about other co-workers. The OPCC did not identify any public trust concerns and no complaint was received at the OPCC. An internal investigation was initiated as a result. Making negative and inappropriate workplace comments and engaging in bullying and harassing behaviour.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":613,"file":"2018-15080","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"Making negative and inappropriate workplace comments and engaging in bullying and harassing behaviour.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported an internal matter respecting two Special Municipal Constables (SMC’s) both employed as clerks who had accused each other of bullying and harassing behaviour. The identified concerning behaviour included derogatory comments, monitoring other employee’s punctuality, making inappropriate comments about co-workers and their physical appearance, and for spreading rumors about other co-workers. The OPCC did not identify any public trust concerns and no complaint was received at the OPCC. An internal investigation was initiated as a result. Making negative and inappropriate workplace comments and engaging in bullying and harassing behaviour.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":614,"file":"2018-15080","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"Making negative and inappropriate workplace comments and engaging in bullying and harassing behaviour.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported an internal matter respecting two Special Municipal Constables (SMC’s) both employed as clerks who had accused each other of bullying and harassing behaviour. The identified concerning behaviour included derogatory comments, monitoring other employee’s punctuality, making inappropriate comments about co-workers and their physical appearance, and for spreading rumors about other co-workers. The OPCC did not identify any public trust concerns and no complaint was received at the OPCC. An internal investigation was initiated as a result. Making negative and inappropriate workplace comments and engaging in bullying and harassing behaviour.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":615,"file":"2018-15080","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"Making negative and inappropriate workplace comments and engaging in bullying and harassing behaviour.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported an internal matter respecting two Special Municipal Constables (SMC’s) both employed as clerks who had accused each other of bullying and harassing behaviour. The identified concerning behaviour included derogatory comments, monitoring other employee’s punctuality, making inappropriate comments about co-workers and their physical appearance, and for spreading rumors about other co-workers. The OPCC did not identify any public trust concerns and no complaint was received at the OPCC. An internal investigation was initiated as a result. Making negative and inappropriate workplace comments and engaging in bullying and harassing behaviour.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":616,"file":"2018-15080","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"Making negative and inappropriate workplace comments and engaging in bullying and harassing behaviour.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported an internal matter respecting two Special Municipal Constables (SMC’s) both employed as clerks who had accused each other of bullying and harassing behaviour. The identified concerning behaviour included derogatory comments, monitoring other employee’s punctuality, making inappropriate comments about co-workers and their physical appearance, and for spreading rumors about other co-workers. The OPCC did not identify any public trust concerns and no complaint was received at the OPCC. An internal investigation was initiated as a result. Making negative and inappropriate workplace comments and engaging in bullying and harassing behaviour.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":617,"file":"2018-15080","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"Making negative and inappropriate workplace comments and engaging in bullying and harassing behaviour.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported an internal matter respecting two Special Municipal Constables (SMC’s) both employed as clerks who had accused each other of bullying and harassing behaviour. The identified concerning behaviour included derogatory comments, monitoring other employee’s punctuality, making inappropriate comments about co-workers and their physical appearance, and for spreading rumors about other co-workers. The OPCC did not identify any public trust concerns and no complaint was received at the OPCC. An internal investigation was initiated as a result. Making negative and inappropriate workplace comments and engaging in bullying and harassing behaviour.","measures":["training"]},{"id":618,"file":"2019-16704","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"Failing to report a personal relationship with a subordinate employee contrary to departmental policy.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Nelson Police Department (NPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of an NPD member for failing to disclose that they were involved in a personal relationship with a subordinate employee. In addition, further information indicated that the member’s personal vehicle was observed parked outside the employee’s residence in the early morning hours the previous two nights. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. Failing to report a personal relationship with a subordinate employee contrary to departmental policy. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures considering that the member had accepted responsibility. During the prehearing conference, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted an apparent ambiguity in the NPD policy and recommended that the NPD clarify their policy concerning intimate supervisor and subordinate relationships. The OPCC agreed with this recommendation.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":619,"file":"2018-15084","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Provide Assistance (General)","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"Failing to assist the complainant by taking a report or assisting her by making a report of a crime that occurred against her.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A female complainant reported that an unknown male person assaulted her while walking downtown in Vancouver. The complainant’s boyfriend began to follow the male suspect and called 911. The complainant approached a marked Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP) vehicle stopped at a red light and knocked on the window. The complainant told the member who was seated in the passenger seat what had happened and pointed to her boyfriend who was following the suspect. The member’s response was, \"What do you want us to do about it” and, “it's not really our jurisdiction.” The OPCC reviewed the complainant and determine an investigation was required into the incident. Failing to assist the complainant by taking a report or assisting her by making a report of a crime that occurred against her. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. The Prehearing Conference Authority took into consideration that the complainant did not suffer physical injuries as a result of the assault but also noted that the complainant’s trust in police had been damaged. Both members prepared a letter of apology to the complainant and undertook steps to improve their communication and customer service skills. Consideration was given to the fact that one of the members did not communicate with the complainant or contribute to the deteriorating conversation with the complainant. As a result, this member received a verbal reprimand whereas the other member involved received a written reprimand for the handing of this matter. The OPCC reviewed the discipline imposed in this matter and determined that the corrective and disciplinary measures agreed to at the prehearing conference sufficiently served to correct and educate the members involved.","measures":[]},{"id":620,"file":"2018-14566","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The former Inspector sent text messages to the complainant of a sexual nature.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The text states the former Inspector \"sent text messages to the complainant of a sexual nature,\" i.e., the officer himself engaged in sexualized communications with a prospective applicant.","text":"It was reported that an Inspector engaged in inappropriate sexual communications with a woman interested in employment as a police officer. The former Inspector contacted the woman through social media, initially communicating about potential employment as a police officer, but later engaged in communications of a sexual nature, both via text and in person. During the course of the Police Act investigation, the former Inspector provided false or misleading evidence when investigators asked about these communications. At the request of the Delta Police Department, the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner initiated an investigation into the matter and appointed the Saanich Police Department (SPD) to conduct the investigation. The OPCC also appointed Chief Constable Scott Green of the SPD to act as the Discipline Authority for this matter. The former Inspector sent text messages to the complainant of a sexual nature.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":621,"file":"2018-14566","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Equipment","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.92,"thin":false,"quote":"The former Inspector engaged in a conversation that was sexual in nature with the complainant.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The text states the former Inspector \"engaged in a conversation that was sexual in nature with the complainant,\" i.e., sexualized communications with a prospective applicant, committed by the officer himself.","text":"It was reported that an Inspector engaged in inappropriate sexual communications with a woman interested in employment as a police officer. The former Inspector contacted the woman through social media, initially communicating about potential employment as a police officer, but later engaged in communications of a sexual nature, both via text and in person. During the course of the Police Act investigation, the former Inspector provided false or misleading evidence when investigators asked about these communications. At the request of the Delta Police Department, the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner initiated an investigation into the matter and appointed the Saanich Police Department (SPD) to conduct the investigation. The OPCC also appointed Chief Constable Scott Green of the SPD to act as the Discipline Authority for this matter. The former Inspector engaged in a conversation that was sexual in nature with the complainant.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":622,"file":"2018-14566","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"did not use his department issued mobile device in a reasonable manner when he sent personal sexual text messages to the complainant","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The allegation states the Inspector \"sent personal sexual text messages to the complainant,\" i.e., he himself engaged in sexualized communications with a prospective applicant.","text":"It was reported that an Inspector engaged in inappropriate sexual communications with a woman interested in employment as a police officer. The former Inspector contacted the woman through social media, initially communicating about potential employment as a police officer, but later engaged in communications of a sexual nature, both via text and in person. During the course of the Police Act investigation, the former Inspector provided false or misleading evidence when investigators asked about these communications. At the request of the Delta Police Department, the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner initiated an investigation into the matter and appointed the Saanich Police Department (SPD) to conduct the investigation. The OPCC also appointed Chief Constable Scott Green of the SPD to act as the Discipline Authority for this matter. The former Inspector did not use his department issued mobile device in a reasonable manner when he sent personal sexual text messages to the complainant.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":623,"file":"2018-14566","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"The former Inspector provided a false or misleading oral statement to an investigating officer in the course of this Police Act investigation.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"It was reported that an Inspector engaged in inappropriate sexual communications with a woman interested in employment as a police officer. The former Inspector contacted the woman through social media, initially communicating about potential employment as a police officer, but later engaged in communications of a sexual nature, both via text and in person. During the course of the Police Act investigation, the former Inspector provided false or misleading evidence when investigators asked about these communications. At the request of the Delta Police Department, the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner initiated an investigation into the matter and appointed the Saanich Police Department (SPD) to conduct the investigation. The OPCC also appointed Chief Constable Scott Green of the SPD to act as the Discipline Authority for this matter. The former Inspector provided a false or misleading oral statement to an investigating officer in the course of this Police Act investigation. Prior to the commencement of the discipline proceeding, the former Inspector submitted a letter of resignation to the Chief Constable of the Delta Police Department. The former Inspector did not attend the proceedings which commenced in his absence. Chief Constable Green determined that the former Inspector had committed several counts of misconduct. He found that the former Inspector’s conduct was “deliberate and calculating in an effort to establish safeguards that would enable him to engage in a covert and sexually explicit relationship with [the woman].” The former Inspector was “in a position of trust, authority and power by virtue of being a male, a police officer, a senior officer and someone who could have significant influence on [the woman’s] career aspirations.” Chief Constable Green also found that “Knowingly, purposefully, and intentionally committing the act of deceit as a police officer is extremely serious misconduct. It undermines the reputation of the police department and the profession itself. 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.” The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that the nature and seriousness of this matter was addressed through a thorough, professional investigation and appropriate sanction was imposed. The former Inspector retired prior to the discipline hearing but his employment records will reflect that he was dismissed from the Delta Police Department.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":624,"file":"2021-19215","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"causing a disturbance by yelling threatening challenges, damaging property, and disturbing the peace.\",\"discourtesy\"],\"primary\":\"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a member for causing a disturbance at their residence which lead to another police agency detaining the member. It was reported that the member had an argument with their partner which lead to them breaking items and sustaining an injury. No criminal charges were recommended against the member. During the course of the investigation, the member was dismissed in relation to another matter under the Police Act. While off-duty, causing a disturbance by yelling threatening challenges, damaging property, and disturbing the peace. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority (DA) found that the former member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered to the former member; however, it was not accepted and as a result the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The DA found that the former member committed misconduct, noting that the actions of the member were serious in nature and went “to the heart of the principles of trust, decision making, ethics and integrity.” The former member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed, although on the low end of the spectrum, was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension","counselling"]},{"id":625,"file":"2017-13144","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"communicated intimidating comments by way of a text message to a co-worker contrary to section 4.1.11 of the Respectful Workplace Policy","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On February 16, 2017, a police officer communicated intimidating comments by way of a text message to a co-worker contrary to section 4.1.11 of the Respectful Workplace Policy of the Vancouver Police Department Regulations and Procedures Manual (RPM). The OPCC reviewed the Internal Discipline Record of Decision and determined there were no public trust issues.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":626,"file":"2014-9349","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2015,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to disclose his full Police Act record to Crown Counsel through a “McNeil Disclosure” form on eight separate occasions","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer failed to disclose his full Police Act record to Crown Counsel through a “McNeil Disclosure” form on eight separate occasions.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":627,"file":"2014-9349","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2015,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.95,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":628,"file":"2014-9349","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2015,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.9,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":629,"file":"2014-9349","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2015,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.95,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":630,"file":"2014-9349","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2015,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.9,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":631,"file":"2014-9349","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2015,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.9,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":632,"file":"2014-9349","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2015,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.9,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":633,"file":"2014-9349","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2015,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.9,"thin":true,"quote":"THIS ALLEGATION: As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above. *The suspensions were to be served consecutively for a total of an 8-day suspension.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":634,"file":"2011-6055","agency":"Port Moody Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"had defaced a photograph of a colleague displayed in the department and wrote an obscenity in close proximity to the defaced photograph","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer had defaced a photograph of a colleague displayed in the department and wrote an obscenity in close proximity to the defaced photograph.","measures":["written reprimand","program activity"]},{"id":635,"file":"2017-13765","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"police officer provided a police uniform shirt to a civilian","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On December 24, 2016, police officer provided a police uniform shirt to a civilian. This matter proceeded to a disciplinary proceeding. The Discipline Authority recognized that if a member of the community was to be observed wearing police uniform items that there was a potential for a wide range of consequences. However, in this instance, there was no indication that the uniform shirt was used in an unauthorized manner. Given that the police officer had retired, the Discipline Authority felt the need for a significant penalty was mitigated. 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.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":636,"file":"2019-15946","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"sent text messages to and made comments about the complainant that could be considered demeaning, derogatory, intimidating and indicative of bullying and harassment type behavior","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Nelson Police Department (NPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a member for allegations that between 2016-17, the member sent text messages and comments to the complainant, which were demeaning, derogatory, intimidating and indicative of bullying and harassment type behaviour. Additionally, the member was alleged to have intentionally lied to the investigator during their Professional Standards Section (PSS) interview concerning the nature of their relationship with the complainant. The member sent text messages to and made comments about the complainant that could be considered demeaning, derogatory, intimidating and indicative of bullying and harassment type behavior.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":637,"file":"2019-15946","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"intentionally lied to a Professional Standards Section investigator concerning the nature of their relationship with the complainant","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Nelson Police Department (NPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a member for allegations that between 2016-17, the member sent text messages and comments to the complainant, which were demeaning, derogatory, intimidating and indicative of bullying and harassment type behaviour. Additionally, the member was alleged to have intentionally lied to the investigator during their Professional Standards Section (PSS) interview concerning the nature of their relationship with the complainant. The member intentionally lied to a Professional Standards Section investigator concerning the nature of their relationship with the complainant. Following an investigation, the matter proceeded directly to a discipline proceeding. The Discipline Authority found that the comments made by the member were clearly offensive and unacceptable and that the allegation of deceit was very serious. In arriving at an appropriate penalty, the DA noted that the member showed remorse and after reflection of the disciplinary process, accepted responsibility for the misconduct. Neither the complainant nor the member requested a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed this matter and determined that there were insufficient grounds to arrange for a further review.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":638,"file":"2017-13006","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Absent/Late For Duty","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"The supervisor was unable to accommodate this request. On November 2, 2016, at 0822 hours, the supervisor received a text message from the police officer stating that they had a fever, sore throat, and congestion","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Sometime near the end of October 2016, a police officer approached a supervisor to request a change in working night shifts to day shifts for the week on November 2 – 5, 2016, to accommodate his feeling sick, a new relationship, and a social event. The supervisor was unable to accommodate this request. On November 2, 2016, at 0822 hours, the supervisor received a text message from the police officer stating that they had a fever, sore throat, and congestion but hoped to return to duty for November 4 and 5, 2016. The OPCC reviewed the investigation and the Internal Discipline Authority’s decision. The OPCC determined there were no public trust concerns that required investigation. * Based on the concerns contained in OPCC 2017-13225 and OPCC 2017-13006, a work agreement was formalized between the department and the police officer that included an understanding that any non-compliance with the agreement may result in the police officer being deemed unfit to work for the department.","measures":["counselling"]},{"id":639,"file":"2011-6586","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Follow Supervisor's Lawful Order - Verbal","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"The member failed to comply with the directions from his supervisor to wait and not enter the suite.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member failed to comply with the directions from his supervisor to wait and not enter the suite. As a result, he was not properly equipped and compromised his own and other member’s safety.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":640,"file":"2018-14657","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"The candidate failed to disclose several events where he was a complainant/witness.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"During the hiring process to become a special municipal constable, the candidate was asked to provide any previous police contact. The candidate failed to disclose several events where he was a complainant/witness. This was not discovered during the special municipal constable hiring process as the recruiting unit did not conduct an external query outside the Lower Mainland, which would have identified these events. The recruiting unit has since implemented measures to ensure this oversight does not occur in the future. The recruitment process for special municipal constable positions includes stringent and extraordinary standards of expectation and disclosure in order to preserve the integrity and security of police operations. The Internal Discipline Authority found, on a balance of probabilities, that the special municipal constable was negligent and demonstrated a lack of care and attention during the interview process. In determining the appropriate discipline, the Internal Discipline Authority considered the accepted range of discipline for similar incidents and that the decision would likely have an adverse effect on the special municipal constable’s plans to become a regular member of the VPD. The OPCC reviewed the investigation and the Internal Discipline Authority’s decision. The OPCC determined there were no public trust concerns that required investigation.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":641,"file":"2017-13617","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"For entering the jail cell and unnecessarily applying force to a prisoner.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The complainant reported that he was arrested on a bench warrant and removed from a detox centre and taken to Vancouver jail cells. He reported that the jail guards had beaten him unconscious and dislocated his shoulder. The OPCC reviewed this complaint and initiated an investigation into allegations of police misconduct. In addition, the Vancouver Police Department requested that the New Westminster Police Department (NWPD) conduct a criminal investigation into the use of force by the jail guards. The NWPD referred the matter to the BC Prosecution Service (BCPS) for possible criminal charges; however, charges were not approved. For entering the jail cell and unnecessarily applying force to a prisoner.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":642,"file":"2017-13617","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"at no time did the members document the incident as an assault, notify another police member, or suggest that criminal charges should be contemplated","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The complainant reported that he was arrested on a bench warrant and removed from a detox centre and taken to Vancouver jail cells. He reported that the jail guards had beaten him unconscious and dislocated his shoulder. The OPCC reviewed this complaint and initiated an investigation into allegations of police misconduct. In addition, the Vancouver Police Department requested that the New Westminster Police Department (NWPD) conduct a criminal investigation into the use of force by the jail guards. The NWPD referred the matter to the BC Prosecution Service (BCPS) for possible criminal charges; however, charges were not approved. Not notifying the Jail supervisor after a use of force incident. There was sufficient evidence to remit this matter to a discipline proceeding. The Discipline Authority noted that although the members indicated that actions by the complainant by tossing a paper cup at them was an assault, at no time did the members document the incident as an assault, notify another police member, or suggest that criminal charges should be contemplated. In addition, the Discipline Authority found that the use of restraints to “correct” a person’s behaviour was unacceptable and that “it is not the role of police to inflict corrective measures on an individual but…to address safety and security concerns.” The Discipline Authority concluded that the jail guard’s decision to enter the cell and apply force was wrong, done for inappropriate reasons, and was not proportionate to the actual degree of assaultive behaviour. It was determined that facial area of the prisoner became injured and he suffered a cut to his nose area. The Discipline Authority also noted that jail staff had been trained to deal with assaultive prisoners and the method of using handcuffs to stop such behaviors. The Discipline Authority concluded that while “this does not excuse an individual from having committed a disciplinary default, it does mitigate what corrective measures should be considered.” The OPCC reviewed the outcome and did not order further review.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":643,"file":"2018-14571","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The complainant pulled away and the police officer swept the complainant’s foot and took the complainant to the ground.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On February 28, 2018, a police officer used unnecessary force on the complainant during a traffic stop. The police officer was concerned that the complainant was outside their vehicle during the traffic stop. The officer placed his hand on the complainant’s left arm to motion and guide the complainant back to their vehicle. The complainant refused the attempt and the police officer decided to place him in handcuffs for officer safety. The police officer asked the complainant to turn around in order to place the complainant in handcuffs. The complainant did not acknowledge the police direction and so the police officer grabbed the complainant’s arm. The complainant pulled away and the police officer swept the complainant’s foot and took the complainant to the ground.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":644,"file":"2018-14571","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Provide Charter Rights","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to inform the complainant of the reason for their arrest or their legal counsel rights in accordance with Section 10 of the Charter","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On February 28, 2018, the police officer and his partner failed to inform the complainant of the reason for their arrest or their legal counsel rights in accordance with Section 10 of the Charter. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. 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. At the time of this incident Member 1 had been a police officer for one year and had just graduated from the Police Academy two months prior. During the prehearing conference Member 1 stated that he made a mistake during the traffic stop and that he should not have touched the complainant and by doing so he escalated the situation. The Prehearing Conference Authority found that a failure to provide a citizen with their Charter rights can have serious ramifications on criminal investigations as well as the individual's right to legal advice upon arrest or detention. Both officers recognized the importance of communication with one’s partner to ensure that the people who are arrested are advised of their Charter rights. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["verbal reprimand","training"]},{"id":645,"file":"2018-14986","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Provide Assistance (General)","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"Failing to ensure that the affected person was promptly and diligently assessed for injury or re-injury following a use of force incident in VPD jail.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC initiated an investigation into the conduct of two Sergeants at the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) following a review of injuries received by an affected person (AP) who was held in custody at the VPD Jail. It was reported that the AP was forcibly removed from the jail building following a use of force incident, where additional force was used outside by police. The affected person was left on the sidewalk, bleeding for a period of time before another police officer came by and noticed the affected person was injured. On request of the Commissioner, the Director of Police Services ordered the Independent Investigations Office (IIO) to conduct a \"Special Investigation\" into the conduct of the officers pursuant to section 44(1) of the Police Act . At the conclusion of the investigation, the IIO did not consider that any police officer had committed an offence under any enactment and did not refer this case to Crown Counsel for consideration of possible criminal charges. An investigation under the Police Act found that the officers committed misconduct in relation to their handling of the affected person. Failing to ensure that the affected person was promptly and diligently assessed for injury or re-injury following a use of force incident in VPD jail. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the members committed misconduct and a Prehearing Conference was offered to the members. The members declined the offer and the matter proceeded to a Discipline Proceeding. The Discipline Authority (DA) found that the Sergeants had a duty of care owed to the affected person and they were the ranking officers responsible for the oversight of the VPD Jail at the time of this incident, one of which directed the release of the AP. Both respondents were physically present for the takedown of the AP and were therefore aware that force had been used to take the AP to the ground. In addition, both acknowledged that they observed blood on the jail floor after the takedown of the affected person. The DA also found that a follow-up assessment of the AP by jail staff occurred some period of time later and was only as a result of another Sergeant coming across the AP outside the jail. The DA acknowledged that the misconduct did not relate to the force used by other police officers, which was determined to be reasonable and lawful in the circumstances but rather was in relation to a failure to take timely steps to adequately assess the circumstances. The DA imposed a sanction of a verbal reprimand for both members. Neither member requested a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required in the public interest.","measures":[]},{"id":646,"file":"2013-9280","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to complete an MV6020 (British Columbia Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Police Investigation Report); failed to make proper notes regarding the accident and/or injuries sustained by the driver; and failed to include important details regarding the accident in the PRIME report.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On November 17, 2011, the police officer attended a single motor vehicle accident. It was determined that the police officer failed to complete an MV6020 (British Columbia Motor Vehicle Traffic Accident Police Investigation Report); failed to make proper notes regarding the accident and/or injuries sustained by the driver; and failed to include important details regarding the accident in the PRIME report.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":647,"file":"2013-9280","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Provide Assistance (General)","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"the officer failed to respond to numerous requests for a return call from both a member of the public and a professional in another agency","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Officers are required to respond to citizens' reasonable requests for information about a police incident as part of their service to the public. Failing to respond to a single message can often be a simple error. However, in this matter, the officer failed to respond to numerous requests for a return call from both a member of the public and a professional in another agency.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":648,"file":"2019-15763","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"made a gesture with his middle finger to his female partner, returned to their shared residence and caused damage to the residence, including punching holes in the bedroom wall","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Nelson Police Department (NPD) reported a matter involving the off-duty conduct of one of their members and his girlfriend. It was reported that while off-duty, the member attended a bar with his girlfriend, yelled at her, including using an expletive and made a gesture with his middle finger. The member then returned home where he caused damage to the property, including punching holes in the bedroom wall. Police were called as a result of the member’s off-duty conduct. The OPCC determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency be appointed to conduct this investigation. The RCMP was appointed to conduct the investigation and a senior officer at the Vancouver Police Department was designated to be the Discipline Authority. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation. The matter was referred to the BC Prosecution Service; charges were not approved. Adjudicative Review The Discipline Authority determined that the off-duty conduct of the member did not constitute misconduct. After reviewing the Final Investigation Report and the Discipline Authority’s decision, it was the Police Complaint Commissioner’s view that there was a reasonable basis to believe that decision of the external Discipline Authority was incorrect and appointed Retired BC Court of Appeal Justice, Wally Oppal, Q.C., to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Mr. Oppal determined that the conduct of the member appeared to constitute misconduct. In his decision, he noted that the police and the Discipline Authority appear to have treated this matter as a domestic incident involving two people. Mr. Oppal disagreed with the assessment that this was simply a case of \"domestic discourse.\" He further noted that there were a number of specific examples where the conduct of the member appeared to constitute misconduct. They include going into the pub and making a gesture with his middle finger to his girlfriend, and returning to their residence and causing willful damage to the property therein, including punching holes in the bedroom wall. Mr. 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. While off-duty, the member made a gesture with his middle finger to his female partner, returned to their shared residence and caused damage to the residence, including punching holes in the bedroom wall and throwing building materials out of the front door. A prehearing conference was held during which the member accepted full responsibility for his actions and admitted to the allegation of Discreditable Conduct. An agreement was reached with respect to the disciplinary/corrective measures of a written reprimand and counselling for two years. The Prehearing Conference Authority considered that, at the time of the incident, the member had been a long serving police officer with no current service record of discipline. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference. For further information on this incident and decision, go to: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["written reprimand","counselling"]},{"id":649,"file":"2019-16783","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.55,"thin":false,"quote":"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.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request by the Delta Police Department (DPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of three DPD members relating to their role in providing a reference for a former employee. According to the DPD, a prospective employer contacted the Delta Police Department following media coverage reporting the dismissal of a Delta police officer. The former member was scheduled to start a new position with the prospective employer. It was reported that the prospective employer had received positive references regarding the former member from three senior ranking officers at the DPD. Upon request, the Commissioner directed that an external police agency conduct the investigation and act as the Discipline Authority. 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. In arriving at his decision, the Discipline Authority determined that while Police Act restrictions would prohibit disclosing specific information about previous misconduct about a former member, details were reported in the media and were therefore in the public realm. Accordingly, it was open for the respondent members to refer the prospective employer to the media coverage. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the members. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that all three senior officers accepted full responsibility for their actions and had learned from this incident. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures.","measures":["suspension","program activity"]},{"id":650,"file":"2014-10099","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"sent sexually explicit photos and videos of themselves in police uniform and business attire to a member of the public","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The officer themselves \"sent sexually explicit photos and videos of themselves in police uniform\" to a member of the public, constituting image-based sexualized misconduct.","text":"While on duty, a police officer sent sexually explicit photos and videos of themselves in police uniform and business attire to a member of the public.","measures":["suspension","counselling"]},{"id":651,"file":"2014-10099","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.55,"thin":false,"quote":"A police officer participated in sex acts while on duty.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":false,"basis":"The text states only that an officer \"participated in sex acts while on duty,\" with no indication of any victim, coercion, assault, or unwanted sexualized conduct \" it is on-duty misconduct, not gendered violence.","text":"A police officer participated in sex acts while on duty.","measures":["suspension","training","close supervision"]},{"id":652,"file":"2014-10099","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.5,"thin":false,"quote":"A police officer participated in sex acts while on duty.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":false,"basis":"The text states only that the officer \"participated in sex acts while on duty,\" identifying no victim, coercion, or non-consent, so it establishes on-duty misconduct rather than sexualized violence.","text":"A police officer participated in sex acts while on duty.","measures":["suspension","counselling","close supervision"]},{"id":653,"file":"2014-10099","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"queried police databases by means of a mobile data terminal for a purpose unrelated to the performance of the officer’s duties.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer queried police databases by means of a mobile data terminal for a purpose unrelated to the performance of the officer’s duties. *The suspensions were to run consecutively for a total suspension of 68 days.","measures":["suspension","written reprimand","training"]},{"id":654,"file":"2018-15003","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"used a derogatory term in front of work colleagues in the workplace when he referred to a female police officer","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"In April 2017, a police officer used a derogatory term in front of work colleagues in the workplace when he referred to a female police officer.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":655,"file":"2018-15003","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"he slapped the genital area of fellow male officers while in the workplace","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The officer \"slapped the genital area of fellow male officers while in the workplace,\" which is unwanted touching of others' genitals — sexualized physical contact committed by the officer himself.","text":"The police officer displayed inappropriate behaviour on multiple occasions when he slapped the genital area of fellow male officers while in the workplace. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. 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. The police officer acknowledged that the behaviour and comment were clearly a mistake on his part and that he put people in uncomfortable positions within the workplace. He acknowledged more is expected from a front line supervisor. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["verbal reprimand","training"]},{"id":656,"file":"2012-7270","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"While off-duty, a police officer consumed liquor and then operated a motor vehicle.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"While off-duty, a police officer consumed liquor and then operated a motor vehicle.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":657,"file":"2012-7270","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"disclosed that he was a police officer in order to receive favourable treatment","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"When stopped by the RCMP for an impaired driving investigation, the officer disclosed that he was a police officer in order to receive favourable treatment.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":658,"file":"2019-16220","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"Making accusatory comments to another co-worker, breaching confidentiality related to another Police Act investigation, and using profane language when referring to another person.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"It was reported that a Special Municipal Constable (SMC) potentially breached the Vancouver Police Department’s Respectful Workplace Policy by bullying, engaging in retaliatory conduct and breaching confidentiality in relation to an ongoing Police Act investigation. An internal investigation was initiated as a result. The OPCC determined there were no public trust issues and no complaint had been filed. Making accusatory comments to another co-worker, breaching confidentiality related to another Police Act investigation, and using profane language when referring to another person.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":659,"file":"2019-16220","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.72,"thin":false,"quote":"potentially breached the Vancouver Police Department’s Respectful Workplace Policy by bullying, engaging in retaliatory conduct and breaching confidentiality in relation to an ongoing Police Act investigation","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"It was reported that a Special Municipal Constable (SMC) potentially breached the Vancouver Police Department’s Respectful Workplace Policy by bullying, engaging in retaliatory conduct and breaching confidentiality in relation to an ongoing Police Act investigation. An internal investigation was initiated as a result. The OPCC determined there were no public trust issues and no complaint had been filed. As above.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":660,"file":"2019-16220","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"potentially breached the Vancouver Police Department’s Respectful Workplace Policy by bullying, engaging in retaliatory conduct and breaching confidentiality in relation to an ongoing Police Act investigation","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"It was reported that a Special Municipal Constable (SMC) potentially breached the Vancouver Police Department’s Respectful Workplace Policy by bullying, engaging in retaliatory conduct and breaching confidentiality in relation to an ongoing Police Act investigation. An internal investigation was initiated as a result. The OPCC determined there were no public trust issues and no complaint had been filed. As above.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":661,"file":"2019-17113","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"the member had called in sick 25 times between 2015-2019 and coached hockey instead of working","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The West Vancouver Police Department (WVPD) initiated an internal investigation into the conduct of one of their member’s and their use of sick time. It was reported that the member called in sick for two shifts in a row. The member was then seen coaching a hockey game during the second shift for which he had called in sick. Subsequent investigation revealed that the member had called in sick 25 times between 2015-2019 and coached hockey instead of working. Coaching hockey on days that he had called in sick to work (25 counts of Discreditable Conduct).","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":662,"file":"2019-17113","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"Denying to his supervisor that he was coaching hockey on days he called in sick.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The West Vancouver Police Department (WVPD) initiated an internal investigation into the conduct of one of their member’s and their use of sick time. It was reported that the member called in sick for two shifts in a row. The member was then seen coaching a hockey game during the second shift for which he had called in sick. Subsequent investigation revealed that the member had called in sick 25 times between 2015-2019 and coached hockey instead of working. Denying to his supervisor that he was coaching hockey on days he called in sick. The Discipline Authority noted the negative impact of the member’s absences on his team and that the conduct would fall below the public’s expectations of municipal police officer. The Discipline Authority also cited legal precedent that supported the finding of dismissal, noting the Court had found that “employers must be able to manage their workplace and have an expectation that employees not flagrantly abuse their sick time.” Although the member resigned prior to the completion of this matter, their service record of discipline will note that they were dismissed from the WVPD.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":663,"file":"2020-18382","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The member failed to operate the police vehicle in a safe manner, resulting in a collision with the male on his bicycle.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC ordered an investigation after receiving information about the driving behaviour of a Vancouver Police Department (VPD) member following a collision with a bicycle which resulted in injuries. According to information provided by the VPD, police were travelling in plain clothes and in an unmarked police vehicle when they observed a male riding a bicycle on a sidewalk. The male’s bicycle did not have lights and he was not wearing a helmet. The male reportedly rode away quickly and as officers attempted to stop him, the police vehicle “made contact” with the male’s bicycle causing him to be knocked off to the ground. Police reported that a physical struggle ensued when they attempted to arrest the male. During the struggle, police used force which included the use of a CEW and punches to the head and body. The member failed to operate the police vehicle in a safe manner, resulting in a collision with the male on his bicycle.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":664,"file":"2020-18382","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"the member’s final strike to the male’s head was not reasonable or proportionate to the level of resistance from the affected person and was not necessary to control, secure and arrest the affected person","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC ordered an investigation after receiving information about the driving behaviour of a Vancouver Police Department (VPD) member following a collision with a bicycle which resulted in injuries. According to information provided by the VPD, police were travelling in plain clothes and in an unmarked police vehicle when they observed a male riding a bicycle on a sidewalk. The male’s bicycle did not have lights and he was not wearing a helmet. The male reportedly rode away quickly and as officers attempted to stop him, the police vehicle “made contact” with the male’s bicycle causing him to be knocked off to the ground. Police reported that a physical struggle ensued when they attempted to arrest the male. During the struggle, police used force which included the use of a CEW and punches to the head and body. The member used unnecessary force against the male during his arrest by hitting him in the head with a closed fist. A prehearing conference was offered to, but not accepted, by the member. The matter proceeded to a Discipline Proceeding and the Discipline Authority (DA) determined that the member committed misconduct. The DA found that the member was in the lawful execution of their duties when stopping the male for possible infractions; however, the DA found that the member’s operation of the police vehicle was reckless, and likely caused injury to the male. In addition, the DA determined that the member’s final strike to the male’s head was not reasonable or proportionate to the level of resistance from the affected person and was not necessary to control, secure and arrest the affected person. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. The OPCC noted that the member fully accepted the findings of the DA and that the member submitted that the conduct was out of character and that this experience will prevent any recurrence.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":665,"file":"2010-5284","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2010,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"inaccurately reported that he had interviewed specific witnesses in relation to a file when he had not","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer inaccurately reported that he had interviewed specific witnesses in relation to a file when he had not.","measures":["close supervision"]},{"id":666,"file":"2011-6357","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"While off-duty, the officer was observed with a known sex trade worker.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"While off-duty, the officer was observed with a known sex trade worker.","measures":["suspension","counselling"]},{"id":667,"file":"2019-16542","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"inappropriately activated the emergency equipment (lights and siren) to clear an intersection","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Victoria Police Department (VicPD) reported that a Reserve Constable was operating a marked patrol vehicle and inappropriately activated the emergency equipment (lights and siren) to clear an intersection. The OPCC did not identify any public trust concerns and no complaint regarding this conduct was received. An internal investigation was initiated as a result. Contravening training and departmental policy by inappropriately activating emergency equipment (lights and sirens) to clear an intersection.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":668,"file":"2015-10452","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Misappropriation of Property or Money Received in Course of Duty","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer removed various articles from the backpack, including the gift cards and cash, before throwing the backpack away.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"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. In February of 2015, an undercover police officer, posing as a regular citizen, approached the police officer, while he was on duty, and turned over a backpack that the undercover police officer claimed to have found. The backpack contained a number of items including gift cards and cash. The police officer removed various articles from the backpack, including the gift cards and cash, before throwing the backpack away.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":669,"file":"2015-10452","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Account For Money/Property Received","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer failed to promptly log the backpack and its contents into the police records system.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"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. The police officer failed to promptly log the backpack and its contents into the police records system.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":670,"file":"2015-10452","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"submitted a PRIME report in relation to the backpack turned over to him by an undercover officer that he knew was false or misleading","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"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. The police officer submitted a PRIME report in relation to the backpack turned over to him by an undercover officer that he knew was false or misleading.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":671,"file":"2015-10452","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Account For Money/Property Received","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"the police officer neglected to enter a wallet belonging to a member of the public into Property Services","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"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. It was found that between January 2, 2015, and February 13, 2015, the police officer neglected to enter a wallet belonging to a member of the public into Property Services. On February 13, 2015, a supervisor located the wallet in the police officer’s duty bag and the supervisor turned the wallet over to Property Services at that time.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":672,"file":"2015-10452","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"conducted CPIC and PRIME queries of two surveillance vehicles he suspected of following him","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"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. That on or about February 13 to February 18, 2015, the police officer conducted CPIC and PRIME queries of two surveillance vehicles he suspected of following him. This matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the Discipline Authority substantiated the five allegations and imposed the above-noted disciplinary/corrective measures. The respondent officer was informed that if he were aggrieved by either the findings or determinations he could file a written request with the Police Complaint Commissioner to arrange a Public Hearing or Review on the Record. Although no request was received, to promote accountability in the complaint process, all findings and determinations at Discipline Proceedings are reviewed by the OPCC. The OPCC was satisfied that the investigation into the matter was thorough and professional and that it was not in the public interest to arrange a Public Hearing or Review on the Record. The OPCC also determined that the disciplinary measures was appropriate given the circumstances and the seriousness of the conduct.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":673,"file":"2016-11835","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Negligent Discharge","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer negligently discharged their police issued firearm in the cleaning area of the gun club.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On April 25, 2016, a police officer attended the range for their annual firearms qualification. The police officer negligently discharged their police issued firearm in the cleaning area of the gun club. The bullet went through the cleaning table into the floor. The range building was closed to civilians at the time and the police officer was the only person in the designated cleaning area. There were no injuries sustained.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":674,"file":"2016-11976","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Unsafe Storage of Firearm","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"neglected to unload a C8 weapon before storing it in their locker","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On June 13, 2016, a police officer neglected to unload a C8 weapon before storing it in their locker.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":675,"file":"2016-11976","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Negligent Discharge","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"negligently discharged their weapon in a locker room located at the police station","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On June 14, 2016, a police officer negligently discharged their weapon in a locker room located at the police station. No one was injured and only minor damage resulted.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":676,"file":"2013-8997","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Negligent Discharge","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"accidently discharged one round from his police issued firearm","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer was in the Saanich Police Department’s secure firearms room when he accidently discharged one round from his police issued firearm.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":677,"file":"2016-11936","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2016,"heading":"Damage to Police Property","sublabel":"Misusing/Losing/Damaging Police Property","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"intentionally struck the computer screen of a Mobile Data Terminal causing it to break","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On May 24, 2016, a police officer intentionally struck the computer screen of a Mobile Data Terminal causing it to break after an error occurred that resulted in a loss of data.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":678,"file":"2017-13855","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"a police officer left a backpack in a covert police vehicle parked outside of a hotel","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On August 12, 2017, a police officer left a backpack in a covert police vehicle parked outside of a hotel. On the morning of August 13, 2017, it was noted that the covert police vehicle had been entered overnight and the backpack had been stolen. The contents of the stolen backpack included a mini Glock magazine containing eight .40 caliber rounds, one OC spray, a video camera, a police issued notebook, and a camouflage rain jacket and pants. It was reported that the video camera contained surveillance footage. On August 18, 2017, the mini Glock magazine containing the eight rounds of ammunition, the O.C. spray, the JVC video camera, the police notebook and a jacket were recovered. The Vortex Diamondback binoculars and several of police officer’s personal clothing items remain missing. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. 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. In this case, the police officer inadvertently left a bag containing police equipment in a police vehicle which was broken into during the overnight hours and the bag and contents were stolen. There was no evidence of any deceitful or malicious intent behind the officers’ actions and the officer accepted full responsibility. It was determined that the likelihood of similar future misconduct to be unlikely. In reviewing the proposed discipline in this matter, the OPCC determined that the discipline appeared to be correct and appropriate with respect to the circumstances. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":679,"file":"2014-9798","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Disorderly Conduct Prejudicial to the Maintenance of Discipline in the Department","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.55,"thin":false,"quote":"The two officers admitted to discussing the exam questions and answers. The discipline authority substantiated the allegation of discreditable conduct","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On July 20, 2014, two police officers wrote an increment exam which they needed to pass to become First Class Constables. During the exam, the officers discussed some of the questions and answers. The two officers admitted to discussing the exam questions and answers. 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. Although the Human Resources department viewed the increment exam as an important part of the process for developing a new officer, many officers had come to see it as more of a review that was not taken seriously. In addition to verbally reprimanding the two officers, the discipline authority tasked the HR Department with providing a proposal to management that would change how this exam was treated within the department to prevent a similar future occurrence. Further, the discipline authority noted that he would be advising all officers that this behaviour would be treated very seriously if it were to reoccur.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":680,"file":"2022-22427","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"queried and accessed information on a police database for purposes that were unrelated to their duties as a police officer","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a member. It was reported that the member had used a police database to query the license plate of a driver that had been involved in a traffic altercation with the member’s spouse. The member queried and accessed information on a police database for purposes that were unrelated to their duties as a police officer. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member did not take any further action based on the information they obtained and had taken responsibility for their actions. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":681,"file":"2016-11822","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"while off duty, a probationary police officer entered into a conversation with a sex trade worker in relation to obtaining sexual services","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On April 6, 2016, while off duty, a probationary police officer entered into a conversation with a sex trade worker in relation to obtaining sexual services.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":682,"file":"2016-11822","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"made several statements to the Police Act investigator in relation to the Discreditable Conduct allegation that were later determined to be untrue","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"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. * As this officer was a recruit and had not yet passed probation, this matter was dealt with under the internal discipline process.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":683,"file":"2018-14476","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"removed certain sensitive police-related materials from the police department’s premises and stored them in a container in his home","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Commencing in December of 2011, a police officer removed certain sensitive police-related materials from the police department’s premises and stored them in a container in his home. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. The intent of the Act is to consider an approach that seeks to correct and educate the police officer as long as the approach does not bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute. The OPCC reviewed the prehearing conference report and, considering all the relevant factors in this case, the discipline fell within the acceptable range for appropriate discipline in the circumstances. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":684,"file":"2018-14701","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2019,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"the strikes to the affected person as he was taken to the ground, and the force used against the affected person’s head and neck while on the ground were objectively unnecessary","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon receiving notification from the Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP) of an injury to a 17-year-old male (the “affected person”), the OPCC initiated an investigation into the use of force incident and appointed the RCMP to complete the investigation. According to the MVTP, on April 30, 2018, an Acting Sergeant was conducting fare checks at the Coquitlam Central SkyTrain Station when he encountered the affected person who appeared to be intoxicated. After being issued with a Fare Infraction Notice and escorted out of the station, and being refused service for 24 hours, the affected person returned several times, each time becoming increasingly abusive. At approximately 12:30 am, the affected person was reported to have challenged the Acting Sergeant to a fight. The Acting Sergeant concluded that the affected person's behaviour had escalated beyond a 24-hour refusal of service and advised him that he was under arrest for Breach of the Peace. When the Acting Sergeant attempted to take the affected person into custody, the affected person fled the scene. Two other MVTP members responded and located the affected person. Police described that the affected person squared up to him to fight and then attempted to run past him. In response, the affected person was taken down to the ground, where additional force was used by members before being placed in handcuffs. CCTV video capturing this incident shows one of the members appearing to forcefully hit the right side of the affected person head against the platform surface. CCTV video also showed police lifting the affected person off the ground by his arms once the handcuffs were applied and continued to raise him up by the arms as he was escorted to and down the escalator. Adjudicative Review Chief Officer Dave Jones, as the Discipline Authority in this matter, reviewed the investigation and determined that the members did not commit misconduct. The OPCC disagreed with this decision and appointed Retired BC Supreme Court Justice, Ron McKinnon to review the matter. The Police Complaint Commissioner had concerns with the force used by the members and the manner in which the affected person was escorted by the members. Mr. McKinnon completed an independent review of this use of force incident and determined that the members committed misconduct. In arriving at his decision, Mr. McKinnon noted that the strikes to the affected person as he was taken to the ground, and the force used against the affected person’s head and neck while on the ground were objectively unnecessary. In addition, Mr. McKinnon found that the members did not appear to have had a reasonable basis to manipulate or control the affected person’s arms in the way that they did when they lifted him up and escorted him out of the SkyTrain station. The affected person did not appear to be posing a threat or an impediment to their actions to warrant the amount of force used. Intentionally or recklessly using unnecessary force when arresting the affected person. Mr. McKinnon offered a prehearing conference, which was accepted by both members. The prehearing conference resulted in an outcome where both respondent members admitted to the allegation and accepted the proposed disciplinary or correctives measures. For further information on this incident and decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["training"]},{"id":685,"file":"2013-8934","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Unsafe Storage of Firearm","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to properly secure his police issued firearm","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer failed to properly secure his police issued firearm.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":686,"file":"2012-8086","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2013,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"Officer 1 for having caused the male to pay restitution for an offence that he was never charged with or convicted of","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"While on-duty, a police officer recognized an individual suspected of having caused mischief to the window of a police vehicle. Officer 1 contacted her supervisor, Officer 2, and asked for direction. Officer 2 directed Officer 1 to attempt to elicit an admission from the suspect and to attempt to have him pay for the damages, thereby eliminating the need for criminal charges. Officer 1 spoke to the male who agreed to pay the charges rather than face criminal prosecution. The costs were determined to be $201.60. Officer 1 obtained the money and turned it over to Officer 2 who submitted the cash to her superiors along with a memo explaining how the money was obtained. As a result of the memo, the department requested an Order to Investigate: Officer 1 for having caused the male to pay restitution for an offence that he was never charged with or convicted of; Officer 2 for providing supervisory direction to Officer 1, the outcome of which caused a member of the public to pay restitution for an offence he was never charged with or convicted of. The monies were returned to the male.","measures":[]},{"id":687,"file":"2013-9225-02","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to properly document the authorisation and strip search of the complainant and his two associates","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The jail supervisor failed to properly document the authorisation and strip search of the complainant and his two associates.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":688,"file":"2016-11660","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"The off-duty officer identified himself as a police officer and sought preferential treatment.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On October 16, 2015, an off-duty police officer was banned from a casino for one year. On March 4, 2016, the off-duty officer attended the casino once more. Police were called to the scene. The off-duty officer identified himself as a police officer and sought preferential treatment. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference where an agreement was reached with respect to the proposed discipline of a written reprimand. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. In reviewing the investigation and, considering all the relevant factors in this case, the OPCC determined that the Prehearing Conference Authority had appropriately considered the aggravating and mitigating factors pursuant to section 126 of the Police Act. 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. In this case, the police officer took responsibility for their actions and at the time of the conduct it was determined that there were factors that influenced the police officer’s conduct. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":689,"file":"2021-20567","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to keep sensitive information pertaining to WVPD operations safe by storing and not removing police documents from their former spouse’s computer","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Commissioner ordered an investigation after receiving information that a member of the West Vancouver Police Department (WVPD) had reportedly left police information on a personal home computer and had shared information, obtained in the course of their duties, with their former spouse. Upon request by the WVPD, the Commissioner directed the New Westminster Police Department to conduct the investigation and a senior officer at the Metro Vancouver Transit Police was designated as Discipline Authority. The member failed to keep sensitive information pertaining to WVPD operations safe by storing and not removing police documents from their former spouse’s computer.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":690,"file":"2021-20567","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Improper Disclosure of Information","sublabel":"Disclosing Information Acquired as a Police Officer","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"disclosed personal and confidential information acquired through their duties to their former spouse during the course of their relationship","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Commissioner ordered an investigation after receiving information that a member of the West Vancouver Police Department (WVPD) had reportedly left police information on a personal home computer and had shared information, obtained in the course of their duties, with their former spouse. Upon request by the WVPD, the Commissioner directed the New Westminster Police Department to conduct the investigation and a senior officer at the Metro Vancouver Transit Police was designated as Discipline Authority. The member disclosed personal and confidential information acquired through their duties to their former spouse during the course of their relationship. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member had accepted responsibility for their conduct and had a lengthy career in policing with no prior substantiated misconduct on their Service Record of Discipline. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":691,"file":"2014-9492","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Damage to Police Property","sublabel":"Misusing/Losing/Damaging Police Property","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"various police officers either modified the program, were present when it was modified, or were aware of the modification to a patrol vehicle for which they were responsible","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police department installed a software program on police vehicles that disables the keyboard and touch-screen feature of the mobile data terminal at pre-determined speeds. The software program was designed to prevent incidents of distracted driving for the protection of the officer and members of the public. It was reported that various police officers either modified the program, were present when it was modified, or were aware of the modification to a patrol vehicle for which they were responsible.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":692,"file":"2014-9492","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Damage to Police Property","sublabel":"Misusing/Losing/Damaging Police Property","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.95,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":693,"file":"2014-9492","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Damage to Police Property","sublabel":"Misusing/Losing/Damaging Police Property","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.9,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":694,"file":"2014-9492","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Damage to Police Property","sublabel":"Misusing/Losing/Damaging Police Property","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.95,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":695,"file":"2014-9492","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Damage to Police Property","sublabel":"Misusing/Losing/Damaging Police Property","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.95,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":696,"file":"2014-9492","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Damage to Police Property","sublabel":"Misusing/Losing/Damaging Police Property","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.95,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":697,"file":"2014-9492","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Damage to Police Property","sublabel":"Misusing/Losing/Damaging Police Property","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.95,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":698,"file":"2014-9492","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Damage to Police Property","sublabel":"Misusing/Losing/Damaging Police Property","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.95,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":699,"file":"2014-9492","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Damage to Police Property","sublabel":"Misusing/Losing/Damaging Police Property","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.9,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":700,"file":"2014-9492","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Damage to Police Property","sublabel":"Misusing/Losing/Damaging Police Property","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.9,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":701,"file":"2023-23206","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"neglected their duty by concluding the file without taking the required investigative steps","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns regarding a member of the Abbotsford Police Department (APD) failing to investigate the complainant’s report of a threat made toward their spouse during a conflict with a neighbour. The complainant reported that the member failed to contact them, review their video evidence, or obtain any statements. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The member failed to conduct an adequate investigation into the complainant’s concerns. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The Prehearing Conference Authority found that the member had neglected their duty by concluding the file without taking the required investigative steps. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member had taken full responsibility for their actions, had demonstrated remorse, and had no prior substantiated misconduct on their Service Record of Discipline. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":702,"file":"2017-14026","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Misuse of Intoxicants","sublabel":"Accepting Liquor in a Public Place","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"police officers attached to an integrated unit consumed beer while debriefing and discussing portions of the days’ surveillance with teammates","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"It was reported that on September 12, 2017, police officers attached to an integrated unit consumed beer while debriefing and discussing portions of the days’ surveillance with teammates.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":703,"file":"2017-14026","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Misuse of Intoxicants","sublabel":"Accepting Liquor in a Public Place","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"police officers on the same surveillance team consumed beer while debriefing and discussing portions of the days’ surveillance with teammates","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"It was further reported that on September 13, 2017, police officers on the same surveillance team consumed beer while debriefing and discussing portions of the days’ surveillance with teammates. The matter proceeded to a prehearing conference where agreements were reached with respect to the proposed discipline of verbal reprimands. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that on September 12 and 13, 2017, members of the undercover surveillance team had concluded their operational duties for the shift. Although the police officers still had a few hours remaining in their shift, they would not be redeployed as active police officers. The officers each consumed one beer while debriefing and there was no evidence to suggest that they were impaired; however, the Discipline Authority was of the view that the reasonable expectation of the community was not met. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":704,"file":"2018-15224","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Sexualized Harassment/Touching/Comments","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"Touching a female member on her buttock/crotch area without her consent, while off-duty.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The allegation states the officer engaged in \"touching a female member on her buttock/crotch area without her consent,\" amid \"inappropriate advances\" — plainly sexualized, non-consensual touching by the officer himself.","text":"According to the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), an off-duty female constable was the subject of inappropriate advances and contacts made towards her by another member on a number of occasions. 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. As a result, the West Vancouver Police Department (WVPD) was appointed as the investigating agency along with the Deputy Chief Constable of the WVPD as the Discipline Authority. Touching a female member on her buttock/crotch area without her consent, while off-duty.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":705,"file":"2018-15224","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Sexualized Harassment/Touching/Comments","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"Yelling out to the female member, \"I haven't washed this hand since the party” while in public and in front of other members.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The officer publicly yelled at a female member, \"I haven't washed this hand since the party,\" a sexualized remark forming part of \"inappropriate advances and contacts\" toward her.","text":"According to the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), an off-duty female constable was the subject of inappropriate advances and contacts made towards her by another member on a number of occasions. 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. As a result, the West Vancouver Police Department (WVPD) was appointed as the investigating agency along with the Deputy Chief Constable of the WVPD as the Discipline Authority. Yelling out to the female member, \"I haven't washed this hand since the party” while in public and in front of other members. A prehearing conference was offered to the member where disciplinary/corrective measures were proposed. The OPCC did not approve the proposed discipline noting it was not appropriate considering the serious conduct of the member. Further, the OPCC noted that the proposed discipline did not include any corrective measures aimed at educating the member and preventing future occurrences. As a result, the matter proceeded to discipline proceeding where the member received 12-day suspension without pay along with training and a written reprimand. The OPCC determined that a Public Hearing or Review on the Record was not necessary in the public interest and that the disciplinary and corrective measures were within an acceptable range which included a substantial period of suspension without pay and retraining in respectful workplace behaviour.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":706,"file":"2022-21426","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member applied a hard takedown to the complainant during an arrest attempt of another person.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns with a member of the Delta Police Department taking the complainant to the ground, during an attempted arrest of another person which resulted in injury to the complainant. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The member applied a hard takedown to the complainant during an arrest attempt of another person. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measure, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member had no prior substantiated misconduct on their Service Record of Discipline, had undertaken further use of force training following the incident, and had taken full responsibility for their actions. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":707,"file":"2022-21107","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Immediate Roadside Prohibition/Impaired Operation of a Motor Vehicle","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The Member provided a “Warn” breath sample on an ASD.','resulting in a \"warn\" reading on an Approved Screening Device (ASD), resulting in a three-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition being issued.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the off duty conduct of a member. According to VicPD, the off-duty member provided information to an RCMP member at an impaired driving roadblock that their last alcoholic beverage was a “glass of wine” that was consumed “yesterday.” The member subsequently provided a breath sample that resulted in a “warn” reading on an Approved Screening Device (ASD), resulting in a three-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition being issued. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Member provided a “Warn” breath sample on an ASD.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":708,"file":"2022-21107","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The Member was dishonest upon questioning when advising the RCMP member that their last alcoholic beverage was consumed \\it was a glass of wine\" that was consumed \"yesterday.\"","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the off duty conduct of a member. According to VicPD, the off-duty member provided information to an RCMP member at an impaired driving roadblock that their last alcoholic beverage was a “glass of wine” that was consumed “yesterday.” The member subsequently provided a breath sample that resulted in a “warn” reading on an Approved Screening Device (ASD), resulting in a three-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition being issued. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Member was dishonest upon questioning when advising the RCMP member that their last alcoholic beverage was consumed “yesterday” and consisted of “a glass of wine.” At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member self-reported the incident to their employer, and that the member had accepted responsibility for their actions, demonstrated remorse, and made no attempt to minimize their actions. The Prehearing Conference Authority also considered that the member had sought out counselling independently to address their actions. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. *The suspensions were to be served concurrently.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":709,"file":"2013-8948-01","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Failure to Use a Firearm in Accordance With Law","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"the muzzle of the firearm was pointed in an unsafe direction in a room full of police officers for a few seconds","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer was working with an undercover team collecting evidence on a licensed premises. At the conclusion of the operation, the police officer’s firearm was returned to him by the officer assigned to hold all of the undercover officers’ firearms during the operation. The police officer removed the firearm from its holster to conduct a safety check. In doing so, the muzzle of the firearm was pointed in an unsafe direction in a room full of police officers for a few seconds.","measures":["training"]},{"id":710,"file":"2016-11801","agency":"Port Moody Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Sexualized Harassment/Touching/Comments","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"made inappropriate comments of a personal and sexual nature to another police officer","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"Text states the off-duty officer, while intoxicated, \"made inappropriate comments of a personal and sexual nature to another police officer,\" i.e., sexualized comments/harassment by the officer himself.","text":"On January 8, 2016, an off duty police officer attended the police department, while intoxicated, and made inappropriate comments of a personal and sexual nature to another police officer.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":711,"file":"2014-10100","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"provided a breath sample into an Alcohol Screening Device (ASD), which resulted in a \"fail\" reading. (The police member received a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) and his vehicle was impounded for 30 days).","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"While off duty, a police officer was the subject of a traffic stop following a driving complaint from a citizen. The officer provided a breath sample into an Alcohol Screening Device (ASD), which resulted in a \"fail\" reading. (The police member received a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) and his vehicle was impounded for 30 days).","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":712,"file":"2014-10100","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"Prior to providing the breath sample, the officer displayed his police badge and identified himself as a police officer.]}","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Prior to providing the breath sample, the officer displayed his police badge and identified himself as a police officer. *The suspensions were to be served consecutively for a total of a four-day suspension.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":713,"file":"2013-8483","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to submit a required police report, or properly handle and account for evidence in relation to a police investigation","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer failed to submit a required police report, or properly handle and account for evidence in relation to a police investigation.","measures":["advice future conduct","program activity"]},{"id":714,"file":"2010-5698","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Misappropriation of Property or Money Received in Course of Duty","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"The member failed to account for property seized.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member failed to account for property seized.","measures":["written reprimand","transfer reassignment","program activity"]},{"id":715,"file":"2015-11096","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"spoke to a member of the public in a manner that was aggressive and contained profanities","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On March 5, 2015, a police officer spoke to a member of the public in a manner that was aggressive and contained profanities.","measures":["counselling"]},{"id":716,"file":"2021-20838","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.92,"thin":false,"quote":"The Special Municipal Constable took a video of themself on duty with a male prisoner in the background purportedly masturbating and shared it with work colleagues.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The officer \"took a video ... with a male prisoner in the background purportedly masturbating and shared it with work colleagues,\" constituting voyeurism and image-based abuse committed by the officer.","text":"Upon request from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VicPD Special Municipal Constable. It was reported that the Special Municipal Constable showed a colleague unsolicited video footage of a person engaged in intimate relations. During the course of the investigation, it was reported that the Special Municipal Constable's video recorded a prisoner in VicPD cells purportedly masturbating and showed the video to co-workers and the Special Municipal Constable was not truthful in Police Act interviews about these matters. The Special Municipal Constable took a video of themself on duty with a male prisoner in the background purportedly masturbating and shared it with work colleagues. The Commissioner reviewed the outcome of the Discipline Proceeding and determined that a Review on the Record was necessary in the public interest. Among other things, the Commissioner determined there was a reasonable basis to believe that the Discipline Authority’s decision to dismiss the allegations of deceit was incorrect. The Commissioner also determined that a Review on Record was necessary as the disciplinary or corrective measure proposed by the Discipline Authority for the misconduct relating to taking and sharing the video did not reflect the seriousness of the misconduct, and the position of trust which the Special Municipal Constable held in relation to the person in their custody. The Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge Brian Neal, K.C. to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. During the course of the Review on the Record, the Special Municipal Constable resigned from the VicPD. In respect of the prisoner video, Mr. Neal found that the Special Municipal Constable clearly breached his duty of care owed to the subject of the recording and that the misconduct was done for the apparent amusement of the Special Municipal Constable. While acknowledging that the Special Municipal Constable admitted to the misconduct, Mr. Neal determined that it was not at all clear that the Special Municipal Constable understood why such actions were wrong and that the Special Municipal Constable consistently minimized and equivocated on the scope, nature, and importance of such issues. Mr. Neal further noted that the Special Municipal Constable demonstrated a disturbing indifference to basic standards of trust, care, and professionalism applicable to all officers. In addition, Mr. Neal found that the Special Municipal Constable committed two acts of misconduct by way of Deceit as the Special Municipal Constable intentionally and unequivocally made deceitful statements in interviews with the Police Act investigator, knowing they were misleading and untrue. Mr. Neal noted that this misconduct was the highest level of seriousness, and that the Special Municipal Constable completely lacked the foundational standards of honesty and integrity as evidenced by the Special Municipal Constable's attempts to deflect blame and efforts to cast other coworkers as blameworthy to avoid personal responsibility. In arriving at the disciplinary measure of dismissal, Mr. Neal emphasized the seriousness of the misconduct and the need to denounce the misconduct and deter others from engaging in similar behaviours. Even though the Special Municipal Constable resigned prior to the conclusion of this matter, their Service Record of Discipline will reflect the discipline imposed. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":717,"file":"2021-20838","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"gave repeated untrue and misleading oral responses to the Investigator during 2022 in relation to the sharing of the video","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VicPD Special Municipal Constable. It was reported that the Special Municipal Constable showed a colleague unsolicited video footage of a person engaged in intimate relations. During the course of the investigation, it was reported that the Special Municipal Constable's video recorded a prisoner in VicPD cells purportedly masturbating and showed the video to co-workers and the Special Municipal Constable was not truthful in Police Act interviews about these matters. The Special Municipal Constable gave repeated untrue and misleading oral responses to the Investigator during 2022 in relation to the sharing of the video of a person engaged in intimate relations. The Commissioner reviewed the outcome of the Discipline Proceeding and determined that a Review on the Record was necessary in the public interest. Among other things, the Commissioner determined there was a reasonable basis to believe that the Discipline Authority’s decision to dismiss the allegations of deceit was incorrect. The Commissioner also determined that a Review on Record was necessary as the disciplinary or corrective measure proposed by the Discipline Authority for the misconduct relating to taking and sharing the video did not reflect the seriousness of the misconduct, and the position of trust which the Special Municipal Constable held in relation to the person in their custody. The Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge Brian Neal, K.C. to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. During the course of the Review on the Record, the Special Municipal Constable resigned from the VicPD. In respect of the prisoner video, Mr. Neal found that the Special Municipal Constable clearly breached his duty of care owed to the subject of the recording and that the misconduct was done for the apparent amusement of the Special Municipal Constable. While acknowledging that the Special Municipal Constable admitted to the misconduct, Mr. Neal determined that it was not at all clear that the Special Municipal Constable understood why such actions were wrong and that the Special Municipal Constable consistently minimized and equivocated on the scope, nature, and importance of such issues. Mr. Neal further noted that the Special Municipal Constable demonstrated a disturbing indifference to basic standards of trust, care, and professionalism applicable to all officers. In addition, Mr. Neal found that the Special Municipal Constable committed two acts of misconduct by way of Deceit as the Special Municipal Constable intentionally and unequivocally made deceitful statements in interviews with the Police Act investigator, knowing they were misleading and untrue. Mr. Neal noted that this misconduct was the highest level of seriousness, and that the Special Municipal Constable completely lacked the foundational standards of honesty and integrity as evidenced by the Special Municipal Constable's attempts to deflect blame and efforts to cast other coworkers as blameworthy to avoid personal responsibility. In arriving at the disciplinary measure of dismissal, Mr. Neal emphasized the seriousness of the misconduct and the need to denounce the misconduct and deter others from engaging in similar behaviours. Even though the Special Municipal Constable resigned prior to the conclusion of this matter, their Service Record of Discipline will reflect the discipline imposed. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":718,"file":"2021-20838","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"the Special Municipal Constable intentionally and unequivocally made deceitful statements in interviews with the Police Act investigator, knowing they were misleading and untrue","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VicPD Special Municipal Constable. It was reported that the Special Municipal Constable showed a colleague unsolicited video footage of a person engaged in intimate relations. During the course of the investigation, it was reported that the Special Municipal Constable's video recorded a prisoner in VicPD cells purportedly masturbating and showed the video to co-workers and the Special Municipal Constable was not truthful in Police Act interviews about these matters. The Special Municipal Constable gave repeated untrue and misleading oral responses to the Investigator during 2022 concerning the taking of the prisoner video and the subsequent sharing of that video with co-workers. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the Special Municipal Constable appeared to have committed misconduct in relation to all three of the allegations listed above. The matter proceeded to a Discipline Proceeding where the Special Municipal Constable admitted taking and sharing the prisoner video but denied any deceit in the investigation process. Following the Discipline Proceeding, the Discipline Authority found that the Special Municipal Constable did not commit any acts of deceit. In relation to the taking and sharing of the prisoner video, the Discipline Authority found that the Special Municipal Constable committed misconduct and imposed a two-day suspension without pay. The Commissioner reviewed the outcome of the Discipline Proceeding and determined that a Review on the Record was necessary in the public interest. Among other things, the Commissioner determined there was a reasonable basis to believe that the Discipline Authority’s decision to dismiss the allegations of deceit was incorrect. The Commissioner also determined that a Review on Record was necessary as the disciplinary or corrective measure proposed by the Discipline Authority for the misconduct relating to taking and sharing the video did not reflect the seriousness of the misconduct, and the position of trust which the Special Municipal Constable held in relation to the person in their custody. The Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge Brian Neal, K.C. to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. During the course of the Review on the Record, the Special Municipal Constable resigned from the VicPD. In respect of the prisoner video, Mr. Neal found that the Special Municipal Constable clearly breached his duty of care owed to the subject of the recording and that the misconduct was done for the apparent amusement of the Special Municipal Constable. While acknowledging that the Special Municipal Constable admitted to the misconduct, Mr. Neal determined that it was not at all clear that the Special Municipal Constable understood why such actions were wrong and that the Special Municipal Constable consistently minimized and equivocated on the scope, nature, and importance of such issues. Mr. Neal further noted that the Special Municipal Constable demonstrated a disturbing indifference to basic standards of trust, care, and professionalism applicable to all officers. In addition, Mr. Neal found that the Special Municipal Constable committed two acts of misconduct by way of Deceit as the Special Municipal Constable intentionally and unequivocally made deceitful statements in interviews with the Police Act investigator, knowing they were misleading and untrue. Mr. Neal noted that this misconduct was the highest level of seriousness, and that the Special Municipal Constable completely lacked the foundational standards of honesty and integrity as evidenced by the Special Municipal Constable's attempts to deflect blame and efforts to cast other coworkers as blameworthy to avoid personal responsibility. In arriving at the disciplinary measure of dismissal, Mr. Neal emphasized the seriousness of the misconduct and the need to denounce the misconduct and deter others from engaging in similar behaviours. Even though the Special Municipal Constable resigned prior to the conclusion of this matter, their Service Record of Discipline will reflect the discipline imposed. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":719,"file":"2021-19698","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The member made derogatory or degrading remarks towards another member that the person knew or reasonably ought to have known would cause the recipient to be humiliated or intimidated. In the course of making derogatory remarks, the member also engaged in unwanted physical contact.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An internal investigation was initiated into the conduct of a Delta Police Department (DPD) member for a breach of Respectful Workplace Policy. According to the DPD, the member communicated with a civilian employee in a derogatory or degrading manner and engaged in a single instance of unwanted physical contact. During the course of the internal investigation, the member made a statement to the lead investigator that was false or misleading. The member made derogatory or degrading remarks towards another member that the person knew or reasonably ought to have known would cause the recipient to be humiliated or intimidated. In the course of making derogatory remarks, the member also engaged in unwanted physical contact.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":720,"file":"2021-19698","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the member made a statement to the lead investigator that was false or misleading","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An internal investigation was initiated into the conduct of a Delta Police Department (DPD) member for a breach of Respectful Workplace Policy. According to the DPD, the member communicated with a civilian employee in a derogatory or degrading manner and engaged in a single instance of unwanted physical contact. During the course of the internal investigation, the member made a statement to the lead investigator that was false or misleading. The member made a false or misleading statement to the lead investigator when asked about what occurred in this incident. *The suspensions were to be served consecutively.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":721,"file":"2017-14263","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"resorted to using force against [the complainant] much too quickly and without adequate regard to whether it was warranted","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The complainant reported he was arrested by Vancouver police officers and was taken to VPD cells, held for approximately two hours, then escorted to the booking counter and given a form to sign. The complainant expressed to the member behind the counter that he was upset by the way he had been treated. The complainant was told to take his effects and to sign the form. As the complainant reviewed the form, a member behind the counter allegedly swore and told the complainant to sign the form. This member came around the corner and allegedly grabbed the complainant. The complainant reported that he was pushed against the wall with his arm twisted behind his back and was taken to the ground. The complainant was placed back in VPD cells. The complainant was subsequently released from custody a period of time later. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The member used unnecessary force on the complainant at the booking counter when he refused to sign the property form. The Commissioner reviewed the outcome of the discipline proceeding and determined there was a reasonable basis to disagree with the decision of the DA. In part, the Commissioner did not find that the actions of the complainant at the booking counter necessitated his return to cells and that the force used was not reasonable or necessary in the circumstances. The Commissioner appointed retired BC Supreme Court Justice, Ron McKinnon, to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Mr. McKinnon found that the member “resorted to using force against [the complainant] much too quickly and without adequate regard to whether it was warranted” and that the member “needlessly and precipitously escalated the situation.” Mr. McKinnon concluded that the member’s conduct “went beyond a mere mistake of legal authority; it was a rash and unreasonable use of force.” Mr. McKinnon also reaffirmed the finding that the member committed misconduct when he swore at the complainant during this interaction. Mr. McKinnon determined that a written reprimand was “just and appropriate” in these circumstances for each allegation and that further training was not required as the member no longer had any contact with the public in a jail setting and was unlikely to have any such contact again soon. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":722,"file":"2017-14263","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discourtesy","sublabel":"Discourteous - Verbal","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member swore at the complainant when he refused to sign the property report.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The complainant reported he was arrested by Vancouver police officers and was taken to VPD cells, held for approximately two hours, then escorted to the booking counter and given a form to sign. The complainant expressed to the member behind the counter that he was upset by the way he had been treated. The complainant was told to take his effects and to sign the form. As the complainant reviewed the form, a member behind the counter allegedly swore and told the complainant to sign the form. This member came around the corner and allegedly grabbed the complainant. The complainant reported that he was pushed against the wall with his arm twisted behind his back and was taken to the ground. The complainant was placed back in VPD cells. The complainant was subsequently released from custody a period of time later. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The member swore at the complainant when he refused to sign the property report. At the discipline proceeding, the Discipline Authority (DA) found that the member did not commit misconduct when they used force on the complainant but did find that the member committed Discourtesy for swearing at the complainant. The Commissioner reviewed the outcome of the discipline proceeding and determined there was a reasonable basis to disagree with the decision of the DA. In part, the Commissioner did not find that the actions of the complainant at the booking counter necessitated his return to cells and that the force used was not reasonable or necessary in the circumstances. The Commissioner appointed retired BC Supreme Court Justice, Ron McKinnon, to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Mr. McKinnon found that the member “resorted to using force against [the complainant] much too quickly and without adequate regard to whether it was warranted” and that the member “needlessly and precipitously escalated the situation.” Mr. McKinnon concluded that the member’s conduct “went beyond a mere mistake of legal authority; it was a rash and unreasonable use of force.” Mr. McKinnon also reaffirmed the finding that the member committed misconduct when he swore at the complainant during this interaction. Mr. McKinnon determined that a written reprimand was “just and appropriate” in these circumstances for each allegation and that further training was not required as the member no longer had any contact with the public in a jail setting and was unlikely to have any such contact again soon. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":723,"file":"2011-6446","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to complete adequate notes or submit a police report documenting his involvement in the arrest of a male.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer failed to complete adequate notes or submit a police report documenting his involvement in the arrest of a male. The officer requested a Public Hearing in relation to the substantiation of Abuse of Authority and the penalty imposed. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the Adjudicator determined that the allegation of Abuse of Authority had been proven on the balance of probabilities and further determined that the 7-day suspension from duty without pay was a proper and adequate punishment.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":724,"file":"2011-6446","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Damage to Police Property","sublabel":"Failure to Report Loss/Damage to Police Property or Property in Police Custody","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to report the loss of one of his police notebooks","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"This same police officer failed to report the loss of one of his police notebooks. The officer requested a Public Hearing in relation to the substantiation of Abuse of Authority and the penalty imposed. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the Adjudicator determined that the allegation of Abuse of Authority had been proven on the balance of probabilities and further determined that the 7-day suspension from duty without pay was a proper and adequate punishment.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":725,"file":"2011-6446","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Arrest","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"arrested a male for being in a state of intoxication in a public place after persuading him to exit his residence and step onto a public street","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"This same police officer arrested a male for being in a state of intoxication in a public place after persuading him to exit his residence and step onto a public street. The officer requested a Public Hearing in relation to the substantiation of Abuse of Authority and the penalty imposed. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the Adjudicator determined that the allegation of Abuse of Authority had been proven on the balance of probabilities and further determined that the 7-day suspension from duty without pay was a proper and adequate punishment.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":726,"file":"2016-11505","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Handcuffs","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"without lawful authority, grabbed the complainant, pushed him to the ground, and applied handcuffs","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On January 19, 2016, a police officer, without lawful authority, grabbed the complainant, pushed him to the ground, and applied handcuffs. Following an investigation, the Discipline Authority determined the evidence did not appear to substantiate either allegation of Abuse of Authority against the police officer. The Police Complaint Commissioner disagreed with the Discipline Authority’s findings and on December 7, 2016, appointed retired BC Court of Appeal Judge, Wally Oppal, Q.C., to review the evidence pursuant to section 117 of the Police Act. On January 25, 2017, the Honourable Wally Oppal, Q.C., issued his Notice of Adjudicator’s decision where he determined that the evidence appeared to substantiate both the allegations of Abuse of Authority and offered the police officer a prehearing conference. An officer with the Central Saanich Police Department was appointed to sit as an external prehearing conference authority and the above discipline was agreed upon. When rendering his decision, the prehearing conference authority noted that the police officer engaged in training on their own initiative prior to the prehearing conference. Specifically, the police officer undertook training on forming reasonable grounds to detain and arrest; had a one-on-one training session with the Saanich Police Legal Updates Instructor to review the grounds required for investigative detention and arrest; and also reviewed key cases in this area including, R. v. Mann, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59 and R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32. In addition, the police officer reviewed the B.C. Civil Liberties Association’s “The Arrest Handbook – A Guide to your Rights.” The police officer also fully supported the use of this incident as a department-wide training session as they felt that this process had been a tremendous learning experience and thought other officers at the department would benefit from learning from this incident as well. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":727,"file":"2016-11505","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Detention","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"detained and searched the complainant without good or sufficient cause","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On January 19, 2016, a police officer detained and searched the complainant without good or sufficient cause. Following an investigation, the Discipline Authority determined the evidence did not appear to substantiate either allegation of Abuse of Authority against the police officer. The Police Complaint Commissioner disagreed with the Discipline Authority’s findings and on December 7, 2016, appointed retired BC Court of Appeal Judge, Wally Oppal, Q.C., to review the evidence pursuant to section 117 of the Police Act. On January 25, 2017, the Honourable Wally Oppal, Q.C., issued his Notice of Adjudicator’s decision where he determined that the evidence appeared to substantiate both the allegations of Abuse of Authority and offered the police officer a prehearing conference. An officer with the Central Saanich Police Department was appointed to sit as an external prehearing conference authority and the above discipline was agreed upon. When rendering his decision, the prehearing conference authority noted that the police officer engaged in training on their own initiative prior to the prehearing conference. Specifically, the police officer undertook training on forming reasonable grounds to detain and arrest; had a one-on-one training session with the Saanich Police Legal Updates Instructor to review the grounds required for investigative detention and arrest; and also reviewed key cases in this area including, R. v. Mann, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59 and R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32. In addition, the police officer reviewed the B.C. Civil Liberties Association’s “The Arrest Handbook – A Guide to your Rights.” The police officer also fully supported the use of this incident as a department-wide training session as they felt that this process had been a tremendous learning experience and thought other officers at the department would benefit from learning from this incident as well. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":728,"file":"2020-17545","agency":"Central Saanich Police Service","year":2021,"heading":"Improper Disclosure of Information","sublabel":"Disclosing Information Acquired as a Police Officer","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"publicly disclosed information that the member could only have obtained through the course of their duties and through accessing records within PRIME","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request by the Central Saanich Police Service (CSPS), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a CSPS member and directed that an external police agency complete the investigation. It was reported that the member publicly disclosed information that the member could only have obtained through the course of their duties and through accessing records within PRIME. The member retired from the CSPS prior to the conclusion of the investigation. Publicly disclosing sensitive and private information that the member acquired during the performance of duties.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":729,"file":"2020-17545","agency":"Central Saanich Police Service","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.5,"thin":false,"quote":"the member made comments which were critical in nature about other police officers and agencies contrary to policy and those comments became public","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request by the Central Saanich Police Service (CSPS), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a CSPS member and directed that an external police agency complete the investigation. It was reported that the member publicly disclosed information that the member could only have obtained through the course of their duties and through accessing records within PRIME. The member retired from the CSPS prior to the conclusion of the investigation. Speaking as a member of the CSPS, the member made comments which were critical in nature about other police officers and agencies contrary to policy and those comments became public.","measures":["suspension","training","program activity"]},{"id":730,"file":"2020-17545","agency":"Central Saanich Police Service","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"Using a covert e-mail address to contact an external agency and provide information the member had obtained through police duties in an attempt to instigate further investigation.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request by the Central Saanich Police Service (CSPS), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a CSPS member and directed that an external police agency complete the investigation. It was reported that the member publicly disclosed information that the member could only have obtained through the course of their duties and through accessing records within PRIME. The member retired from the CSPS prior to the conclusion of the investigation. Using a covert e-mail address to contact an external agency and provide information the member had obtained through police duties in an attempt to instigate further investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation the Discipline Authority found that the member committed three counts of misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered to the member which the member declined. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The Discipline Authority found that the misconduct in totality was serious, and did not reflect well on the member or policing in general. The Discipline Authority noted that strong relationships with external partners are crucial in advancing investigations and enhancing professionalism and networking. He found that as a result of the member’s actions, the member damaged partnerships that had been formed over years. The Discipline Authority also noted that the member had no record of discipline on his service record during his career. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":731,"file":"2018-15195","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"the members did not properly document their application of force","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The complainant reported that he was in a pizza shop with a few friends when an unknown male threw a pizza at the group. The pizza hit the complainant and as a result he became involved in a fight with the male. Police officers attended the area and saw the complainant running; they attempted to stop and arrest the complainant. During the arrest, force was applied and the complainant received injuries to his head. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. Failing to appropriately document the force used on the complainant. It was determined that police had lawfully used force on the complainant but found that the members did not properly document their application of force. A prehearing conference was offered to both members and an agreement was reached with respect to the proposed discipline of a verbal reprimand. The OPCC reviewed the matter and agreed with the disciplinary/corrective measure imposed in this matter.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":732,"file":"2019-16137","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"Applying an unnecessary and inappropriate level of physical force (punch to head area) on a citizen who was handcuffed and held on the ground by members.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A complainant reported concerns following an incident she observed which involved Vancouver Police Department (VPD) members using force on a male person. She advised she witnessed members arrest the male, who was handcuffed, laying on the ground with approximately six members holding him down. She observed one member use two knee strikes and a punch to the head on this person. The OPCC reviewed the complainant and determine an investigation was required into the incident. Applying an unnecessary and inappropriate level of physical force (punch to head area) on a citizen who was handcuffed and held on the ground by members. A prehearing conference was offered to the member and an agreement was reached with respect to the proposed discipline. The member will be required to undertake additional review with a use of force instructor, specifically, use of force techniques with an emphasis on situation assessment, re-assessment, and de-escalation. The OPCC determined that the disciplinary/corrective measures imposed in this case were appropriate in these circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":733,"file":"2017-13493","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Arrest","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"the complainant transported to the jail for Breach of the Peace","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On May 24, 2017, a complainant reported that she slapped the trunk of a vehicle as it was reversing towards her daughter and herself to let the driver know of their presence. When the driver exited the vehicle the complainant realized it was police officer. The complainant tried to explain what occurred however the police officer took custody of her and the complainant transported to the jail for Breach of the Peace. Following the completion of an investigation into this matter, the Discipline Authority determined the allegations to be unsubstantiated. Pursuant to section 117(1) of the Police Act , after reviewing the allegations and the alleged conduct in its entirety, the Police Complaint Commissioner considered that there was a reasonable basis to believe that the Discipline Authority’s decision with respect to the allegation of Abuse of Authority not being proven was incorrect. While the complainant may have been vocal in her disagreement with being arrested, the Vancouver Police Department’s Breach of the Peace Policy states that “vehement or emotional expression of disagreement with the police does not constitute breach of the peace, if such behavior does not otherwise create a risk of violence, or damage to property;” the Discipline Authority did not appear to reconcile VPD’s policy with the evidence provided by the members in relation to the complainant’s arrest. Therefore, pursuant to section 117(4) of the Police Act the Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honorable Carole Lazar, retired Provincial Court Judge to review the matter under section 117 of the Police Act and arrive at her own decision based on the evidence. Upon reviewing the final investigation report and the evidence and records referenced in it, Adjudicator Lazar determined that the allegation of Abuse of Authority had been substantiated. Subsequently, pursuant to section 117(9) of the Police Act , Retired Judge Lazar became the discipline authority in respect of this matter. A prehearing conference was offered where an agreement was reached with respect to the proposed discipline of advice to future conduct. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. 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. The Pre-Hearing Conference Authority found that the police officer, while incorrect in his assumption, believed that he had the lawful authority to arrest the complainant. The police officer has since familiarized himself with the policy and processes involved with breach of the peace arrests. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":734,"file":"2018-15374","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the member did not report that he drew his firearm at the scene of an arrest, and when questioned about this omission, he lied to a supervisor about it","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The West Vancouver Police Department (WVPD) reported that one of their members submitted a Subject Behaviour – Officer Response Report (SBORR) which contained inaccurate information regarding a use of force incident with a member of the public. Specifically, the member did not report that he drew his firearm at the scene of an arrest, and when questioned about this omission, he lied to a supervisor about it. An internal investigation was initiated as a result. No public trust issues were identified and no complaint was received. Submitting a SBORR that the member knew falsely described his actions, and that he lied to a supervisor when questioned about it.","measures":["suspension","training","close supervision"]},{"id":735,"file":"2020-18454","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member queried a police database (CPIC) for information unrelated to an investigation.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request by the Vancouver Police Department, the OPCC ordered an investigation in relation to a member conducting a query using police database for information unrelated to an investigation or duties as a police officer. Specifically, this incident occurred after the member had a conversation with a civilian while on patrol. At a later date, the member, while conducting patrols, observed a person whom the member believed to be the civilian the member conversed with prior and queried their vehicle to confirm the member’s observation. The member queried a police database (CPIC) for information unrelated to an investigation. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. Upon review, the Commissioner did not approve the disciplinary or corrective measures accepted by the member and approved by the prehearing conference authority. The matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding, during which the member admitted to the misconduct. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measure, the Discipline Authority noted that the member queried the license plate once, did not open any other associated documentation, did not disclose or use this information for any other known purpose, and took full responsibility for their actions. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed this matter and determined that there were insufficient grounds to arrange for a further review.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":736,"file":"2019-17137","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"failing to accurately document the incident and the follow-up actions taken in a notebook or elsewhere","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Saanich Police Department (SPD) reported that one of their members failed to adequately document concerns of another officer during an incident with a member of the public (ref: OPCC file no. 2019-17136). It was reported that the member (an Acting Sergeant at the time) responded to a domestic assault call. The member, who was also a use of force instructor, observed another officer display a Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) towards a male on scene. It was the view of this member that the display of the CEW in this situation was not appropriate. The member attempted to address these concerns with the other officer and their supervisor, but did not accurately document the incident or the follow-up actions taken. During the investigation, it was also reported that the member provided statements that contained discrepancies and generalized statements without sufficient attention to detail. Upon request from the SPD, the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of the member. Observing another officer display a CEW in a situation he did not believe was appropriate and failing to accurately document the incident and the follow-up actions taken in a notebook or elsewhere.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":737,"file":"2019-17137","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"the member provided statements that contained discrepancies and generalized statements without sufficient attention to detail","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Saanich Police Department (SPD) reported that one of their members failed to adequately document concerns of another officer during an incident with a member of the public (ref: OPCC file no. 2019-17136). It was reported that the member (an Acting Sergeant at the time) responded to a domestic assault call. The member, who was also a use of force instructor, observed another officer display a Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) towards a male on scene. It was the view of this member that the display of the CEW in this situation was not appropriate. The member attempted to address these concerns with the other officer and their supervisor, but did not accurately document the incident or the follow-up actions taken. During the investigation, it was also reported that the member provided statements that contained discrepancies and generalized statements without sufficient attention to detail. Upon request from the SPD, the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of the member. Failing to provide concise statements as required subsequent to the incident to supervisors or Professional Standards investigators. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the appropriate corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the misconduct was serious in that the lack of notes and the manner is which the member stated and presented evidence during this investigation and a related OPCC investigation meant his evidence could not be afforded the weight it would have had if it has been supported by notes and consistent and concise statements. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures.","measures":["training"]},{"id":738,"file":"2011-7004","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Damage to Police Property","sublabel":"Misusing/Losing/Damaging Police Property","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"operating a police vehicle when he collided with a pillar causing damage to the vehicle and police property","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member was on duty and operating a police vehicle when he collided with a pillar causing damage to the vehicle and police property.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":739,"file":"2013-9264","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"The off-duty officer was arrested for impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An off-duty police officer was on his way home when he was stopped at a roadblock. The traffic investigation determined that the off-duty member had consumed alcohol and an Approved Screening Device demand was issued which resulted in a “fail” reading. The off-duty officer was arrested for impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":740,"file":"2013-9264","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"the off-duty officer disclosed that he was a police officer in hopes of receiving favourable treatment","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"During the traffic investigation, the off-duty officer disclosed that he was a police officer in hopes of receiving favourable treatment. (The off-duty officer later pled guilty to Driving Without Reasonable Consideration for Others under section 144(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicle Act and was given a $2,000 fine in addition to a 90-day driving prohibition).","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":741,"file":"2012-7788","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Negligent Discharge","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"the member accidentally discharged his service firearm","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"While in his office, the member accidentally discharged his service firearm.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":742,"file":"2021-19935","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"The member slapping their child once in the face.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. It was reported that the member was being criminally investigated as a result of the member’s child disclosing to a school counselor that they had been slapped in the face by the member. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of the criminal investigation. The criminal process was concluded as the member participated in an Alternative Measures program. The member slapping their child once in the face. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member took responsibility for their actions and successfully completed a Restorative Justice Alternative Resolution Plan, which included counselling and apologizing to their child and family. The Discipline Authority also noted the member regularly attends a registered psychologist for long term support. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":743,"file":"2011-6759","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"the member disclosed that he had improperly accessed CPIC and PRIME information","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"During a pre-employment polygraph examination, the member disclosed that he had improperly accessed CPIC and PRIME information.","measures":["verbal reprimand","program activity"]},{"id":744,"file":"2011-6759","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Improper Disclosure of Information","sublabel":"Disclosing Information Acquired as a Police Officer","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"made inappropriate disclosures of CPIC and PRIME information","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member also made inappropriate disclosures of CPIC and PRIME information.","measures":["written reprimand","program activity"]},{"id":745,"file":"2023-23752","agency":"Surrey Police Service","year":2024,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to comply with departmental policy related to the attendance, investigative follow-up, and completion of necessary reporting and documentation","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Surrey Police Service (SPS), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of an SPS member. It was reported that the member had failed to comply with departmental policy by failing conduct a timely investigation or report and document an offence that resulted in property damage. The member failed to comply with departmental policy related to the attendance, investigative follow-up, and completion of necessary reporting and documentation. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on discipline, Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member had received good performance reports, accepted responsibility, had no substantiated misconduct on their Service Record of Discipline, and had taken steps to review relevant policies and training. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":746,"file":"2015-10899","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The content of the video was found to have discredited the department in that it did not meet the reasonable expectations of the public.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer was operating a fitness consulting business during the officer’s off-duty hours which included appearing in a video that was published on the internet. The content of the video was found to have discredited the department in that it did not meet the reasonable expectations of the public. The officer resigned prior to the investigation being completed.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":747,"file":"2019-16994","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Follow Supervisor's Lawful Order - Written","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"Failing to obey a lawful order of a supervisor by creating and posting videos to a social media platform contrary to departmental policy.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An internal investigation was initiated into the conduct of a Saanich Police Department (SPD) member in relation to videos the member produced and posted to a social media platform. A review of the videos showed the member in uniform and using departmental equipment and locations. Failing to obey a lawful order of a supervisor by creating and posting videos to a social media platform contrary to departmental policy.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":748,"file":"2022-22748","agency":"Surrey Police Service","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"the member’s apparent (and admitted) treatment of the complainant, objectively considered, could be characterized as unjustified and unnecessarily demeaning","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns with an off-duty member of the Surrey Police Service (SPS). It was reported that the member consumed alcohol, showed signs of intoxication, and allegedly gave indication that they were going to drive a vehicle. Additionally, the member allegedly displayed their police badge and used belligerent and disrespectful language toward the complainant. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required into the matter. The member was belligerent and disrespectful towards the complainant. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member did not commit misconduct. The Commissioner disagreed as he was of the view that the Discipline Authority failed to properly consider the evidence corroborating the derogatory comments alleged by the complainant, including the member’s own admission of demeaning comments and swearing towards the complainant. The Commissioner also expressed concern that the Discipline Authority failed to properly consider the purpose of the member’s action of displaying their police badge off-duty and the member’s failure to adhere to relevant SPS policy in this regard. The Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge Carol Baird Ellan, K.C. to review the matter and arrive at her own decision based on the evidence. Ms. Baird Ellan determined that the member’s apparent (and admitted) treatment of the complainant, objectively considered, could be characterized as unjustified and unnecessarily demeaning. Ms. Baird Ellan further determined that the member appeared to have neglected to adhere to departmental standards pertaining to production of a police badge while off-duty. Disciplinary Process A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member took full responsibility for their actions, acknowledged that the conduct was a mistake, and had no substantiated misconduct on their Service Record of Discipline. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. For further information on this decision, go to: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["written reprimand","program activity"]},{"id":749,"file":"2022-22748","agency":"Surrey Police Service","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to comply with departmental policy which prohibits the production of a police badge when off duty","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns with an off-duty member of the Surrey Police Service (SPS). It was reported that the member consumed alcohol, showed signs of intoxication, and allegedly gave indication that they were going to drive a vehicle. Additionally, the member allegedly displayed their police badge and used belligerent and disrespectful language toward the complainant. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required into the matter. The member failed to comply with departmental policy which prohibits the production of a police badge when off duty. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member did not commit misconduct. The Commissioner disagreed as he was of the view that the Discipline Authority failed to properly consider the evidence corroborating the derogatory comments alleged by the complainant, including the member’s own admission of demeaning comments and swearing towards the complainant. The Commissioner also expressed concern that the Discipline Authority failed to properly consider the purpose of the member’s action of displaying their police badge off-duty and the member’s failure to adhere to relevant SPS policy in this regard. The Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge Carol Baird Ellan, K.C. to review the matter and arrive at her own decision based on the evidence. Ms. Baird Ellan determined that the member’s apparent (and admitted) treatment of the complainant, objectively considered, could be characterized as unjustified and unnecessarily demeaning. Ms. Baird Ellan further determined that the member appeared to have neglected to adhere to departmental standards pertaining to production of a police badge while off-duty. Disciplinary Process A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member took full responsibility for their actions, acknowledged that the conduct was a mistake, and had no substantiated misconduct on their Service Record of Discipline. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. For further information on this decision, go to: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["training"]},{"id":750,"file":"2017-14224","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"applied an unnecessary and inappropriate level of physical force by striking a citizen who was apprehended under the Mental Health Act and while handcuffed","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On December 12, 2017, a police officer applied an unnecessary and inappropriate level of physical force by striking a citizen who was apprehended under the Mental Health Act and while handcuffed. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. The Prehearing Conference Authority was of the opinion that any level of force applied on any citizen who is handcuffed and in custody was a serious matter. After speaking with the police officer the Prehearing Conference Authority was confident that he understood what the expectations and requirements were when applying the level of force used in this instance. The police officer took responsibility for his actions and understood that lower levels of force should have been used. Based on this and the imposed discipline that included retraining in use of force, de-escalation techniques and retraining in mental health crisis intervention, the Prehearing Conference Authority was convinced that in the future the police officer would use a more appropriate level of force in similar circumstances. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":751,"file":"2015-11274","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2016,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"included information in an affidavit that would likely bring discredit to the reputation of the police department","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On November 23, 2015, a police officer included information in an affidavit that would likely bring discredit to the reputation of the police department.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":752,"file":"2018-15546","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Provide Charter Rights","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"Further questioning the complainant after he asserted his right to counsel and interfering with the exercise of the complainant’s right to counsel by interrupting his phone call with legal counsel.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The complainant filed a complaint following his interaction with Saanich members at a roadblock. The complainant was ultimately arrested and transported to cells. He reported, in part, that members breached his section 10(b) Charter rights during his arrest and that members uttered profane comments to him while he was being transported to the police department following his arrest. The complainant alleged that members provided false and inaccurate testimony during his criminal trial. During the criminal proceeding, the presiding judge dismissed the charges filed against the complainant due to a serious breach of the complainant’s Charter rights under section 10(b) which provides that everyone has the right on arrest or detention to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determine an investigation was required into the incident. Further questioning the complainant after he asserted his right to counsel and interfering with the exercise of the complainant’s right to counsel by interrupting his phone call with legal counsel.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":753,"file":"2018-15546","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discourtesy","sublabel":"Discourteous - Verbal","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"comments to the complainant while he was being transported in a police vehicle to the Saanich Police Department that were profane, disrespectful and lacking professionalism","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The complainant filed a complaint following his interaction with Saanich members at a roadblock. The complainant was ultimately arrested and transported to cells. He reported, in part, that members breached his section 10(b) Charter rights during his arrest and that members uttered profane comments to him while he was being transported to the police department following his arrest. The complainant alleged that members provided false and inaccurate testimony during his criminal trial. During the criminal proceeding, the presiding judge dismissed the charges filed against the complainant due to a serious breach of the complainant’s Charter rights under section 10(b) which provides that everyone has the right on arrest or detention to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determine an investigation was required into the incident. Making comments to the complainant while he was being transported in a police vehicle to the Saanich Police Department that were profane, disrespectful and lacking professionalism.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":754,"file":"2018-15546","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"careless, lacking reliability… and highly unprofessional","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The complainant filed a complaint following his interaction with Saanich members at a roadblock. The complainant was ultimately arrested and transported to cells. He reported, in part, that members breached his section 10(b) Charter rights during his arrest and that members uttered profane comments to him while he was being transported to the police department following his arrest. The complainant alleged that members provided false and inaccurate testimony during his criminal trial. During the criminal proceeding, the presiding judge dismissed the charges filed against the complainant due to a serious breach of the complainant’s Charter rights under section 10(b) which provides that everyone has the right on arrest or detention to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determine an investigation was required into the incident. Providing testimony during a criminal trial resulting in adverse judicial comments, where the judge noted that the member’s testimony in Provincial Court was \"careless, lacking reliability… and highly unprofessional.\" A prehearing conference was held in this matter where the member accepted responsibility for his actions. The Saanich Police Department determined that the misconduct committed by this member to be serious, particularly considering that there was a finding that there was an egregious breach of the complainant’s section 10(b) Charter rights which resulted in the decision to exclude evidence that was material to Crown’s case. In addition, the adverse comments made by the presiding judge spoke to the member’s carelessness in court, lack of reliability and unprofessionalism. The member was directed to complete a session with a legal updates instructor to review applicable case law regarding section 10(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in addition to completing a course on “Courtroom Testimony Skills.” The OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["training"]},{"id":755,"file":"2010-5679","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.72,"thin":false,"quote":"The officer distributed sexually explicit emails within and outside the department.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The text states the officer personally \"distributed sexually explicit emails within and outside the department,\" i.e., sexualized material circulated by the officer, which falls within sexualized harassment.","text":"The officer distributed sexually explicit emails within and outside the department.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":756,"file":"2010-5679","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The officer accessed CPIC, PRIME and an ICBC salvage yard for purposes unrelated to his duties as a police officer.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer accessed CPIC, PRIME and an ICBC salvage yard for purposes unrelated to his duties as a police officer.","measures":["suspension","transfer reassignment"]},{"id":757,"file":"2010-5679","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Improper Disclosure of Information","sublabel":"Disclosing Information Acquired as a Police Officer","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"inappropriately disclosed police information relating to a motor vehicle accident investigation","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer inappropriately disclosed police information relating to a motor vehicle accident investigation. *The suspensions were to be served concurrently.","measures":["suspension","transfer reassignment"]},{"id":758,"file":"2021-20136","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"comparing the use of the word \"Cops\" to the \"N-Word\" and displaying a video with themes that included inappropriate racial stereotypes","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a Vancouver Police Department member. The member had been working a shift alongside a civilian clinician under a partnership between the VPD and Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH) which enabled VCH clinicians to provide in-site assessments and intervention for individuals in mental health and substance abuse crisis. While working together the member made concerning remarks and other behaviour that made the civilian feel uncomfortable. The concerning remarks and behaviours included comparing the use of the word “Cops” to the “N-Word” and displaying a video with themes that included inappropriate racial stereotypes. The investigation also included an allegation that the member had queried the name of the civilian on a police database for a purpose unrelated to the member’s duties. Inappropriate and improper behaviour and comments made throughout a Car 88 shift to a VCH nurse. The Discipline Authority determined that the allegations of misconduct were not substantiated. Upon review of the matter, the Commissioner determined there was a reasonable basis to disagree with the Discipline Authority as the member’s comments and showing of a video depicting inappropriate racial stereotypes in its totality was not simply “poor judgement” and ought to have been considered objectively against the reasonable expectations of the community. In addition, the Commissioner was of the view that the member’s comparison of the word “Cops” to the “N-word” inappropriately diminished the historical context and discrimination faced by Black persons. The Commissioner appointed the Honourable Mark Takahashi, retired Judge of the Provincial Court of British Columbia, to review the matter and arrive at their own decision based on the evidence. Mr. Takahashi issued their decision and determined that the member’s conduct appeared to constitute misconduct, set out a range of discipline, and offered the member a prehearing conference. Disciplinary Process The offer of a prehearing conference was accepted by the member. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measure, the external Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member’s comments were insensitive and that the conduct was serious. 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. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures that was within the range of proposed discipline set out by the retired judge and determined that further review was not required in the public interest. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/","measures":["verbal reprimand","program activity"]},{"id":759,"file":"2021-20136","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member queried the name of the VCH nurse on a police database for a purpose unrelated to the member’s duties.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a Vancouver Police Department member. The member had been working a shift alongside a civilian clinician under a partnership between the VPD and Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH) which enabled VCH clinicians to provide in-site assessments and intervention for individuals in mental health and substance abuse crisis. While working together the member made concerning remarks and other behaviour that made the civilian feel uncomfortable. The concerning remarks and behaviours included comparing the use of the word “Cops” to the “N-Word” and displaying a video with themes that included inappropriate racial stereotypes. The investigation also included an allegation that the member had queried the name of the civilian on a police database for a purpose unrelated to the member’s duties. The member queried the name of the VCH nurse on a police database for a purpose unrelated to the member’s duties. The Discipline Authority determined that the allegations of misconduct were not substantiated. Upon review of the matter, the Commissioner determined there was a reasonable basis to disagree with the Discipline Authority as the member’s comments and showing of a video depicting inappropriate racial stereotypes in its totality was not simply “poor judgement” and ought to have been considered objectively against the reasonable expectations of the community. In addition, the Commissioner was of the view that the member’s comparison of the word “Cops” to the “N-word” inappropriately diminished the historical context and discrimination faced by Black persons. The Commissioner appointed the Honourable Mark Takahashi, retired Judge of the Provincial Court of British Columbia, to review the matter and arrive at their own decision based on the evidence. Mr. Takahashi issued their decision and determined that the member’s conduct appeared to constitute misconduct, set out a range of discipline, and offered the member a prehearing conference. Disciplinary Process The offer of a prehearing conference was accepted by the member. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measure, the external Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member’s comments were insensitive and that the conduct was serious. 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. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures that was within the range of proposed discipline set out by the retired judge and determined that further review was not required in the public interest. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":760,"file":"2016-12014","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"while off duty, a police officer operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in contravention of the Motor Vehicle Act.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On June 25, 2016, while off duty, a police officer operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in contravention of the Motor Vehicle Act.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":761,"file":"2019-15877","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Using or Attempting to Use Police Authority for Personal Gain (e.g., Preferential Treatment)","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"using the police vehicle to run a personal errand","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) reported an incident involving one of their members who was seconded to the RCMP. It was reported that this member had misused a police vehicle and was in contravention of their departmental policy. Using an assigned police vehicle for personal reasons and in contravention of departmental policy. A prehearing conference was offered to the member. The member admitted to using the police vehicle to run a personal errand and acknowledged it was a mistake on his part. The OPCC reviewed the outcome of the prehearing conference and approved the disciplinary/corrective measures imposed.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":762,"file":"2016-11882","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"consumed alcohol in an unmarked police vehicle while waiting to board a BC ferry","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On April 12, 2016, two police officers consumed alcohol in an unmarked police vehicle while waiting to board a BC ferry.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":763,"file":"2016-11882","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"purchased alcohol, consumed alcohol in an unmarked police vehicle while waiting to board a BC ferry, and then drove the police vehicle onto the ferry","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On April 12, 2016, a police officer purchased alcohol, consumed alcohol in an unmarked police vehicle while waiting to board a BC ferry, and then drove the police vehicle onto the ferry.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":764,"file":"2016-11882","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"This senior officer did not intervene or take any action.}]}}}}]}}}}]}}","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On April 12, 2016, a senior police officer observed other police officers under their ‘supervision’ consume alcohol in an unmarked police vehicle. One of the police officers then drove the police vehicle onto a BC ferry. This senior officer did not intervene or take any action.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":765,"file":"2015-11356","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"conducted improper police database queries in relation to an off duty police officer's call for assistance","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On October 14, 2015, three police officers conducted improper police database queries in relation to an off duty police officer’s call for assistance.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":766,"file":"2015-11356","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Improper Disclosure of Information","sublabel":"Disclosing Information Acquired as a Police Officer","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"improperly disclosed the information obtained from the improper police database queries in relation to an off duty police officer’s call for assistance","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Three police officers improperly disclosed the information obtained from the improper police database queries in relation to an off duty police officer’s call for assistance.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":767,"file":"2015-11356","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Accessory to Misconduct","sublabel":"Aiding, Abetting or Counselling Misconduct","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"sent text messages encouraging fellow police officers to commit the misconduct of Unauthorized Use of Police Facilitates/Resources and Improper Disclosure of information","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer sent text messages encouraging fellow police officers to commit the misconduct of Unauthorized Use of Police Facilitates/Resources and Improper Disclosure of information.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":768,"file":"2018-15047","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Badging/Identifying as a Police Officer","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"identified themselves as a police officer during a traffic stop with the intent of asking for leniency","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a member following a traffic stop by the RCMP for excessive speeding in a construction zone. It was reported that when the member was informed their vehicle would be impounded, the member self-identified as a member of the VPD, sought leniency and behaved in an unprofessional manner. During the investigation, additional allegations of misconduct were identified, including an instance where another member allegedly engaged in an inappropriate conversation with the RCMP member involved in the traffic stop. The member identified themselves as a police officer during a traffic stop with the intent of asking for leniency.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":769,"file":"2018-15047","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"this matter was not the business of Member B and that the member \"knew, or ought to have been aware of more appropriate ways to approach this situation, particularly knowing that Motor Vehicle Act enforcement had taken place and that a Police Act investigation was involved.\"}","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a member following a traffic stop by the RCMP for excessive speeding in a construction zone. It was reported that when the member was informed their vehicle would be impounded, the member self-identified as a member of the VPD, sought leniency and behaved in an unprofessional manner. During the investigation, additional allegations of misconduct were identified, including an instance where another member allegedly engaged in an inappropriate conversation with the RCMP member involved in the traffic stop. The member engaged in an inappropriate conversation regarding a traffic enforcement matter with an RCMP officer while a Police Act matter was underway. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority (DA) found that two members appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered to the members; however, both declined and as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The DA found that Member A “introduced their status as a police officer during the interaction with the RCMP member for the purpose of obtaining leniency” and in doing so, the member “pressed the matter using words to the effect that officers need to look out for each other.” The member also used language that could be interpreted as insulting, or at least disrespectful. In relation to Member B, the DA found that this matter was not the business of Member B and that the member “knew, or ought to have been aware of more appropriate ways to approach this situation, particularly knowing that Motor Vehicle Act enforcement had taken place and that a Police Act investigation was involved.” The members did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required in the public interest.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":770,"file":"2011-6238","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The member drove recklessly while transporting a person in the back of his police cruiser.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member drove recklessly while transporting a person in the back of his police cruiser.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":771,"file":"2016-11891","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"discussed details about a confidential Delta Police Department human resources matter with them. These details were obtained in the course of their duties as a police officer.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The complainants reported that on February 27, 2016, while off duty, a police officer discussed details about a confidential Delta Police Department human resources matter with them. These details were obtained in the course of their duties as a police officer. This matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the Discipline Authority substantiated the allegation of Discreditable Conduct and imposed the above-noted disciplinary/corrective measures. The Discipline Authority determined that although the dissemination of confidential information was sufficient to identify the person to others, the officer provided only minimal information and further dissemination of this information was not a result of the member’s conduct. 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.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":772,"file":"2016-11867","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"the member was “at least reckless as to whether it was necessary to do one or all of the following: forcibly arrest the complainant; take the complainant to the ground by force; use knee strikes; use an arm bar; or remove the complainant’s helmet by force.”output re-check format - the","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On May 2, 2016, a male on a motorcycle failed to stop for police. A police broadcast was made, and two police officers in an unmarked police vehicle observed the male on the motorcycle as he drove past them. The police officer operating the unmarked police vehicle followed the motorcycle at high speeds which was not in compliance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, and/or provincial legislation and department policy governing the operation of an emergency vehicle. Upon reviewing the Final Investigation Report and the evidence and records referenced in it, Adjudicator Baird Ellan determined that the conduct of Member #2 appeared to constitute misconduct. In her decision, the Adjudicator determined that the member was “at least reckless as to whether it was necessary to do one or all of the following: forcibly arrest the complainant; take the complainant to the ground by force; use knee strikes; use an arm bar; or remove the complainant’s helmet by force. In addition, the Adjudicator found that the video appeared to depict the member intentionally threw the helmet and the cell phone with more force than would be necessary to secure it safely aware from the area of arrest. Subsequently, pursuant to section 117(9) of the Police Act , Retired Judge Baird Ellan became the discipline authority in respect of this matter and offered the police officer a prehearing conference. Member #2 declined the offer for a prehearing conference and as a result a discipline proceeding was held in relation to this matter. After considering the aggravating and mitigating factors in relation to this matter, Adjudicator Baird Ellan proposed the above-noted disciplinary or corrective measures in relation to the proven allegations. Member #2 did not exercise his right to request a Public Hearing or Review on the Record; however, to promote accountability in the complaint process, all findings and determinations at discipline proceeding are reviewed by the OPCC, regardless of whether a request has been made. Based on a review of the available evidence, our office was satisfied that Ms. Baird Ellan, as the Discipline Authority, appropriately determined that the allegations of Abuse of Authority and Damage to Property of Others had been proven based on the reasoning provided in her decision. 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. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/ under Adjudications.","measures":["verbal reprimand","training"]},{"id":773,"file":"2016-11867","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"pushed the motorcyclist to the ground and delivered knee strikes to the left side of his torso","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"After catching up to the motorcyclist, the police officer who was a passenger in the unmarked police vehicle pushed the motorcyclist to the ground and delivered knee strikes to the left side of his torso. Upon reviewing the Final Investigation Report and the evidence and records referenced in it, Adjudicator Baird Ellan determined that the conduct of Member #2 appeared to constitute misconduct. In her decision, the Adjudicator determined that the member was “at least reckless as to whether it was necessary to do one or all of the following: forcibly arrest the complainant; take the complainant to the ground by force; use knee strikes; use an arm bar; or remove the complainant’s helmet by force. In addition, the Adjudicator found that the video appeared to depict the member intentionally threw the helmet and the cell phone with more force than would be necessary to secure it safely aware from the area of arrest. Subsequently, pursuant to section 117(9) of the Police Act , Retired Judge Baird Ellan became the discipline authority in respect of this matter and offered the police officer a prehearing conference. Member #2 declined the offer for a prehearing conference and as a result a discipline proceeding was held in relation to this matter. After considering the aggravating and mitigating factors in relation to this matter, Adjudicator Baird Ellan proposed the above-noted disciplinary or corrective measures in relation to the proven allegations. Member #2 did not exercise his right to request a Public Hearing or Review on the Record; however, to promote accountability in the complaint process, all findings and determinations at discipline proceeding are reviewed by the OPCC, regardless of whether a request has been made. Based on a review of the available evidence, our office was satisfied that Ms. Baird Ellan, as the Discipline Authority, appropriately determined that the allegations of Abuse of Authority and Damage to Property of Others had been proven based on the reasoning provided in her decision. 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. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/ under Adjudications.","measures":["written reprimand","training","counselling"]},{"id":774,"file":"2016-11867","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Damage to Property of Others","sublabel":"Damages Property Belonging to Member of the Public","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"the member intentionally threw the helmet and the cell phone with more force than would be necessary to secure it safely aware from the area of arrest","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer pulled the motorcycle helmet off the driver and threw it to the side, resulting in damage. The police officer also removed a cellular phone from the driver’s pocket and tossed in to the ground, resulting in damage. After an investigation, the Discipline Authority determined that Member #1 committed misconduct by failing to comply with the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and departmental policy governing emergency driving while following the motorcyclist. The matter proceeded to a prehearing conference where an agreement was reached with respect to the proposed discipline of a verbal reprimand. The Police Complaint Commissioner found that the disciplinary and/or corrective measures proposed did not address the seriousness of the misconduct. Section 126(3) of the Police Act indicates that an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member should take precedence. In this case, the penalty did not include a component of training for the member. A discipline proceeding was held where, after considering the aggravating and mitigating factors in relation to this matter, the Discipline Authority proposed the disciplinary and corrective measures of a verbal reprimand and specified training pertaining to the Motor Vehicle Act, Emergency Vehicle Operations and VPD Departmental policy. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the imposed disciplinary and corrective measures and closed the file. In relation to Member #2, the Discipline Authority determined that the police officer did not commit misconduct. Pursuant to section 117(1) of the Police Act , after reviewing the allegations and the alleged conduct in its entirety, the Police Complaint Commissioner considered that there was a reasonable basis to believe that the Discipline Authority’s decision with respect to the allegations of Abuse of Authority and Damage to Property of Others not being proven was incorrect. Therefore, pursuant to section 117(4) of the Police Act , he appointed the Honorable Carol Baird Ellan, retired Provincial Court Judge, to review the matter under section 117 of the Police Act and arrive at her own decision based on the evidence. Upon reviewing the Final Investigation Report and the evidence and records referenced in it, Adjudicator Baird Ellan determined that the conduct of Member #2 appeared to constitute misconduct. In her decision, the Adjudicator determined that the member was “at least reckless as to whether it was necessary to do one or all of the following: forcibly arrest the complainant; take the complainant to the ground by force; use knee strikes; use an arm bar; or remove the complainant’s helmet by force. In addition, the Adjudicator found that the video appeared to depict the member intentionally threw the helmet and the cell phone with more force than would be necessary to secure it safely aware from the area of arrest. Subsequently, pursuant to section 117(9) of the Police Act , Retired Judge Baird Ellan became the discipline authority in respect of this matter and offered the police officer a prehearing conference. Member #2 declined the offer for a prehearing conference and as a result a discipline proceeding was held in relation to this matter. After considering the aggravating and mitigating factors in relation to this matter, Adjudicator Baird Ellan proposed the above-noted disciplinary or corrective measures in relation to the proven allegations. Member #2 did not exercise his right to request a Public Hearing or Review on the Record; however, to promote accountability in the complaint process, all findings and determinations at discipline proceeding are reviewed by the OPCC, regardless of whether a request has been made. Based on a review of the available evidence, our office was satisfied that Ms. Baird Ellan, as the Discipline Authority, appropriately determined that the allegations of Abuse of Authority and Damage to Property of Others had been proven based on the reasoning provided in her decision. 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. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/ under Adjudications.","measures":["written reprimand","training","counselling"]},{"id":775,"file":"2015-10864","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"counselled an alleged victim of a sexual assault to not report the incident to the police department","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer counselled an alleged victim of a sexual assault to not report the incident to the police department.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":776,"file":"2015-10864","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"provided a false or misleading oral statement to the investigating officer conducting the Police Act investigation","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer provided a false or misleading oral statement to the investigating officer conducting the Police Act investigation. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. 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. Although the Prehearing Conference Authority considered the misconducts to be extremely serious, it was believed that the officer suffered from occupational health injuries that may have possibly affected his judgement. The police officer had a 26 year career with no record of discipline before this incident and retired during the Police Act process. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":777,"file":"2013-8491","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"produced and distributed within the department a “Be on the Look Out For” poster with a picture of a fellow officer which was insulting and unprofessional","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer produced and distributed within the department a “Be on the Look Out For” poster with a picture of a fellow officer which was insulting and unprofessional.","measures":["suspension","transfer reassignment"]},{"id":778,"file":"2023-23800","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The member failed to complete a report and/or notes documenting the investigative detention of the complainant.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns regarding an interaction with a member of the New Westminster Police Department (NWPD). The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. During the subsequent investigation it was determined that the member failed to document the interaction with the complainant as per department policy. The member failed to complete a report and/or notes documenting the investigative detention of the complainant. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted the member accepted responsibility and the member had the member had no prior substantiated misconduct on their Service Record of Discipline. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":779,"file":"2017-12992","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"struck the complainant and took him to the ground while the complainant was in cells","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On December 24, 2016, a special municipal constable (SMC) struck the complainant and took him to the ground while the complainant was in cells. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. An agreement was reached in which the police officer admitted the misconduct of Abuse of Authority and agreed to the imposition of a one day suspension. The Police Complaint Commissioner found that the disciplinary and/or corrective measures proposed did not address the seriousness of the misconduct. Furthermore, section 126(3) of the Police Act dictates that an approach that seeks to correct and educate the member should take precedence. In this case, the penalty did not include a component of training for the member with respect to the appropriate application of force to control potentially aggressive subjects in custody. Therefore, the agreement reached at the prehearing conference was rejected and this matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding pursuant to section 118(1) of the Police Act. A discipline proceeding was held where, after considering the aggravating and mitigating factors in relation to this matter, the Discipline Authority proposed the disciplinary and corrective measures of a one day suspension and retraining in Use of Force policy with a trained Use of Force instructor and tactical communications as it relates to Use of Force. The Discipline Authority commented that the penalty could have been more significant had the complainant been injured and if the SMC had not accepted responsibility for his actions. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the imposed disciplinary and corrective measures and closed the file.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":780,"file":"2022-22437","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member failed to conduct a thorough investigation, document actions taken by the police, and failed to complete the investigative report.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns regarding the adequacy of an investigation by a member of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD). The complaint related to an investigation into their report of an assault and robbery by a known associate, and their subsequent disclosure that they had been sexually assaulted. The complainant reported that they provided the member with a significant amount of information, including photographic evidence, however the member advised that there was insufficient evidence and the file would be closed. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The member failed to conduct a thorough investigation, document actions taken by the police, and failed to complete the investigative report. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. 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 the member admitted to the allegation. The Discipline Authority found that, had the member followed proper policy and procedure, evidence related to this matter should have become available. The Discipline Authority held the member’s conduct revealed a lack of understanding as to the existence of investigative policy and procedure, and/or a lack of understanding as to how to apply policy, procedure and resources in a complex investigation. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority noted that the member had accepted full responsibility for their actions, had not attempted to minimize their conduct, and that there was evidence to suggest that the complainant’s availability and a lack of clarity regarding this incident had made it challenging for the member to investigate. Neither the member nor the complainant requested a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand","training","program activity"]},{"id":781,"file":"2019-16794","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Search of a Person","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"Intentionally or recklessly searching a person without good and sufficient cause.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The complainant reported that he attended a pawnshop to purchase back some items he had previously pawned, including two axes, a machete, some knives and a BB Gun. Upon arrival at home, he removed the items from the trunk and began carrying them to his residence. The items were piled in his arms and were contained in bags or boxes, except one axe that was in plain view. The complainant was stopped by four officers on foot patrol. The officers proceeded to go through the complainant’s item by opening the bags and boxes he was carrying. The complainant told the officers they did not have permission to take his belongings or go through them. When the officers were finished, they seized a machete, knives, and a BB gun, but did not seize the axes. The complainant protested that none of the items were illegal. The officers stated the complainant would have to produce receipts to get his property back. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the matter was required. Intentionally or recklessly searching a person without good and sufficient cause. The Discipline Authority determined that none of the officers involved committed misconduct during this interaction. After reviewing the investigation and the Discipline Authority’s decision, the Commissioner determined there was a reasonable basis to disagree with this decision and appointed the Honourable Carole Lazar, retired BC Provincial Court Judge, to review the matter and arrive at her own decision based on the evidence. Retired Judge Lazar issued her decision wherein she determined that the police power exercised in this instance significantly infringed the complainant’s liberty interests, was not reasonably necessary and had little, if any, impact in reducing the threat to public safety. Disciplinary Process A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the members. The Prehearing Conference Authority found that the misconduct, although important, was not of a serious nature given the heightened concern for safety in the area and the particular circumstances of the incident. The Prehearing Conference Authority also determined that none of the officers had a history of misconduct and all had gained a better understanding of police authorities to search and seize property. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":782,"file":"2011-6835","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Police Service Dog","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"deployed his police dog without justification to assist in apprehending the complainant suspected of break and entering. The complainant suffered injuries to his back and neck.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer deployed his police dog without justification to assist in apprehending the complainant suspected of break and entering. The complainant suffered injuries to his back and neck.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":783,"file":"2012-7436","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Vehicle Pursuit/Emergency Driving","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to promptly disengage from a vehicle pursuit when the Air One TSH assumed visual contact; and failed to advise the dispatcher of the suspect’s violation of traffic control devices and traffic conditions","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member failed to promptly disengage from a vehicle pursuit when the Air One TSH assumed visual contact; and failed to advise the dispatcher of the suspect’s violation of traffic control devices and traffic conditions.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":784,"file":"2012-7436","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Follow Supervisor's Lawful Order - Verbal","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to promptly follow the lawful direction of a supervisor","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member also failed to promptly follow the lawful direction of a supervisor.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":785,"file":"2014-9727","agency":"Port Moody Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"used unnecessary force to control a male being placed into a jail cell","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police member used unnecessary force to control a male being placed into a jail cell. The Commissioner exercised his powers under section 111 of the Act and referred this matter to Crown Counsel. Crown Counsel approved a charge of Assault Causing Bodily Harm to the complainant under the Criminal Code . The police member pled guilty to a lesser included offence of Assault and received a conditional discharge.","measures":["verbal reprimand","training"]},{"id":786,"file":"2015-11160","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"displayed aggressive behaviour and threatened to report the complainants for child neglect when those grounds for reporting did not exist","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer displayed aggressive behaviour and threatened to report the complainants for child neglect when those grounds for reporting did not exist.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":787,"file":"2017-13912","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Immediate Roadside Prohibition/Impaired Operation of a Motor Vehicle","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"While off duty and having consumed alcohol, operating a motor vehicle which resulted in a single motor vehicle collision.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a member in relation a motor vehicle collision. It was reported that an off-duty member was involved in a single motorcycle collision. A witness reported observing the motorcycle driving aggressively a few minutes before the collision. As a result of the collision the member sustained significant injuries. The member also had reportedly consumed alcohol. The VPD Collision Investigation Unit (CIU) conducted a criminal investigation. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of the criminal investigation. The matter was referred to the BC Prosecution Service and two charges related to impaired driving were approved. The member was acquitted of both charges. The investigation under the Police Act found that the member committed misconduct for their driving behaviour following the consumption of alcohol. While off duty and having consumed alcohol, operating a motor vehicle which resulted in a single motor vehicle collision. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In proposing discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority characterized the conduct as serious. The Prehearing Conference Authority reviewed similar past cases and determined a 5-day suspension was within the range of the discipline in those cases. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":788,"file":"2015-11048-03","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Sexualized Harassment/Touching/Comments","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"engaged in unwanted physical contact with Officer A","gbv":true,"gbv_def":true,"verdict":false,"basis":"The text states only \"unwanted physical contact with Officer A,\" with no sexual, sexualized, or gendered element specified, making it too sparse to establish sexualized violence.","text":"The (former) Chief Constable engaged in unwanted physical contact with Officer A.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":789,"file":"2015-11048-03","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Sexualized Harassment/Touching/Comments","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.5,"thin":false,"quote":"engaged in unwanted physical contact with Officer B","gbv":true,"gbv_def":true,"verdict":false,"basis":"The text states only \"unwanted physical contact with Officer B,\" with no sexual, gendered, or sexualized element described, leaving it too sparse to establish sexualized violence.","text":"The (former) Chief Constable engaged in unwanted physical contact with Officer B.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":790,"file":"2015-11048-03","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Sexualized Harassment/Touching/Comments","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The (former) Chief Constable made inappropriate remarks of a sexual nature to Officer B.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The text states the Chief Constable \"made inappropriate remarks of a sexual nature to Officer B,\" substantiated as discreditable conduct with Gender Sensitivity training ordered.","text":"The (former) Chief Constable made inappropriate remarks of a sexual nature to Officer B. 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. At the end of the discipline proceeding, Mr. Pitfield imposed a 30 day suspension for each count, to be served concurrently , and training in Gender Sensitivity. In his decision, Mr. Pitfield stated that standing alone, the misconduct could be regarded as minimal in impact. However, because he was the Chief Constable, the police officers were his subordinates over whom he stood in a position of power and responsibility. The (former) Chief Constable had retired by this time and did not request a Public Hearing or Review on the Record. Based on the Police Complaint Commissioner’s review of the evidence, he was satisfied that the determinations of misconduct substantiated by Retired Judge Pitfield had been established, based on the reasoning he provided. It was the Police Complaint Commissioner’s view that Retired Judge Pitfield’s assessment of the seriousness of the misconduct and the appropriate disciplinary measures was within the appropriate range. For women to feel safe and valued in policing, it is especially crucial that the most senior officers conduct themselves with integrity and respect. The determinations of Retired Judge Pitfield demonstrated the deficit in leadership the (former) Chief Constable exhibited. His conduct caused emotional harm and violated the dignity of the affected parties, the gravity of which was amplified by his position of power and the importance of the office held by a Chief Constable. The Police Complaint Commissioner provided the affected women an opportunity to offer their perspective on whether or not a Public Hearing or a Review on the Record should be arranged. The overall consensus among the women was that they did not wish the matter to proceed to a Public Hearing, however one wanted the opportunity to stand up and tell her story, but stated that she would be content with any determination. The women said that the police environment for women was challenging. Although there was a consensus that there has been real change over time, there is still a long way to go. The women discussed the difficulty coming forward with harassment allegations, as they feared repercussions for coming forward. The women believe there to be a “boys club” dynamic at play, particularly at the higher ranks. These matters involving the former Chief Constable of the Victoria Police Department gave rise to public concerns, not just about the former Chief Constable’s conduct, but also about how the police discipline process works when elected mayors are charged with judging their Chief Constable’s behaviour. The Police Complaint Commissioner decided that the public should be informed about this case and the process that unfolded and therefore released a summary informational report which can be found on the OPCC website. To view the complete report, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/resources/reports-of-interest/","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":791,"file":"2011-6723","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Damage to Property of Others","sublabel":"Damages Property Belonging to Member of the Public","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.5,"thin":false,"quote":"The member urinated in a private storage locker while on duty.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member urinated in a private storage locker while on duty.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":792,"file":"2022-22263","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"The member suggested to individuals that he had a suspicion early on that a young person had been untruthful about a report of sexual assault.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the West Vancouver Police Department (WVPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a WVPD member. It was reported that the member had spoken in a manner that staff members at a First Nations child and family services agency found offensive and/or culturally insensitive. The member suggested to individuals that he had a suspicion early on that a young person had been untruthful about a report of sexual assault. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member had accepted responsibility for their actions, was genuinely remorseful, and acknowledged how their misconduct had impacted their relationship with the First Nation. 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. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["training","advice future conduct"]},{"id":793,"file":"2019-15742","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the member’s failure to complete a report, police notes, Subject Behaviour Officer Response Report (SBORR), or a will say was unreasonable in the circumstances","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing their concerns with a member of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), which included allegations that they sustained significant injuries because of force used during their arrest, that police failed to identify themselves and they were not advised of their Charter Rights. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. In addition, the OPCC determined that the injuries reached the threshold of “serious harm” and initiated a Mandatory Serious Harm Investigation pursuant to section 89 of the Police Act . The injuries included broken ribs and a collapsed lung. The Commissioner appointed an external police agency to conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. As a result of the serious nature of the injuries, the Independent Investigations Office (IIO) also investigated this matter. The Police Act requires an investigation also be initiated by the OPCC whenever death or serious harm results from an incident involving municipal police. These investigations are separate and distinct from investigations by the IIO and are not restricted to evidence gathered by the IIO. Under the Police Act, members may be compelled to provide statements, answer questions and otherwise account for their actions. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of the investigation conducted by the IIO. During the investigation, an additional allegation arose in relation to members failing to adequately document their involvement contrary to policy. The member did not follow policy as it related to taking notes and completing reports. The investigation determined that the arrest of the complainant was lawful and that the force used by police was reasonable, necessary, and proportional given the circumstance and the level of resistance of the complainant but that the member’s failure to complete a report, police notes, Subject Behaviour Officer Response Report (SBORR), or a will say was unreasonable in the circumstances; the fact that force was used and not documented was also problematic. Documentation is essential to a police officer’s duties to aid in recall and to be an effective police witness. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted the relatively junior service level of the member and that since the incident, the member adjusted their notetaking practice and familiarized themselves with policy with respect to notetaking and report writing. It was further noted that the member took full responsibility for their omissions. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":794,"file":"2011-6162","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"The member’s report relating to an impaired driving investigation was contradicted by video evidence prompting the rescinding of a 90-day suspension by the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member’s report relating to an impaired driving investigation was contradicted by video evidence prompting the rescinding of a 90-day suspension by the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":795,"file":"2011-6162","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.75,"thin":true,"quote":"The actions of the member discredited the Delta Police Department.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The actions of the member discredited the Delta Police Department.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":796,"file":"2014-9574","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2014,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Unsafe Storage of Firearm","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"left her duty belt and firearm in a police department washroom unattended for approximately 30 minutes before it was found by cleaning staff","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An officer left her duty belt and firearm in a police department washroom unattended for approximately 30 minutes before it was found by cleaning staff.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":797,"file":"2018-15085","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"By consuming a quantity of alcohol, then operating a motor vehicle with a quantity of alcohol that resulted in receiving a 90-day immediate roadside prohibition","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An off-duty Metro Vancouver Transit Police member was the subject of a traffic stop where he registered a “Fail” on the roadside alcohol screening device. He received a 90-day immediate roadside prohibition (IRP) from driving and his vehicle was impounded. By consuming a quantity of alcohol, then operating a motor vehicle with a quantity of alcohol that resulted in receiving a 90-day immediate roadside prohibition (indicative of exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood). A prehearing conference was offered and held before a Prehearing Conference Authority. An agreement was reached with respect to the proposed discipline of a 3-day suspension without pay. The OPCC reviewed the discipline imposed in this matter. In reviewing the investigation and considering all the relevant factors in this case, including significant financial and other penalties imposed under the IRP program, the OPCC determined the Prehearing Conference Authority had appropriately considered the aggravating and mitigating factors but noted that a 3-day suspension in this case was on the low range of acceptable discipline.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":798,"file":"2021-19722","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the member’s decision to use force was unreasonable and that the evidence did not support the member’s submission that the situation was “out of control”","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns with the force used by a member of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) during a traffic stop involving a group of motorcyclists. The complainant reported that, during the traffic stop, the member approached the complainant, told them to put their phone down, and then forcefully took them to the ground. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The member intentionally or recklessly used unnecessary force on the complainant. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered to the member; the member declined the offer and as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The Discipline Authority found the allegation of abuse was unproven on the basis the member was executing policing duties during the traffic stop and had reasonable grounds to believe the use of force applied to the complainant was reasonable. The Commissioner received a request from the complainant for further adjudicative review. The Commissioner determined that a Review on the Record was necessary in the public interest as there was a reasonable basis to believe the decision of the Discipline Authority was incorrect. In part, the Commissioner noted that the evidentiary record, including video evidence, did not support the Discipline Authority’s finding that the force used was required and proportionate to the circumstances. Specifically, the Commissioner noted concerns in relation to the member’s inconsistent statements regarding the perceived threat posed by the complainant and the member’s rapid deployment of force without effective verbal communication. The Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge Mark Takahashi to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Mr. Takahashi found that the member’s decision to use force was unreasonable and that the evidence did not support the member’s submission that the situation was “out of control” or that the complainant was an “immediate flight risk.” Mr. Takahashi found that the member’s approach, conversation, and take-down occurred as one continuous action, which did not allow the complainant time to comply with the member’s directive, and that the complainant did not resist being handcuffed. Mr. Takahashi further found that the member had embellished evidence to justify their actions. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, Mr. Takahashi found that the context of this incident, which involved one member confronting multiple offenders, would have engaged serious concerns about officer safety. Mr. Takahashi further noted that the member’s use of force was not gratuitous, and rather arose from a misapprehension of the proper criteria to be used in assessing the complainant. He also noted that the member’s clean service record suggested that this misconduct was an anomaly. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":799,"file":"2016-11586","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Provide Assistance (General)","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to contact the complainant despite the complainant leaving multiple messages over a two month timeframe","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer failed to contact the complainant despite the complainant leaving multiple messages over a two month timeframe.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":800,"file":"2016-12498","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"witnessing a police wagon being driven in an unsafe manner on August 25, 2016","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The complainant reported witnessing a police wagon being driven in an unsafe manner on August 25, 2016. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. The OPCC reviewed the prehearing conference report and noted that the only aspect of the complaint that could be fully investigated was the allegation of speeding as that could be determined through GPS records. The other driving allegations needed further information from the complainant who chose to have no further contact with the OPCC or the assigned Police Act investigator. Therefore, the OPCC determined that the disciplinary measure imposed at the prehearing conference was both correct and appropriate. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":801,"file":"2018-15634","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Provide Charter Rights","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"Ms. Lazar did find that the members breached the complainant’s section 10(b) Charter rights and imposed the disciplinary/corrective measure of Advice to Future Conduct as a result.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A complainant filed a complaint with the OPCC following an interaction with Vancouver Police Department (VPD) members where members had used force on him to place him under arrest for Breach of the Peace. The complainant reported that the force used by members was excessive and that he had sustained injuries to his face, shoulder and wrists as a result of this experience. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation was required into this incident. Disciplinary Process: Upon completion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority determined that none of the members involved committed misconduct when they detained the complainant and used force to place him into custody. The OPCC disagreed with this determination and appointed a retired judge to review this incident to arrive at an independent decision. Retired Provincial Court Judge, Carole Lazar reviewed this matter and determined that the evidence appeared that the members committed misconduct by arresting the complainant without good and sufficient cause and also that members used unnecessary force when taking the complainant into custody. Ms. Lazar also added an additional allegation of misconduct for failing to provide the complainant with his section 10(b) Charter rights. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding before Ms. Lazar as the Discipline Authority. Failing to advise the complainant of his rights under Section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Upon hearing further testimony from the members involved, Ms. Lazar did not find that the members committed misconduct for arresting and using force on the complainant. She found that the members had grounds to detain the complainant and to complete a protective pat down search. She determined that members acted reasonably when they took the complainant to the ground to gain control. Ms. Lazar determined that based on the evidence before her, the complainant continued to resist and tried to strike one member with his elbow which resulted in the member striking the complainant in the face with a closed fist, possibly three times. Ms. Lazar found that the complainant was assaultive and actively resistant, and attempts at communication and applying softer physical controls were attempted by members but were ultimately ineffective. Ms. Lazar concluded that the members did not unlawfully detain or use unnecessary force during their interaction with the complainant. Ms. Lazar did find that the members breached the complainant’s section 10(b) Charter rights and imposed the disciplinary/corrective measure of Advice to Future Conduct as a result. For further information on this incident and decision, go to: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":802,"file":"2017-14027","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"provided instruction for two courses at a college and received remuneration at the same time as receiving his regular compensation as a police officer","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Between January and October of 2017, while on duty, a police officer provided instruction for two courses at a college and received remuneration at the same time as receiving his regular compensation as a police officer. The matter proceeded to a prehearing conference where an agreement was reached with respect to the proposed discipline of a six day suspension without pay and attendance in a course on ethical conduct. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. The discipline authority was of the view that police officers know and understand that there are policies, procedures and guidelines that must be followed when accepting financial compensation for their instruction. The basic guidelines are that an officer requires authorization from the department and can only accept remuneration if they are off duty or scheduled on a type of approved leave. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["suspension","program activity"]},{"id":803,"file":"2017-13349","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"engaging in a personal relationship with a vulnerable domestic violence unit client and the alleged victim in a harassment investigation that he assisted investigating ant>You output must be valid JSON. Let me redo. correally.</reasoning>{","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The officer himself \"sent naked photos of himself to a West Vancouver Police Domestic Violence Unit client\" and pursued a \"personal relationship with a vulnerable domestic violence unit client,\" constituting sexualized image-based misconduct.","text":"The West Vancouver Police Department received information that a police officer had sent naked photos of himself to a West Vancouver Police Domestic Violence Unit client. The WVPD requested the Commissioner initiate an investigation into this matter. Due to the nature of the conduct reported, a criminal investigation was undertaken by an external police agency. As result, the Police Act investigation was suspended until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. Investigators determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a recommendation of Criminal Code charges. 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.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":804,"file":"2017-13349","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Equipment","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer used departmental work cellphones and computers to send communications, including a naked photo of himself, to the vulnerable domestic violence unit client.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The officer himself \"sent communications, including a naked photo of himself, to the vulnerable domestic violence unit client,\" which is sexualized image-based conduct toward a vulnerable person.","text":"The West Vancouver Police Department received information that a police officer had sent naked photos of himself to a West Vancouver Police Domestic Violence Unit client. The WVPD requested the Commissioner initiate an investigation into this matter. Due to the nature of the conduct reported, a criminal investigation was undertaken by an external police agency. As result, the Police Act investigation was suspended until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. Investigators determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a recommendation of Criminal Code charges. The police officer used departmental work cellphones and computers to send communications, including a naked photo of himself, to the vulnerable domestic violence unit client.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":805,"file":"2017-13349","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"while on duty, pursued an inappropriate relationship with the complainant on a domestic dispute he had attended","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The officer \"pursued an inappropriate relationship\" with a domestic dispute complainant, in a file where he allegedly \"sent naked photos of himself\" to a Domestic Violence Unit client.","text":"The West Vancouver Police Department received information that a police officer had sent naked photos of himself to a West Vancouver Police Domestic Violence Unit client. The WVPD requested the Commissioner initiate an investigation into this matter. Due to the nature of the conduct reported, a criminal investigation was undertaken by an external police agency. As result, the Police Act investigation was suspended until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. Investigators determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a recommendation of Criminal Code charges. The police officer, while on duty, pursued an inappropriate relationship with the complainant on a domestic dispute he had attended.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":806,"file":"2017-13349","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Equipment","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"used departmental work cellphones and email to communicate with the complainant on the domestic dispute he had attended for purposes unrelated to his police duties","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The West Vancouver Police Department received information that a police officer had sent naked photos of himself to a West Vancouver Police Domestic Violence Unit client. The WVPD requested the Commissioner initiate an investigation into this matter. Due to the nature of the conduct reported, a criminal investigation was undertaken by an external police agency. As result, the Police Act investigation was suspended until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. Investigators determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a recommendation of Criminal Code charges. The police officer used departmental work cellphones and email to communicate with the complainant on the domestic dispute he had attended for purposes unrelated to his police duties.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":807,"file":"2017-13349","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"while on duty, sent sexually explicit photographs and email messages to a female that he met on duty","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The officer \"while on duty, sent sexually explicit photographs and email messages to a female that he met on duty,\" i.e., unsolicited sexual images sent by the officer himself.","text":"The West Vancouver Police Department received information that a police officer had sent naked photos of himself to a West Vancouver Police Domestic Violence Unit client. The WVPD requested the Commissioner initiate an investigation into this matter. Due to the nature of the conduct reported, a criminal investigation was undertaken by an external police agency. As result, the Police Act investigation was suspended until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. Investigators determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a recommendation of Criminal Code charges. The police officer, while on duty, sent sexually explicit photographs and email messages to a female that he met on duty. This female was not associated to a call for service.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":808,"file":"2017-13349","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Equipment","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"used his department email account to send sexually explicit photographs and sexually explicit written communications to the female friend","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The officer himself \"used his department email account to send sexually explicit photographs and sexually explicit written communications to the female friend,\" which is image-based sexualized conduct by the officer.","text":"The West Vancouver Police Department received information that a police officer had sent naked photos of himself to a West Vancouver Police Domestic Violence Unit client. The WVPD requested the Commissioner initiate an investigation into this matter. Due to the nature of the conduct reported, a criminal investigation was undertaken by an external police agency. As result, the Police Act investigation was suspended until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. Investigators determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a recommendation of Criminal Code charges. The police officer used his department email account to send sexually explicit photographs and sexually explicit written communications to the female friend.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":809,"file":"2017-13349","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer used police databases (CPIC and PRIME) to query this female friend.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The West Vancouver Police Department received information that a police officer had sent naked photos of himself to a West Vancouver Police Domestic Violence Unit client. The WVPD requested the Commissioner initiate an investigation into this matter. Due to the nature of the conduct reported, a criminal investigation was undertaken by an external police agency. As result, the Police Act investigation was suspended until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. Investigators determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a recommendation of Criminal Code charges. The police officer used police databases (CPIC and PRIME) to query this female friend.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":810,"file":"2017-13349","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"used his position as a police officer to engage in inappropriate communications with the victim of an ongoing high risk domestic violence investigation","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The officer allegedly \"sent naked photos of himself\" to a Domestic Violence Unit client, using his position for \"inappropriate communications with the victim of an ongoing high risk domestic violence investigation.\"","text":"The West Vancouver Police Department received information that a police officer had sent naked photos of himself to a West Vancouver Police Domestic Violence Unit client. The WVPD requested the Commissioner initiate an investigation into this matter. Due to the nature of the conduct reported, a criminal investigation was undertaken by an external police agency. As result, the Police Act investigation was suspended until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. Investigators determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a recommendation of Criminal Code charges. The police officer used his position as a police officer to engage in inappropriate communications with the victim of an ongoing high risk domestic violence investigation.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":811,"file":"2017-13349","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Equipment","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.78,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer used his department email to send inappropriate email messages to the victim of the ongoing high risk domestic violence investigation.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The officer himself \"sent naked photos of himself to a West Vancouver Police Domestic Violence Unit client\" and used department email to send \"inappropriate email messages\" to that high-risk domestic violence victim.","text":"The West Vancouver Police Department received information that a police officer had sent naked photos of himself to a West Vancouver Police Domestic Violence Unit client. The WVPD requested the Commissioner initiate an investigation into this matter. Due to the nature of the conduct reported, a criminal investigation was undertaken by an external police agency. As result, the Police Act investigation was suspended until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. Investigators determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a recommendation of Criminal Code charges. The police officer used his department email to send inappropriate email messages to the victim of the ongoing high risk domestic violence investigation.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":812,"file":"2017-13349","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.96,"thin":false,"quote":"engaged in inappropriate email communications, including sending a naked photo of himself and sexually explicit stories, to a female he met during a traffic stop","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The officer himself \"sent a naked photo of himself and sexually explicit stories\" to a woman met on a traffic stop — image-based sexual abuse and sexualized harassment.","text":"The West Vancouver Police Department received information that a police officer had sent naked photos of himself to a West Vancouver Police Domestic Violence Unit client. The WVPD requested the Commissioner initiate an investigation into this matter. Due to the nature of the conduct reported, a criminal investigation was undertaken by an external police agency. As result, the Police Act investigation was suspended until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. Investigators determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a recommendation of Criminal Code charges. The police officer, while on duty, engaged in inappropriate email communications, including sending a naked photo of himself and sexually explicit stories, to a female he met during a traffic stop.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":813,"file":"2017-13349","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Equipment","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"used his department email to send a sexually explicit photograph of himself and sexually explicit written communications to the female he met during a traffic stop","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The officer \"used his department email to send a sexually explicit photograph of himself and sexually explicit written communications\" to a woman met on a traffic stop he himer himself.","text":"The West Vancouver Police Department received information that a police officer had sent naked photos of himself to a West Vancouver Police Domestic Violence Unit client. The WVPD requested the Commissioner initiate an investigation into this matter. Due to the nature of the conduct reported, a criminal investigation was undertaken by an external police agency. As result, the Police Act investigation was suspended until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. Investigators determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a recommendation of Criminal Code charges. The police officer used his department email to send a sexually explicit photograph of himself and sexually explicit written communications to the female he met during a traffic stop.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":814,"file":"2017-13349","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Equipment","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"used his department email to send emails not related to his duties to the female he met during an investigation","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The West Vancouver Police Department received information that a police officer had sent naked photos of himself to a West Vancouver Police Domestic Violence Unit client. The WVPD requested the Commissioner initiate an investigation into this matter. Due to the nature of the conduct reported, a criminal investigation was undertaken by an external police agency. As result, the Police Act investigation was suspended until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. Investigators determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a recommendation of Criminal Code charges. The police officer used his department email to send emails not related to his duties to the female he met during an investigation.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":815,"file":"2017-13349","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.68,"thin":false,"quote":"used his position as a police officer to pursue a personal relationship with a female who had reported being harassed by her estranged husband","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The officer allegedly \"used his position\" to pursue a personal relationship with a domestic violence complainant, and the case context states he \"sent naked photos of himself\" to that client.","text":"The West Vancouver Police Department received information that a police officer had sent naked photos of himself to a West Vancouver Police Domestic Violence Unit client. The WVPD requested the Commissioner initiate an investigation into this matter. Due to the nature of the conduct reported, a criminal investigation was undertaken by an external police agency. As result, the Police Act investigation was suspended until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. Investigators determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a recommendation of Criminal Code charges. The police officer used his position as a police officer to pursue a personal relationship with a female who had reported being harassed by her estranged husband.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":816,"file":"2017-13349","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Equipment","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.83,"thin":false,"quote":"used his department email to send inappropriate emails and text messages to the female who had reported being harassed by her estranged husband","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The officer himself \"sent inappropriate emails and text messages\" to a female domestic violence client, within a case where he \"had sent naked photos of himself\" to that Domestic Violence Unit client.","text":"The West Vancouver Police Department received information that a police officer had sent naked photos of himself to a West Vancouver Police Domestic Violence Unit client. The WVPD requested the Commissioner initiate an investigation into this matter. Due to the nature of the conduct reported, a criminal investigation was undertaken by an external police agency. As result, the Police Act investigation was suspended until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. Investigators determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a recommendation of Criminal Code charges. The police officer used his department email to send inappropriate emails and text messages to the female who had reported being harassed by her estranged husband.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":817,"file":"2017-13349","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"while on duty, engaged in inappropriate email communications with a female he met during an impaired driving investigation","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":false,"basis":"This allegation states only \"inappropriate email communications with a female\" met during an impaired driving investigation, with no described sexual content; the naked-photo conduct in the context involved a different, unrelated complainant.","text":"The West Vancouver Police Department received information that a police officer had sent naked photos of himself to a West Vancouver Police Domestic Violence Unit client. The WVPD requested the Commissioner initiate an investigation into this matter. Due to the nature of the conduct reported, a criminal investigation was undertaken by an external police agency. As result, the Police Act investigation was suspended until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. Investigators determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a recommendation of Criminal Code charges. The police officer, while on duty, engaged in inappropriate email communications with a female he met during an impaired driving investigation.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":818,"file":"2017-13349","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Equipment","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.72,"thin":false,"quote":"used his department email to send inappropriate emails to the female he met during an impaired driving investigation","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The case context states the officer \"had sent naked photos of himself\" to a Domestic Violence Unit client, and this allegation concerns his \"inappropriate emails to the female\" he met on duty.","text":"The West Vancouver Police Department received information that a police officer had sent naked photos of himself to a West Vancouver Police Domestic Violence Unit client. The WVPD requested the Commissioner initiate an investigation into this matter. Due to the nature of the conduct reported, a criminal investigation was undertaken by an external police agency. As result, the Police Act investigation was suspended until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. Investigators determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a recommendation of Criminal Code charges. The police officer used his department email to send inappropriate emails to the female he met during an impaired driving investigation.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":819,"file":"2017-13349","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer, while on duty, engaged in inappropriate email communications with a female after investigating her complaint of being followed.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The file concerns the officer sending \"naked photos of himself\" to a client, and this allegation—\"inappropriate email communications with a female\" he met while investigating her complaint—plainly implies sexualized conduct by him.","text":"The West Vancouver Police Department received information that a police officer had sent naked photos of himself to a West Vancouver Police Domestic Violence Unit client. The WVPD requested the Commissioner initiate an investigation into this matter. Due to the nature of the conduct reported, a criminal investigation was undertaken by an external police agency. As result, the Police Act investigation was suspended until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. Investigators determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a recommendation of Criminal Code charges. The police officer, while on duty, engaged in inappropriate email communications with a female after investigating her complaint of being followed.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":820,"file":"2017-13349","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Equipment","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.94,"thin":false,"quote":"used his department cell phone to send inappropriate text messages of a sexual nature to the female who had reported being followed","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The officer \"used his department cell phone to send inappropriate text messages of a sexual nature\" to a female complainant, constituting sexualized harassment by the officer himself.","text":"The West Vancouver Police Department received information that a police officer had sent naked photos of himself to a West Vancouver Police Domestic Violence Unit client. The WVPD requested the Commissioner initiate an investigation into this matter. Due to the nature of the conduct reported, a criminal investigation was undertaken by an external police agency. As result, the Police Act investigation was suspended until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. Investigators determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a recommendation of Criminal Code charges. The police officer used his department cell phone to send inappropriate text messages of a sexual nature to the female who had reported being followed.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":821,"file":"2017-13349","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.88,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer used his position as a police officer to pursue a personal relationship with a female after issuing her a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition for failing to provide a breath sample.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":false,"basis":"This allegation describes abuse of authority and deceit \\a a woman about \"advocating on her behalf to the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles\" to \"pursue a personal relationship\"; no sexual or violent conduct is described.","text":"The West Vancouver Police Department received information that a police officer had sent naked photos of himself to a West Vancouver Police Domestic Violence Unit client. The WVPD requested the Commissioner initiate an investigation into this matter. Due to the nature of the conduct reported, a criminal investigation was undertaken by an external police agency. As result, the Police Act investigation was suspended until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. Investigators determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a recommendation of Criminal Code charges. The police officer used his position as a police officer to pursue a personal relationship with a female after issuing her a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition for failing to provide a breath sample. It was alleged that he caused her to believe he was advocating on her behalf to the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles to have her prohibition overturned.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":822,"file":"2017-13349","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Equipment","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.55,"thin":false,"quote":"used his department email to send inappropriate emails to the female he met after issuing her with a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The officer himself \"used his department email to send inappropriate emails\" to a woman he met on duty, within a case about him sending \"naked photos of himself\" to a Domestic Violence Unit client.","text":"The West Vancouver Police Department received information that a police officer had sent naked photos of himself to a West Vancouver Police Domestic Violence Unit client. The WVPD requested the Commissioner initiate an investigation into this matter. Due to the nature of the conduct reported, a criminal investigation was undertaken by an external police agency. As result, the Police Act investigation was suspended until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. Investigators determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a recommendation of Criminal Code charges. The police officer used his department email to send inappropriate emails to the female he met after issuing her with a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":823,"file":"2017-13349","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Equipment","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer used his department email to receive naked photos of himself that he sent from his personal email.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The text concerns the officer's own naked photos sent in connection with nudes he sent to a \"Domestic Violence Unit client,\" plainly implicating his own sexualized image-based conduct toward a vulnerable client.","text":"The West Vancouver Police Department received information that a police officer had sent naked photos of himself to a West Vancouver Police Domestic Violence Unit client. The WVPD requested the Commissioner initiate an investigation into this matter. Due to the nature of the conduct reported, a criminal investigation was undertaken by an external police agency. As result, the Police Act investigation was suspended until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. Investigators determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a recommendation of Criminal Code charges. The police officer used his department email to receive naked photos of himself that he sent from his personal email.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":824,"file":"2017-13349","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.93,"thin":false,"quote":"used his position as a police officer to pursue a personal relationship with a female after issuing her with, and then cancelling, a violation ticket","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":false,"basis":"This allegation describes only using his position to \"pursue a personal relationship with a female\" after cancelling a violation ticket — an abuse-of-authority claim with no stated sexual or violent conduct.","text":"The West Vancouver Police Department received information that a police officer had sent naked photos of himself to a West Vancouver Police Domestic Violence Unit client. The WVPD requested the Commissioner initiate an investigation into this matter. Due to the nature of the conduct reported, a criminal investigation was undertaken by an external police agency. As result, the Police Act investigation was suspended until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. Investigators determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a recommendation of Criminal Code charges. The police officer used his position as a police officer to pursue a personal relationship with a female after issuing her with, and then cancelling, a violation ticket.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":825,"file":"2017-13349","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Equipment","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.55,"thin":false,"quote":"used his department email to send inappropriate emails to the female to whom he had issued a violation ticket before cancelling it: Vancouver Police Department Allegation 23 of 25 in this file — reformatted below ass:body>{","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":false,"basis":"This allegation states only that he used department email to send \"inappropriate emails\" to a ticketed female; no sexual content, touching, or harassment is described, making it too sparse to establish sexualized conduct.","text":"The West Vancouver Police Department received information that a police officer had sent naked photos of himself to a West Vancouver Police Domestic Violence Unit client. The WVPD requested the Commissioner initiate an investigation into this matter. Due to the nature of the conduct reported, a criminal investigation was undertaken by an external police agency. As result, the Police Act investigation was suspended until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. Investigators determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a recommendation of Criminal Code charges. The police officer used his department email to send inappropriate emails to the female to whom he had issued a violation ticket before cancelling it.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":826,"file":"2017-13349","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer provided a female with guidance on what to write in her request to the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The West Vancouver Police Department received information that a police officer had sent naked photos of himself to a West Vancouver Police Domestic Violence Unit client. The WVPD requested the Commissioner initiate an investigation into this matter. Due to the nature of the conduct reported, a criminal investigation was undertaken by an external police agency. As result, the Police Act investigation was suspended until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. Investigators determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a recommendation of Criminal Code charges. The police officer provided a female with guidance on what to write in her request to the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":827,"file":"2017-13349","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.96,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer queried a female he was interested in using police databases (CPIC and PRIME).","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The West Vancouver Police Department received information that a police officer had sent naked photos of himself to a West Vancouver Police Domestic Violence Unit client. The WVPD requested the Commissioner initiate an investigation into this matter. Due to the nature of the conduct reported, a criminal investigation was undertaken by an external police agency. As result, the Police Act investigation was suspended until the conclusion of the criminal investigation. Investigators determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a recommendation of Criminal Code charges. The police officer queried a female he was interested in using police databases (CPIC and PRIME). An investigation was conducted into this matter and the Discipline Authority determined that the member committed misconduct. This matter was directed to a discipline proceeding. Following the discipline proceeding, after considering the aggravating and mitigating factors in relation to this matter, the Discipline Authority proposed the following disciplinary or corrective measures. Eleven (11) allegations of Discreditable Conduct (collectively) - dismissal. Fourteen allegations of Unauthorized Use of Police Facilities / Resources (each) - five-day suspension to be served consecutively. The OPCC noted that the police officer resigned prior to the conclusion of the Police Act investigation; he did not participate in any disciplinary process aside from a written submission to the Discipline Authority. The Discipline Authority advised in his decision that eleven of the Discreditable Conduct allegations were associated to women that he met while on duty. Ten were associated to calls for service that the police officer had attended. Of particular note, four involved domestic violence issues, two of which were considered high risk. Three of the remaining five women included women who were associated to individuals known to be involved with organized crime groups and illegal drug trafficking. The Discipline Authority determined that collectively, the police officer’s behaviour was the antithesis of what the police community and public would expect from a police officer. The vulnerability of the females who were the subject of the police officer’s attentions, particularly when considering our current understanding of sexism, power and culture was significantly aggravating. 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. The member was ultimately dismissed from policing.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":828,"file":"2014-9512","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Improper Off-Duty Conduct","sublabel":"Asserting/Purporting Police Authority and Committing a Default","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"the off duty police officer used force on the complainant","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On March 23, 2014, a police officer was off duty when he became involved in an incident occurring between two on duty police officers and the complainant. The on duty police officers did not require the off duty police officer’s assistance and the off duty police officer used force on the complainant.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":829,"file":"2014-9512","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"claimed that he was not intoxicated on the evening in question in more than one statement or interview with the Professional Standards Investigator","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"During the Police Act investigation, the police officer claimed that he was not intoxicated on the evening in question in more than one statement or interview with the Professional Standards Investigator.","measures":["reduction in rank","counselling","program activity"]},{"id":830,"file":"2014-9512","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Contravening a Provision of the Act, Regulation, Rule or Guideline","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.68,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer failed to attend Police Act investigation interviews as directed.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer failed to attend Police Act investigation interviews as directed. This matter proceeded to a disciplinary proceeding. The Discipline Authority found that the Improper Off Duty Conduct of the police officer was at the “more serious” end of the scale as it involved an “inappropriate interaction” between a police officer and a member of the public while the police officer was off-duty and had consumed alcohol. In relation to the substantiation of Deceit the Discipline Authority acknowledged the police officer’s submission that following multiple surgical procedures the police officer had become addicted to prescribed medications. The Discipline Authority accepted the reason for the medication use, not as a means of excusing the conduct, but in order to “better understand it.” 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. In relation to the Discreditable Conduct finding, this had several aspects. The police officer cooperated with two initial interviews and when a third interview was requested he received advice and guidance that he was not obligated to attend that interview. As a result of this file, the expectation of police officers to attend interviews became the subject of a Judicial Review wherein Madam Justice MacNaughton of the BC Supreme Court was clear in her decision that the police officer was statutorily obligated to attend for the additional interview, and as such he had not complied. The Discipline Authority subsequently determined that the fact that the police officer breached his duty based upon “erroneous legal advice” was not a defense. 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.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":831,"file":"2018-14861","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"was, at the very least, reckless as to whether the complainant consented to the sexual act","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"Text alleges the member engaged in \"unwanted sexual activity\" with an intoxicated complainant, and the Adjudicator found he was \"reckless as to whether the complainant consented to the sexual act.\"","text":"Upon request from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a member for an off-duty incident involving a sexual act which was reported to have been nonconsensual and was alleged to have taken place in the City of Vancouver. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and additionally designated an external Discipline Authority. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation. The matter was referred to the BC Prosecution Service; charges were not approved. The affected person in this matter filed a complaint and was added to the record and recognized as a complainant to the investigation. Unwanted sexual activity where the complainant was intoxicated and lack the capacity to consent. The Discipline Authority determined the member did not commit misconduct. Upon review of the matter, the Commissioner determined there was a reasonable basis to disagree with the Discipline Authority and Retired Provincial Court Judge James Threlfall was appointed to conduct a review of this decision. Mr. Threlfall ultimately determined that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that a sexual assault had taken place and therefore found “in the absence of a finding of sexual assault the member’s actions are not sufficient to establish the allegation of misconduct as alleged.” The complainant in this case requested a Public Hearing pursuant to section 136(1) of the Police Act. 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. The Commissioner appointed the Honourable Mr. Wally Oppal, K.C., retired British Columbia Court of Appeal Judge, to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. Adjudicator Oppal issued his decision where he determined that the member “was, at the very least, reckless as to whether the complainant consented to the sexual act” and that it must have been “apparent to him, as an experienced officer, that she was clearly vulnerable.” Adjudicator Oppal found that the member did not have an honest but mistaken belief that the complainant consented to the sexual contact and noted that “an honest belief in consent cannot be based on a guess or assumption.” For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/public-hearings/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":832,"file":"2020-18123","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Provide Assistance (General)","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"the member’s attitude towards the incident appeared to raise the conduct over the threshold of objective discourtesy","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns regarding the manner in which a member of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) delivered a next-of-kin (NOK) notification to notify the complainant of the death of the complainant’s son The NOK notification was alleged to lack courtesy, professionalism, and compassion. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The member failed to adhere to police standards requiring compassion as an element of the next-of-kin notification. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member did not commit misconduct. The Commissioner disagreed as he was of the view that the Discipline Authority did not properly consider all the available evidence, particularly that of the complainant. Upon review of the matter, the Commissioner determined that there was a reasonable basis to believe that the decision of the Discipline Authority was incorrect and appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge Carol Baird Ellan, K.C., to review the matter and arrive at her own decision based on the evidence. Ms. Baird Ellan determined that the evidence appeared sufficient to find that the manner in which the member delivered the death notification did not meet professional standards. In addition, Ms. Baird Ellan found that the evidence appeared to substantiate that the member neglected or declined, without good and sufficient cause, to perform their duty in relation to the NOK notification; and that the member’s attitude towards the incident appeared to raise the conduct over the threshold of objective discourtesy. Accordingly, Ms. Baird Ellan determined that the allegations of misconduct appeared to be substantiated. Disciplinary Process A prehearing conference was offered to the member; the member declined the offer and as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding with retired judge Ms. Baird Ellan as the Discipline Authority. Because the complainant’s allegations pertained to a single transaction, Ms. Baird Ellan considered it fair and appropriate to characterize the misconduct as one allegation of Neglect of Duty. Ms. Baird Ellan found the member failed, without good and sufficient cause, to fulfill a departmental standard of compassion when performing an NOK notification. The misconduct of Neglect of Duty was therefore proven on the evidence. When arriving at disciplinary or corrective measures, Ms. Baird Ellan noted the member had taken courses addressing the issues that arose, but had not made an early acceptance of responsibility. Ms. Baird Ellan found it appropriate to order measures that would underscore the need for diligence in relation to the member’s duties to vulnerable members of the public. The member requested a Public Hearing, or in the alternative, a Review on the Record, pursuant to section 138 of the Police Act. The Commissioner reviewed the request and the disciplinary decision and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. For further information on this decision, go to: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["training","close supervision","transfer reassignment","program activity"]},{"id":833,"file":"2016-11687","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"an odour of alcohol was detected from the off duty member and as a result, he/she was read the Approved Screening Device Demand","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On March 13, 2016, while off duty, a police officer was the subject of a traffic stop for speeding. During the traffic stop, an odour of alcohol was detected from the off duty member and as a result, he/she was read the Approved Screening Device Demand. The off duty member provided two breath samples resulting in a “warn” reading. As a result, the off duty member received a motor vehicle violation ticket for speeding, a 24 hour suspension from driving pursuant to section 215 of the Motor Vehicle Act and had their vehicle impounded.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":834,"file":"2010-5922","agency":"Organized Crime Agency of BC (CFSEU)","year":2011,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Disorderly Conduct Prejudicial to the Maintenance of Discipline in the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"While off-duty, the officer was stopped for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and registered a “warn” on a roadside screening device.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"While off-duty, the officer was stopped for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and registered a “warn” on a roadside screening device.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":835,"file":"2010-5922","agency":"Organized Crime Agency of BC (CFSEU)","year":2011,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Disorderly Conduct Prejudicial to the Maintenance of Discipline in the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"indicated he was a “member” in an effort to obtain favourable treatment","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"It was also found that the officer indicated he was a “member” in an effort to obtain favourable treatment.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":836,"file":"2012-7696","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the police officer drove at an excessive speed, resulting in a loss of control of the vehicle","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"While responding to a robbery call, the police officer drove at an excessive speed, resulting in a loss of control of the vehicle. The police vehicle went off the road and struck a fence and wooden utility pole before coming to rest in a water-filled ditch. The police officer suffered minor injuries.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":837,"file":"2018-14640","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Improper Disclosure of Information","sublabel":"Disclosing Information Acquired as a Police Officer","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"a police officer improperly disclosed information by providing details about a police interaction with the complainant to another party","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On April 13, 2018, a police officer improperly disclosed information by providing details about a police interaction with the complainant to another party. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. 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. The Prehearing Conference Authority was satisfied after speaking directly with the police officer during the Prehearing Conference that he regretted his actions concerning this incident and that he took full responsibility. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":838,"file":"2011-6953","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.4,"thin":true,"quote":"The members engaged in discriminatory practices in their operational deployment for the Stanley Cup Riots.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The members engaged in discriminatory practices in their operational deployment for the Stanley Cup Riots.","measures":["counselling"]},{"id":839,"file":"2015-11300","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Entry","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"unlawfully entered his residence and conducted an unlawful search of the downstairs living room area","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The complainant reported that on November 18, 2015, a police officer unlawfully entered his residence and conducted an unlawful search of the downstairs living room area. Pursuant to section 142(2) of the Police Act , the Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Brian Neal, Q.C., retired British Columbia Provincial Court Judge, to preside as the Adjudicator in these proceedings. Adjudicator Neal, found that the police officer had committed both allegations of Abuse of Authority, and that the misconduct was of a serious nature. It was serious due to the casual and impulsive actions of the police officer in entering a private residence. It was also serious because the police officer clearly misapprehended his authority as an officer to arrest and handcuff the homeowner in question. According to Adjudicator Neal, the officer appeared to be unclear in terms of their understanding of a police officer’s right to enter private homes, and powers to arrest and detain individuals. With that in mind, the Adjudicator determined that appropriate education or re-training in those areas appeared warranted. Given the foregoing, Adjudicator Neal determined that the police officer would be suspended without pay for two scheduled working days concurrent on both substantiated allegations. With respect to corrective measures, Adjudicator Neal determined that three orders were required: an order that the police officer work under close supervision for a term of one year; Re-training of the police officer with respect to an officer’s duties with respect to sections 8 and 9 of the Charter or Rights and Freedoms, and the law relating to search and seizure, entry into a private residence, and the circumstances when a warrant is required to enter a home; and a written apology to the complainant to be made within 30 days. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/public-hearings/","measures":["suspension","training","close supervision","program activity"]},{"id":840,"file":"2015-11300","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Detention","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"he was unlawfully detained and placed in handcuffs","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The complainant also reported that on November 18, 2015, he was unlawfully detained and placed in handcuffs. After an investigation, the Discipline Authority determined that both allegations of Abuse of Authority had been proven and directed the police officer to attend a discipline proceeding. Following the discipline proceeding, and after considering all of the available evidence and submissions, the Discipline Authority determined that neither allegation of Abuse of Authority had been proven. The complainant was aggrieved by the disposition and made a written request for a Public Hearing to the Police Complaint Commissioner. 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 Public Hearing was required as he considered that there was a reasonable basis to believe that the Discipline Authority’s findings under section 125(1) were incorrect and that a Public Hearing was necessary in the public interest. Pursuant to section 142(2) of the Police Act , the Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Brian Neal, Q.C., retired British Columbia Provincial Court Judge, to preside as the Adjudicator in these proceedings. Adjudicator Neal, found that the police officer had committed both allegations of Abuse of Authority, and that the misconduct was of a serious nature. It was serious due to the casual and impulsive actions of the police officer in entering a private residence. It was also serious because the police officer clearly misapprehended his authority as an officer to arrest and handcuff the homeowner in question. According to Adjudicator Neal, the officer appeared to be unclear in terms of their understanding of a police officer’s right to enter private homes, and powers to arrest and detain individuals. With that in mind, the Adjudicator determined that appropriate education or re-training in those areas appeared warranted. Given the foregoing, Adjudicator Neal determined that the police officer would be suspended without pay for two scheduled working days concurrent on both substantiated allegations. With respect to corrective measures, Adjudicator Neal determined that three orders were required: an order that the police officer work under close supervision for a term of one year; Re-training of the police officer with respect to an officer’s duties with respect to sections 8 and 9 of the Charter or Rights and Freedoms, and the law relating to search and seizure, entry into a private residence, and the circumstances when a warrant is required to enter a home; and a written apology to the complainant to be made within 30 days. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/public-hearings/","measures":["suspension","training","close supervision","program activity"]},{"id":841,"file":"2017-14119","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.55,"thin":false,"quote":"changed their name in the department’s master name index contrary to policy","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On November 15, 2017, a Special Municipal Constable (SMC) changed their name in the department’s master name index contrary to policy.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":842,"file":"2017-14119","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"Altering/Erasing/Adding to Official Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"changed her date of birth in the department’s master name index to an incorrect date","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On November 15, 2017, the SMC changed her date of birth in the department’s master name index to an incorrect date. The internal discipline authority viewed both misconducts to be of a serious nature. The SMC advised that they had changed their name in the master name index as it was no longer accurate. The date of birth was changed as the SMC disagreed that this information should form part of that record. The SMC admitted that their conduct was inappropriate. The seriousness of this misconduct is significant as it ultimately falsifies an official record in a police database that is used by police agencies on a provincial level. Therefore, the internal discipline authority believed this action warranted discipline that went beyond mere corrective measures. The OPCC reviewed the investigation and the Internal Discipline Authority’s decision. The OPCC determined there were no public trust concerns that required investigation.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":843,"file":"2023-23334","agency":"Surrey Police Service","year":2024,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to properly secure, process, document, and account for a piece of evidence related to a criminal investigation involving intimate partner violence","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Surrey Police Service (SPS), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of an SPS member who, while formerly employed by the New Westminster Police Department (NWPD), failed to properly secure, process, document, and account for a piece of evidence related to a criminal investigation involving intimate partner violence. Upon request from the SPS, the Commissioner directed the New Westminster Police Department to conduct the investigation. The member failed to comply with departmental policies related to investigative documentation and the processing and securing of evidence. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member’s conduct could have adversely impacted a criminal justice process. The Prehearing Conference Authority further noted that while the member had acknowledged their mistake and accepted responsibility, they ought to have fully understood their duties and departmental policies as an experienced officer. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":844,"file":"2021-19830","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Negligent Discharge","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"The member failed to ensure their issued firearm was properly unloaded and negligently discharged a bullet when the member was inside the VPD change room, causing minor property damage.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department, the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a member for negligently discharging their firearm in the men’s locker room and for failing to use a designated loading/unloading station. It was determined that the member was dry firing the issued duty pistol, pulling the trigger of the firearm believing it did not contain any ammunition when one round was discharged from it. The actions caused minor property damage and no person was injured. The member failed to ensure their issued firearm was properly unloaded and negligently discharged a bullet when the member was inside the VPD change room, causing minor property damage.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":845,"file":"2021-19830","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to use a designated loading/unloading station that was available in the locker room as mandated by VPD policy","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department, the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a member for negligently discharging their firearm in the men’s locker room and for failing to use a designated loading/unloading station. It was determined that the member was dry firing the issued duty pistol, pulling the trigger of the firearm believing it did not contain any ammunition when one round was discharged from it. The actions caused minor property damage and no person was injured. The member failed to use a designated loading/unloading station that was available in the locker room as mandated by VPD policy. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":846,"file":"2018-14833","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Detention","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"Ms. Lazar determined that the continued detention of the complainant after she had been cleared of any involvement in the earlier fight did not meet this test.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A complainant reported that police stopped her without reason and that she was assaulted when she tried to walk away from police as they did not inform her of the grounds for being stopped. She advised that she was placed in handcuffs and one officer twisted her arm behind her back while another ran her name in a police database. The complainant further reported that one of the officers refused to provide her with his badge number. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. Disciplinary Process Following an investigation, the Discipline Authority concluded that the evidence did not appear to substantiate any allegations of misconduct. Upon review of the investigation and Discipline Authority’s decision, the OPCC determined that there was a reasonable basis to disagree with the Discipline Authority. As a result, Retired Provincial Court Judge, Carole Lazar was appointed to review this matter and arrive at her own decision. Upon review of the evidence, Ms. Lazar determined that police appeared to have committed misconduct during their interaction with the complainant. Ms. Lazar noted the Supreme Court of Canada decision of R. v. Mann, [2004] 3 S.C.R., 2004 SCC 52, which had made it clear that for an investigative detention to be lawful it requires police to have reasonable grounds to suspect in all the circumstances that the individual is connected to a particular crime. Ms. Lazar determined that the continued detention of the complainant after she had been cleared of any involvement in the earlier fight did not meet this test. In addition, Ms. Lazar noted that there are no limitations that are prescribed by law on the immediacy of providing section 10 Charter rights. In this case, the concerns for public safety were addressed once the complainant had been handcuffed and controlled. The officer had a duty to advise the complainant of her Section 10(b) Charter rights at this point. The respondent member failed to provide these rights and therefore, Ms. Lazar substantiated an allegation of Neglect of Duty. Continued detention of the complainant without lawful authority after being advised that the complainant was no longer a suspect in an assault investigation.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":847,"file":"2018-14833","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Provide Charter Rights","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The respondent member failed to provide these rights and therefore, Ms. Lazar substantiated an allegation of Neglect of Duty.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A complainant reported that police stopped her without reason and that she was assaulted when she tried to walk away from police as they did not inform her of the grounds for being stopped. She advised that she was placed in handcuffs and one officer twisted her arm behind her back while another ran her name in a police database. The complainant further reported that one of the officers refused to provide her with his badge number. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. Disciplinary Process Following an investigation, the Discipline Authority concluded that the evidence did not appear to substantiate any allegations of misconduct. Upon review of the investigation and Discipline Authority’s decision, the OPCC determined that there was a reasonable basis to disagree with the Discipline Authority. As a result, Retired Provincial Court Judge, Carole Lazar was appointed to review this matter and arrive at her own decision. Upon review of the evidence, Ms. Lazar determined that police appeared to have committed misconduct during their interaction with the complainant. Ms. Lazar noted the Supreme Court of Canada decision of R. v. Mann, [2004] 3 S.C.R., 2004 SCC 52, which had made it clear that for an investigative detention to be lawful it requires police to have reasonable grounds to suspect in all the circumstances that the individual is connected to a particular crime. Ms. Lazar determined that the continued detention of the complainant after she had been cleared of any involvement in the earlier fight did not meet this test. In addition, Ms. Lazar noted that there are no limitations that are prescribed by law on the immediacy of providing section 10 Charter rights. In this case, the concerns for public safety were addressed once the complainant had been handcuffed and controlled. The officer had a duty to advise the complainant of her Section 10(b) Charter rights at this point. The respondent member failed to provide these rights and therefore, Ms. Lazar substantiated an allegation of Neglect of Duty. Failing to provide the complainant with rights under Section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A prehearing conference was offered to the respondent member with respect to these two allegations where the proposed discipline was agreed to. The OPCC reviewed and approved the discipline in circumstances of this case.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":848,"file":"2014-9631","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Damage to Police Property","sublabel":"Misusing/Losing/Damaging Police Property","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"significant damage was caused to the police vehicle","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A male suspect grabbed two bottles of spirits from a liquor store and ran out without paying. A police officer observed the male running from the area of the store. The officer determined that the male running with the two bottles of spirits had just committed a criminal offence and pursued the suspect by driving his police vehicle down a set of stairs at the front doors of a hotel and eventually took the suspect into custody. In driving his police vehicle down the set of stairs, significant damage was caused to the police vehicle.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":849,"file":"2014-9631","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Damage to Property of Others","sublabel":"Damages Property Belonging to Member of the Public","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"significant damage was caused to the cement stairs of the hotel","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A male suspect grabbed two bottles of spirits from a liquor store and ran out without paying. A police officer observed the male running from the area of the store. The officer determined that the male running with the two bottles of spirits had just committed a criminal offence and pursued the suspect by driving his police vehicle down a set of stairs at the front doors of a hotel and eventually took the suspect into custody. In driving his police vehicle down the set of stairs, significant damage was caused to the cement stairs of the hotel.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":850,"file":"2013-9151","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the police officer was the subject of a traffic stop wherein he registered a “warn” on two separate ASD devices. As a result, the officer was issued a 3-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"While off duty, the police officer was the subject of a traffic stop wherein he registered a “warn” on two separate ASD devices. As a result, the officer was issued a 3-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":851,"file":"2019-16741","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"used his email account to contact his former spouse in direct contravention of an order outlining a number of restrictions issued to him by a supervisor","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An internal investigation was initiated into the conduct of an Abbotsford Police Department member and his communication with a former spouse using a work email account. The OPCC determined that there were no public trust issues and that no complaint was received. That the member used his email account to contact his former spouse in direct contravention of an order outlining a number of restrictions issued to him by a supervisor in November 2016.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":852,"file":"2019-16741","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"used offensive and/or profane language in an email utilizing the department email system","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An internal investigation was initiated into the conduct of an Abbotsford Police Department member and his communication with a former spouse using a work email account. The OPCC determined that there were no public trust issues and that no complaint was received. That the member used offensive and/or profane language in an email utilizing the department email system.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":853,"file":"2022-21414","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"told their supervisor they had been awarded the medal when in fact they had not been","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VicPD member. It was reported that the member had worn several military medal ribbons on his VicPD uniform, and that the member’s supervisor was suspicious of the member’s account of how he had earned one of those medals. The Commissioner determined it was necessary in the public interest that an external Discipline Authority be designated. A senior officer at the New Westminster Police Department was designated as the Discipline Authority. The member claimed to have received a Meritorious Service Medal, wore a military ribbon on their police uniform indicating same, and told their supervisor they had been awarded the medal when in fact they had not been.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":854,"file":"2022-21414","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"The member provided Professional Standards investigators with statements indicating they had been the recipient of the Meritorious Service Medal and other medals, while knowing those statements to be false and misleading.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VicPD member. It was reported that the member had worn several military medal ribbons on his VicPD uniform, and that the member’s supervisor was suspicious of the member’s account of how he had earned one of those medals. The Commissioner determined it was necessary in the public interest that an external Discipline Authority be designated. A senior officer at the New Westminster Police Department was designated as the Discipline Authority. The member provided Professional Standards investigators with statements indicating they had been the recipient of the Meritorious Service Medal and other medals, while knowing those statements to be false and misleading.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":855,"file":"2022-21414","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"The member provided Professional Standards investigators with a forged record of their military service.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VicPD member. It was reported that the member had worn several military medal ribbons on his VicPD uniform, and that the member’s supervisor was suspicious of the member’s account of how he had earned one of those medals. The Commissioner determined it was necessary in the public interest that an external Discipline Authority be designated. A senior officer at the New Westminster Police Department was designated as the Discipline Authority. The member provided Professional Standards investigators with a forged record of their military service. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed three counts of misconduct. No prehearing conference was offered and as a result, the matter proceeded directly to a discipline proceeding. The member did not attend the proceeding, which continued in their absence. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority noted that that any course of action other than dismissal would bring the administration of police discipline into disrepute. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. During the course of the disciplinary process, the member resigned from the VicPD. Even though the member resigned prior to the conclusion of this matter, their Service Record of Discipline will reflect the discipline imposed.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":856,"file":"2018-15312","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Damage to Police Property","sublabel":"Misusing/Losing/Damaging Police Property","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"threw open a steel door with enough force that it was damaged and unable to close","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"During a work-related meeting, the member became upset during a verbal exchange with another member and left the meeting. While leaving, the member threw open a steel door with enough force that it was damaged and unable to close. The OPCC reviewed this matter and determined that there were no public trust issues and no complaint was received about this conduct. An internal investigation was initiated. By opening the stairwell door with enough force thereby damaging it and rending it unable to close.","measures":["counselling"]},{"id":857,"file":"2021-19711","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"Neglecting to follow the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act in order to proceed against a red light and travel through an intersection when it is safe to do so.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a member in relation to a motor vehicle incident. It was report that while responding to a police operation, a police officer driving an unmarked police vehicle activated their emergency lights and entered the oncoming lane to pass a vehicle stopped at an intersection. Upon entering the intersection on a red light, the police vehicle collided with a civilian vehicle that was travelling in the intersection. There were no injuries. Neglecting to follow the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act in order to proceed against a red light and travel through an intersection when it is safe to do so. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The Pre-hearing Conference Authority noted that the collision was low impact and did not result in injuries to those involved. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. The OPCC noted that the member accepted responsibility for their actions, apologized and accepted the disciplinary/corrective measures. Furthermore, the member reviewed and updated all Emergency Vehicle Operation (EVO) training materials that they created and taught during in-house EVO training lessons.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":858,"file":"2012-8046","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2013,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Account For Money/Property Received","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to document and process seized property that was in his possession","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer failed to document and process seized property that was in his possession.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":859,"file":"2012-8138","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2023,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Baton","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"The member recklessly used unnecessary force in repeatedly striking the complainant with a baton.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Police Services (SCBCTAPS), now Metro Vancouver Transit Police, the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of an SCBCTAPS member. It was reported that the member used force, including baton strikes, to arrest the affected person for failing to identify themself and present proof of valid payment. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the New Westminster Police Department to conduct the investigation and Chief Constable Dave Jones was designated to be the Discipline Authority. The affected person in this matter filed a complaint and was added to the record and recognized as a complainant to the investigation. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation. The matter was referred to the BC Prosecution Service by the New Westminster Police Department and charges were approved. The member pled guilty to Assault Causing Bodily Harm and received a suspended sentence and 12 months’ probation. The member recklessly used unnecessary force in repeatedly striking the complainant with a baton. The matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the member admitted to the allegation and the Discipline Authority imposed a five working-day suspension without pay and training on use of force techniques and policy applications. The Commissioner reviewed the outcome of the discipline proceeding and determined that a Public Hearing was necessary as the disciplinary or corrective measure proposed by the Discipline Authority was not commensurate with the seriousness of the member’s conduct or the injury caused to the complainant. The Commissioner appointed retired BC Supreme Court Judge, the Honourable Ronald McKinnon, to preside as the Adjudicator in these proceedings. The Public Hearing commenced in February of 2018 and during the proceedings the member applied to the court to challenge the validity of the hearing. Following a decision by the BC Court of the Appeal in 2020, the Public Hearing resumed. Mr. McKinnon found that the member’s use of unnecessary force against the complainant was serious and the complainant did not conduct himself in manner that justified the member striking the complainant multiple times in the upper body area with the baton, resulting in significant injures to the complainant. Mr. McKinnon noted the member’s relatively junior status at the time, that the incident was brief and dynamic, and that the member accepted responsibility throughout the criminal and disciplinary proceedings and expressed remorse. In arriving at a disciplinary or corrective measure of a two-day suspension, Mr. McKinnon said a much longer suspension would have been proposed, but for the serious delays in the process. Mr. McKinnon further noted the member took additional training and worked under close supervision when returning to operational duties in 2019. For further information on this decision, go to: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/public-hearings/ For the BC Court of Appeal decision, go to: https://opcc.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2020-07-30-BC-Court-of-Appeal-Decision-Diaz-Rodriguez-v-OPCC.pdf","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":860,"file":"2012-7212","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Equipment","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"operated a police vehicle for personal reasons while off duty, in contravention of both IHIT and departmental policies","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member operated a police vehicle for personal reasons while off duty, in contravention of both IHIT and departmental policies.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":861,"file":"2020-18455","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Sexualized Harassment/Touching/Comments","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"During an off duty social gathering, the member inappropriately touched a female work colleague.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The member \"inappropriately touched a female work colleague\" at a work Christmas party, plainly implying sexualized touching by the officer himself.","text":"An internal investigation was initiated into the conduct of a Saanich Police Department member for Discreditable Conduct. In mid-December, 2019, the member attended a work sanctioned Christmas party. During the evening the member inappropriately touched a female work colleague. During an off duty social gathering, the member inappropriately touched a female work colleague.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":862,"file":"2018-14764","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"neglected to maintain visual continuity of a driver during the observation period of an impaired driving investigation","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On October 13, 2016, a police officer neglected to maintain visual continuity of a driver during the observation period of an impaired driving investigation.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":863,"file":"2018-14764","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"failure to properly prepare for court, including a review of the CCTV video of the observation room area/corridor on October 13, 2016, contributed to his lapse of memory","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer’s failure to properly prepare for court, including a review of the CCTV video of the observation room area/corridor on October 13, 2016, contributed to his lapse of memory which consequently had a negative impact on the accuracy of his court testimony. As a result, a Provincial Court Judge found that his evidence was not reliable and acquitted the accused. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. 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. The Prehearing Conference Authority considered that approximately two years had passed from the time the police officer investigated the matter to when he testified in court. This time frame would likely diminish one’s memory of an event without proper preparation and review of necessary materials/documents. The police officer took full responsibility and demonstrated a desire to improve his court preparation practice. Given the totality of the circumstances the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["training"]},{"id":864,"file":"2014-9930","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"soliciting loans from private individuals","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On May 29, 2014, the department served a police officer with a Letter of Expectations as a result of the officer soliciting loans from private individuals.","measures":["transfer reassignment"]},{"id":865,"file":"2014-9930","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Follow Supervisor's Lawful Order - Written","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.68,"thin":false,"quote":"the officer had recently contacted him asking for money. The officer failed to comply with the department’s Letter of Expectations.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On August 20, 2014, a member of the public contacted the department and reported that the officer had recently contacted him asking for money. The officer failed to comply with the department’s Letter of Expectations.","measures":["transfer reassignment"]},{"id":866,"file":"2014-9930","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"the officer pled guilty to one count of forgery for which the officer received an absolute discharge. The officer was the subject of a criminal investigation, the result of which the officer pled guilty to one count of forgery for which the officer received an absolute discharge.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer was the subject of a criminal investigation, the result of which the officer pled guilty to one count of forgery for which the officer received an absolute discharge. The officer resigned from the department prior to a prehearing conference being held. An agent for the former officer attended the prehearing conference and entered submissions wherein the former officer admitted the misconduct. 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. 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.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":867,"file":"2018-15431","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"Failing to conduct an adequate investigation by not contacting and taking a statement from an independent witness.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A complainant reported that he was lured to a location in Delta, BC, and was subsequently attacked by several men. The complainant phoned police for assistance. The complainant reported that the officer did not adequately investigate his complaint of assault and robbery. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation was required into the incident. Failing to conduct an adequate investigation by not contacting and taking a statement from an independent witness. The respondent member was offered a pre-hearing conference during which the member accepted responsibility for their actions. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the pre-hearing conference.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":868,"file":"2018-15651","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2019,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Unsafe Storage of Firearm","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The respondent member placed the pistol in a bedside table without locking it contrary to departmental policy.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"While off-duty, a Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP) member visited another off-duty member of the MVTP and a member of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) in a hotel room in Vancouver. The respondent member was doing private security detail work and had his department issued service pistol with him. The member placed the pistol in a bedside table without locking it contrary to departmental policy. At approximately 1900 hours, the three members went out to dinner leaving the pistol in the hotel room. A hotel room attendant entered the room to service it; found the gun and called hotel security. Hotel security took possession of the pistol, secured it, and called the Vancouver Police. While VPD members were on scene to investigate, the respondent member returned to retrieve his issued pistol. A criminal investigation was conducted by the Vancouver Police which did not result in any criminal charges. The member ultimately resigned from the MVTP. Leaving an unsecured departmentally issued handgun in a hotel room while off-duty.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":869,"file":"2018-15651","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"Being in possession of his police issued pistol while off-duty, without departmental permission or knowledge.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"While off-duty, a Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP) member visited another off-duty member of the MVTP and a member of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) in a hotel room in Vancouver. The respondent member was doing private security detail work and had his department issued service pistol with him. The member placed the pistol in a bedside table without locking it contrary to departmental policy. At approximately 1900 hours, the three members went out to dinner leaving the pistol in the hotel room. A hotel room attendant entered the room to service it; found the gun and called hotel security. Hotel security took possession of the pistol, secured it, and called the Vancouver Police. While VPD members were on scene to investigate, the respondent member returned to retrieve his issued pistol. A criminal investigation was conducted by the Vancouver Police which did not result in any criminal charges. The member ultimately resigned from the MVTP. Being in possession of his police issued pistol while off-duty, without departmental permission or knowledge. This matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. At the conclusion of the discipline proceeding, the Discipline Authority found four allegations of misconduct had been proven. Even though the member resigned prior to the conclusion of this matter, his service record of discipline will reflect that he was dismissed from the Metro Vancouver Transit Police. (Also See #2019-15758).","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":870,"file":"2019-16788","agency":"Port Moody Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member provided a written statement to the RCMP which included a printout of a license plate query that the member obtained and information on the registered owner of the person he believed posted to the Facebook group.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Port Moody Police Department (PMPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation the conduct of a PMPD member relating to police database queries that were completed. According to the PMPD, the member attended the front counter of a RCMP detachment to complain about a message posted on a Facebook group page relating to an incident involving a family member. The member provided a written statement to the RCMP which included a printout of a license plate query that the member obtained and information on the registered owner of the person he believed posted to the Facebook group. This information was brought to the attention of PMPD as there were concerns that the member possibly misused a police database. Unauthorized use of CPIC for a personal matter.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":871,"file":"2019-16788","agency":"Port Moody Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Disorderly Conduct Prejudicial to the Maintenance of Discipline in the Department","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"the member attended the front counter of a RCMP detachment to complain about a message posted on a Facebook group page relating to an incident involving a family member. The member provided a written statement to the RCMP which included a printout of a license plate query","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Port Moody Police Department (PMPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation the conduct of a PMPD member relating to police database queries that were completed. According to the PMPD, the member attended the front counter of a RCMP detachment to complain about a message posted on a Facebook group page relating to an incident involving a family member. The member provided a written statement to the RCMP which included a printout of a license plate query that the member obtained and information on the registered owner of the person he believed posted to the Facebook group. This information was brought to the attention of PMPD as there were concerns that the member possibly misused a police database. Failing to separate private interests and official duties which was contrary to PMPD policy and resulted in an outside police agency reporting these concerns to the PMPD. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. Upon review of the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures, the OPCC did not approve the proposed measures and the matter proceeded to a Discipline Proceeding. At this proceeding, the Discipline Authority noted that the member accepted responsibility for his actions and identified a number of mitigating factors, including the rationale for the member conducting this query. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required in the public interest.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":872,"file":"2018-14353","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"Leaving the complainant and her mother unattended in the lobby of the Vancouver Police building, and not taking appropriate steps to remove them or provide assistance to other members who engaged the complainant and her mother to remove them.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A complainant reported to police that her backpack, which included house keys and personal address, was stolen. As a result, the complainant and her mother attended the Vancouver Police station on Cambie Street at approximately 10:00pm. As the front desk was closed, a Vancouver police officer (Member A) afforded them access to the building. The complainant and her mother did not wish to leave the police lobby until they felt it was safe to return home. After some time, another police officer (Member B) told the complainant and her mother that they had to leave the lobby of the police station. As the complainant refused to leave, Member B took her by the arm in an attempt to escort her from the building. The complainant fell to the ground and Member B was reported to have dragged her toward the door. The complainant and her mother remained in the building until after it opened to the public. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an external investigation into the incident was required. Discipline Authority Decision Following the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the evidence appeared to substantiate an allegation of Neglect of Duty by Member A. The Discipline Authority determined that Member B did not commit misconduct as he was in the lawful execution of his duties and was bound to ultimately remove the complainant and her mother from the building. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by Member A. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures Leaving the complainant and her mother unattended in the lobby of the Vancouver Police building, and not taking appropriate steps to remove them or provide assistance to other members who engaged the complainant and her mother to remove them. After reviewing the investigation and the Discipline Authority’s decision, the Commissioner determined that there was a reasonable basis to believe that the decision of the Discipline Authority, related to the allegation of Abuse of Authority by Member B, was incorrect and appointed the Honourable James Threlfall, retired BC Provincial Court Judge, to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Retired judge Threlfall issued his decision where he determined that Member B appeared to have used physical force to attempt to remove the complainant from the lobby of the Vancouver Police Headquarters without lawful authority. Accordingly, retired Judge Threlfall determined that the allegation of misconduct appeared to be substantiated. As a result, retire Judge Threlfall became the Discipline Authority and the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. Disciplinary Process Retired Judge Threlfall, as the Discipline Authority, found that Member B used some degree of force in attempting to remove the complainant from the premises and that the member did not have reasonable or probable grounds to proceed in the manner he did under the Trespass Act (or the Criminal Code ). Retired judge Threlfall concluded that the actions of the member were reckless in applying force and that any amount of force in this situation was unnecessary. Neither the complainant nor Member B requested a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":873,"file":"2018-14353","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"the member did not have reasonable or probable grounds to proceed in the manner he did under the Trespass Act (or the Criminal Code). Retired judge Threlfall concluded that the actions of the member were reckless in applying force and that any amount of force in this situation was unnecessary.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A complainant reported to police that her backpack, which included house keys and personal address, was stolen. As a result, the complainant and her mother attended the Vancouver Police station on Cambie Street at approximately 10:00pm. As the front desk was closed, a Vancouver police officer (Member A) afforded them access to the building. The complainant and her mother did not wish to leave the police lobby until they felt it was safe to return home. After some time, another police officer (Member B) told the complainant and her mother that they had to leave the lobby of the police station. As the complainant refused to leave, Member B took her by the arm in an attempt to escort her from the building. The complainant fell to the ground and Member B was reported to have dragged her toward the door. The complainant and her mother remained in the building until after it opened to the public. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an external investigation into the incident was required. Discipline Authority Decision Following the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the evidence appeared to substantiate an allegation of Neglect of Duty by Member A. The Discipline Authority determined that Member B did not commit misconduct as he was in the lawful execution of his duties and was bound to ultimately remove the complainant and her mother from the building. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by Member A. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures Intentionally or recklessly using unnecessary force on the complainant in attempting to remove her from the lobby of Vancouver Police Headquarters located at 2120 Cambie Street Vancouver. After reviewing the investigation and the Discipline Authority’s decision, the Commissioner determined that there was a reasonable basis to believe that the decision of the Discipline Authority, related to the allegation of Abuse of Authority by Member B, was incorrect and appointed the Honourable James Threlfall, retired BC Provincial Court Judge, to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Retired judge Threlfall issued his decision where he determined that Member B appeared to have used physical force to attempt to remove the complainant from the lobby of the Vancouver Police Headquarters without lawful authority. Accordingly, retired Judge Threlfall determined that the allegation of misconduct appeared to be substantiated. As a result, retire Judge Threlfall became the Discipline Authority and the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. Disciplinary Process Retired Judge Threlfall, as the Discipline Authority, found that Member B used some degree of force in attempting to remove the complainant from the premises and that the member did not have reasonable or probable grounds to proceed in the manner he did under the Trespass Act (or the Criminal Code ). Retired judge Threlfall concluded that the actions of the member were reckless in applying force and that any amount of force in this situation was unnecessary. Neither the complainant nor Member B requested a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/.","measures":["training"]},{"id":874,"file":"2014-9491","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"An off-duty officer was arrested in relation to a domestic dispute... the officer’s behaviour towards the investigating officers fell well short of both organizational expectations and those of the public.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An off-duty officer was arrested in relation to a domestic dispute. Although the officer’s wife later recanted her version of events, the discipline authority found that the officer’s behaviour towards the investigating officers fell well short of both organizational expectations and those of the public.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":875,"file":"2018-14380","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to appropriately document his use of force as required by policy, specifically that he delivered two knee strikes to the complainant during his arrest","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On October 20, 2017, a police officer failed to appropriately document his use of force as required by policy, specifically that he delivered two knee strikes to the complainant during his arrest. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. 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. The Prehearing Conference Authority determined that the police officer did not attempt to conceal his use of force on the complainant. The police officer advised that it was a very busy night and he simply forgot to document his use of force as required. The police officer took full responsibility and expressed remorse. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":876,"file":"2018-14547","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"The member did not take adequate steps or make adequate enquiries prior to engaging in sexual activity with a female high school student on a graduation trip to another country.ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.ant:thinking>Oops, I accidentally inserted garbage. Let me produce clean JSON.# I must output valid JSON with correct field","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The member himself engaged in sexual activity with a female high school student abroad without ascertaining her age or student status, following an arrest for alleged sexual assault.","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the off duty conduct of a member following a report that the member was arrested in another country for an alleged sexual assault of a female high school student in that country. The member was subsequently acquitted of any criminal offence. An investigation under the Police Act found that the officer committed misconduct in relation to their actions while abroad. The member did not take adequate steps or make adequate enquiries prior to engaging in sexual activity with a female high school student on a graduation trip to another country. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority (DA) found that the member’s conduct appeared to constitute Discreditable Conduct. No prehearing conference was offered to the member and as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the Discipline Authority found the allegation to be substantiated. In arriving at a decision, the DA noted that the sexual activity occurred between consenting individuals and that one of the primary concerns with the member’s conduct was that the member failed to take “any reasonable steps to determine the age and/or status of the individual, as a high school student.” In arriving a decision on penalty, the DA noted that the seriousness of the member’s action must be reflected in the measures imposed and that any measures imposed must also work to educate and correct the member’s behaviour. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed the findings and determined that further review was not in the public interest.","measures":["reduction in rank","training"]},{"id":877,"file":"2021-19193","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Absent/Late For Duty","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.62,"thin":false,"quote":"The member did not provide his supervisor(s) with the reasons for a time off request and not reporting for duty when expected as arranged.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VicPD member. The allegations concerned the member’s reason for requesting the start of their scheduled shift off as well as relieving themself from duty early against field trainer orders and without supervisor approval. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The member did not provide his supervisor(s) with the reasons for a time off request and not reporting for duty when expected as arranged.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":878,"file":"2021-19193","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Leave Duty Without Permission","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.72,"thin":false,"quote":"The member failed to complete his scheduled work shift without a supervisor’s approval.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VicPD member. The allegations concerned the member’s reason for requesting the start of their scheduled shift off as well as relieving themself from duty early against field trainer orders and without supervisor approval. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The member failed to complete his scheduled work shift without a supervisor’s approval. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority considered that the member had misinterpreted an instruction from their supervisor with respect to leaving work. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":879,"file":"2019-15818","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"Working outside employment without proper written authorization while being employed by the VPD, thus contravening departmental policy.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"During a separate Police Act investigation, the OPCC received information from the Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP) indicating that one or more Vancouver Police Department (VPD) members were engaged in secondary employment with a private security company without authorization from the department. The Commissioner initiated an investigation and directed that an external police agency conduct this investigation. Working outside employment without proper written authorization while being employed by the VPD, thus contravening departmental policy. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by two of the members. The OPCC rejected the proposed discipline and as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the same two members admitted to committing misconduct and the third member denied the conduct. The Discipline Authority found that the employment opportunity the members were engaged was in relation to providing safety and security for a private citizen. There was no indication that the members were in possession of, or utilized, any issued police department equipment, while employed in this secondary employment. The Discipline Authority considered the nature of the work to be an aggravating factor. The members did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed the findings and determined that it was not in the public interest to arrange a further review.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":880,"file":"2012-7482","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer struck the female with a closed fist to the face while she was handcuffed.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On May 10, 2012, a police officer attended a call regarding an intoxicated female and placed the female under arrest for being intoxicated in a public place. While the female was being escorted from the premises, she kicked out and struck the police officer with her foot. The police officer struck the female with a closed fist to the face while she was handcuffed.","measures":["training","advice future conduct"]},{"id":881,"file":"2012-7906","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member conducted numerous PRIME and CPIC queries unrelated to her official duties.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member conducted numerous PRIME and CPIC queries unrelated to her official duties. None of the information obtained was used or revealed to anyone in the public.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":882,"file":"2021-19619","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.72,"thin":false,"quote":"The member approached his former partner and attempted to engage her outside her residence despite her prior requests that he not have contact with her.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The member, the complainant's \"former partner,\" repeatedly made \"unwanted contact\" and approached her at her home \"despite her prior requests that he not have contact,\" plainly implying intimate-partner harassment/stalking.","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns regarding intermittent unwanted contact from a member of the Saanich Police Department (SPD) who was the complainant’s former partner. The complainant reported that the member approached her outsider her home, while in uniform and out of jurisdiction, despite prior requests not to have contact with her, and that she had advised SPD of this incident. Furthermore, the complainant wanted to ascertain by what means the member was aware of her recently updated address. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. In addition to the unwanted contact, the investigation revealed that the member had used police databases to run checks on his former partner and members of her family, and subsequently misled the Police Act investigators over the extent to which this had occurred. The member approached his former partner and attempted to engage her outside her residence despite her prior requests that he not have contact with her.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":883,"file":"2021-19619","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"The member utilized a police database to query his former partner and members of her family for purposes unrelated to the performance of duties as a member.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns regarding intermittent unwanted contact from a member of the Saanich Police Department (SPD) who was the complainant’s former partner. The complainant reported that the member approached her outsider her home, while in uniform and out of jurisdiction, despite prior requests not to have contact with her, and that she had advised SPD of this incident. Furthermore, the complainant wanted to ascertain by what means the member was aware of her recently updated address. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. In addition to the unwanted contact, the investigation revealed that the member had used police databases to run checks on his former partner and members of her family, and subsequently misled the Police Act investigators over the extent to which this had occurred. The member utilized a police database to query his former partner and members of her family for purposes unrelated to the performance of duties as a member.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":884,"file":"2021-19619","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member provided misleading and false information during their professional standards interview relating to this matter.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns regarding intermittent unwanted contact from a member of the Saanich Police Department (SPD) who was the complainant’s former partner. The complainant reported that the member approached her outsider her home, while in uniform and out of jurisdiction, despite prior requests not to have contact with her, and that she had advised SPD of this incident. Furthermore, the complainant wanted to ascertain by what means the member was aware of her recently updated address. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. In addition to the unwanted contact, the investigation revealed that the member had used police databases to run checks on his former partner and members of her family, and subsequently misled the Police Act investigators over the extent to which this had occurred. The member provided misleading and false information during their professional standards interview relating to this matter. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. No prehearing conference was offered to the member and as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The member retired prior to the discipline proceeding but provided submissions through their union agent. The Discipline Authority determined the conduct of the member to be “egregiously serious” and that his actions went beyond passive contact and would otherwise be considered in similar police investigations as harassment or stalking. The Discipline Authority noted that “overt acts of stalking in intimate partner violence investigations are considered a significant risk factor, particularly over the course of such a long period of time.” In addition to this behaviour, the member also undertook 92 unauthorized queries using a police database to provide ongoing information on the activities of his former partner and family. The Discipline Authority found that the member’s behaviour was a “marked departure from someone in a position of trust and [that] he used his position for the corrupt practice of stalking his ex-partner and her family members.” 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.” Even though the member retired prior to the conclusion of this matter, their Service Record of Discipline will reflect the dismissal from the Saanich Police Department.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":885,"file":"2013-8765","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2014,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Follow Supervisor's Lawful Order - Verbal","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"removed exhibits from the exhibit room for destruction contrary to the direction of a supervisor","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer removed exhibits from the exhibit room for destruction contrary to the direction of a supervisor.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":886,"file":"2017-14003","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"Denying consuming liquor or drugs three times following the traffic stop and associated impaired driving investigation.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a Special Municipal Constable (SMC) for impaired driving. It was reported that during a routine police records check, the VPD discovered that the SMC was the subject of a traffic stop by an RCMP officer due to his driving behaviour that they were not aware of. VPD learned that the RCMP officer initiated an impaired driving investigation during which the SMC denied consuming alcohol or drugs. During their investigation, the RCMP determined that the SMC’s driver’s license was invalid as it was cancelled in June 2016. It was further noted that the SMC had a previous 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition and an Administrative Driving Prohibition. The RCMP issued a 24-hour Driving Prohibition, an Administrative Driving Prohibition and a Notice to Seek Greater Punishment. The SMC was released on a Promise to Appear and issued a violation ticket for not driving with a valid licence and for not having vehicle insurance. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation. The matter was referred to the BC Prosecution Service; charges were approved. The SMC pled guilty to a charge of impaired driving. The SMC resigned from the VPD prior to the conclusion of the investigation. Denying consuming liquor or drugs three times following the traffic stop and associated impaired driving investigation.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":887,"file":"2017-14003","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Immediate Roadside Prohibition/Impaired Operation of a Motor Vehicle","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"Driving with an invalid license and for receiving a previous 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition in February 2013 and an Administrative Driving Prohibition from September to December 2016.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a Special Municipal Constable (SMC) for impaired driving. It was reported that during a routine police records check, the VPD discovered that the SMC was the subject of a traffic stop by an RCMP officer due to his driving behaviour that they were not aware of. VPD learned that the RCMP officer initiated an impaired driving investigation during which the SMC denied consuming alcohol or drugs. During their investigation, the RCMP determined that the SMC’s driver’s license was invalid as it was cancelled in June 2016. It was further noted that the SMC had a previous 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition and an Administrative Driving Prohibition. The RCMP issued a 24-hour Driving Prohibition, an Administrative Driving Prohibition and a Notice to Seek Greater Punishment. The SMC was released on a Promise to Appear and issued a violation ticket for not driving with a valid licence and for not having vehicle insurance. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation. The matter was referred to the BC Prosecution Service; charges were approved. The SMC pled guilty to a charge of impaired driving. The SMC resigned from the VPD prior to the conclusion of the investigation. Driving with an invalid license and for receiving a previous 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition in February 2013 and an Administrative Driving Prohibition from September to December 2016.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":888,"file":"2017-14003","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Immediate Roadside Prohibition/Impaired Operation of a Motor Vehicle","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"For driving a motor vehicle while being impaired by alcohol while off-duty.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a Special Municipal Constable (SMC) for impaired driving. It was reported that during a routine police records check, the VPD discovered that the SMC was the subject of a traffic stop by an RCMP officer due to his driving behaviour that they were not aware of. VPD learned that the RCMP officer initiated an impaired driving investigation during which the SMC denied consuming alcohol or drugs. During their investigation, the RCMP determined that the SMC’s driver’s license was invalid as it was cancelled in June 2016. It was further noted that the SMC had a previous 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition and an Administrative Driving Prohibition. The RCMP issued a 24-hour Driving Prohibition, an Administrative Driving Prohibition and a Notice to Seek Greater Punishment. The SMC was released on a Promise to Appear and issued a violation ticket for not driving with a valid licence and for not having vehicle insurance. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation. The matter was referred to the BC Prosecution Service; charges were approved. The SMC pled guilty to a charge of impaired driving. The SMC resigned from the VPD prior to the conclusion of the investigation. For driving a motor vehicle while being impaired by alcohol while off-duty. Following an investigation, this matter proceeded directly to a discipline proceeding. The member did not attend the proceedings which commenced in his absence. The Discipline Authority found that the SMC’s behaviour to be unacceptable and that there was a need to send a general message of deterrence to others on the workforce that this conduct would not be tolerated. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. Even though the member resigned prior to the conclusion of this matter, his service record of discipline will reflect the disciplinary/corrective measures imposed.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":889,"file":"2014-9669","agency":"Organized Crime Agency of BC (CFSEU)","year":2015,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Unsafe Storage of Firearm","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to properly account for his/her firearm after retirement me the that: format this JSON properly.} . Response is invated.**","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer failed to properly account for his/her firearm after retirement.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":890,"file":"2019-15812","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Immediate Roadside Prohibition/Impaired Operation of a Motor Vehicle","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"The member was then observed driving his vehicle to a nearby convenience store. The RCMP attended and issued a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) to the member and impounded his vehicle for 30 days.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a member for driving under the influence of alcohol. It was reported that the member was observed to be stumbling as he walked to his vehicle. The member was then observed driving his vehicle to a nearby convenience store. The RCMP attended and issued a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) to the member and impounded his vehicle for 30 days. Operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. Upon review, the OPCC did not approve the proposed disciplinary or corrective measures and as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. At this proceeding, the member admitted to the allegation of misconduct. In determining the appropriate discipline, the Discipline Authority found that the conduct was serious, particularly because of the role police have in deterring drinking and driving. The Discipline Authority also considered the member’s acceptance of responsibility and outcomes in similar matters. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed this matter and determined that there were insufficient grounds to arrange for a further review.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":891,"file":"2020-17628","agency":"Central Saanich Police Service","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member did not document the complaint or any of the investigative actions taken, nor did the member notify the police of jurisdiction.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request by the Central Saanich Police Service (CSPS), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a CSPS member. According to the CSPS, an individual attended the Central Saanich police station as a result of being threatened and exploited to send sexual images to an unknown person. A police officer met with the individual and advised her that he could not create a file because the incident occurred in RCMP jurisdiction; however, the member obtained an audio statement from the individual, reviewed text messages, and contacted the subject of the complaint by telephone. The member did not document the complaint or any of the investigative actions taken, nor did the member notify the police of jurisdiction. Failing to document investigative actions in a PRIME file, and not notifying the police of jurisdiction. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures considering that the member had, of his own accord, sought out additional training and accepted responsibility for his actions in this matter.","measures":["verbal reprimand","training"]},{"id":892,"file":"2022-21786","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"the member did not attend mandatory training as directed by their Chief Constable and did not notify the Chief Constable, Deputy Chief Constable, or a supervisor that they would be absent from the training","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The department initiated an internal discipline investigation into the conduct of a Nelson Police Department (NPD) member. It was alleged that the member did not attend mandatory training as directed by their Chief Constable and did not notify the Chief Constable, Deputy Chief Constable, or a supervisor that they would be absent from the training. The member breached NPD Attendance at Work and Fitness for Duty policies.","measures":["training","advice future conduct"]},{"id":893,"file":"2022-21661","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The member, while intoxicated, engaged a group of individuals and escalated the situation to a verbal and physical altercation.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the New Westminster Police Department (NWPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the off duty conduct of an NWPD member. According to the NWPD, police attended an incident where the member’s relative had been assaulted by an unknown male. It was reported that prior to police attendance, the member had approached a group of individuals to determine what had occurred which escalated the situation into a verbal and physical altercation. The member, who had been consuming alcohol, was transported to jail for Breach of the Peace and was subsequently released. The member, while intoxicated, engaged a group of individuals and escalated the situation to a verbal and physical altercation. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member had found themselves in an unplanned situation that was traumatic and upsetting, had accepted responsibility for their actions, had immediately self-reported the incident to their supervisor, and had no substantiated misconduct on their Service Record of Discipline. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":894,"file":"2019-17088","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Immediate Roadside Prohibition/Impaired Operation of a Motor Vehicle","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"The member provided two breath samples, both of which resulted in a “Fail” reading. The member received a 90-day driving prohibition and a 30-day vehicle impoundment.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a VPD member who was the subject of a traffic stop by the RCMP. The RCMP officer had observed the member leave a pub, enter his personal vehicle, and drive away. Upon being stopped and questioned, the member informed the RCMP officer that he had consumed alcohol prior to being stopped. The member provided two breath samples, both of which resulted in a “Fail” reading. The member received a 90-day driving prohibition and a 30-day vehicle impoundment. The respondent member also identified himself as a police officer to the RCMP officer during the incident and sought preferential treatment. Operating a motor vehicle while impaired.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":895,"file":"2019-17088","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Badging/Identifying as a Police Officer","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"identified himself as a police officer to the RCMP officer during the incident and sought preferential treatment","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a VPD member who was the subject of a traffic stop by the RCMP. The RCMP officer had observed the member leave a pub, enter his personal vehicle, and drive away. Upon being stopped and questioned, the member informed the RCMP officer that he had consumed alcohol prior to being stopped. The member provided two breath samples, both of which resulted in a “Fail” reading. The member received a 90-day driving prohibition and a 30-day vehicle impoundment. The respondent member also identified himself as a police officer to the RCMP officer during the incident and sought preferential treatment. Identifying oneself as a police officer to seek favourable treatment. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. It was noted that the member did not have any substantiated misconduct on his Service Record of Discipline and the member accepted full responsibility for his actions. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. *The suspensions were to be served consecutively.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":896,"file":"2019-17011","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The member briefly looked around the premises and left without being able to secure the door. The member did not notify dispatch or the owners of the business.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Saanich Police Department (SPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of an SPD member. According to the SPD, a break-in occurred at a business in Victoria. Several hours later, while conducting routine patrols, a member was passing by this business and observed that the rear door of the business was not secure. The member briefly looked around the premises and left without being able to secure the door. The member did not notify dispatch or the owners of the business. Following this, it was reported that someone entered this business, disabled the video feed, and stole a vehicle from the premise. Locating an insecure rear door at a business, searching the building, and then departing the business leaving the door insecure and not notifying anyone. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The Discipline Authority determined that the member had a common law duty to protect property and to prevent crime; specifically, that the member had a duty to make reasonable attempts to have the building secured to protect the property located inside and to help prevent future crime. In arriving at an appropriate disciplinary/corrective measure, it was noted that had the member not proactively checked on the property, the theft would have occurred regardless. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures considering that the member had accepted responsibility.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":897,"file":"2019-17098","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"Failing to adequately investigate an alleged hit and run and not fulfilling reporting obligations.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The complainant advised that he called 911 after being run off the road by a vehicle while he was cycling and that the vehicle had left the scene. He was transported to hospital by emergency vehicles and treated. Police did not attend at roadside or at the hospital. When the complainant called the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) and spoke to a police officer, he was advised that it would be difficult to prosecute as it would be the complainant’s word against the driver’s. The complainant requested the member to contact two witnesses and believed that the member would investigate the matter. The complainant later discovered that the only record the VPD held in relation to the incident was the 911 call he placed, which led him to believe that the member did not speak to witnesses or write a report. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation was required. Failing to adequately investigate an alleged hit and run and not fulfilling reporting obligations. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The Prehearing Conference Authority classified the misconduct as moderately serious, but noted that the respondent member had no history of misconduct and had learned a lesson from the incident. The Prehearing Conference Authority also considered that the member took responsibility for his actions from the outset of the investigation. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":898,"file":"2017-13186","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"caused the civilian employee to feel \"bullied and harassed… embarrassed and belittled.\"","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A civilian employee reported that on January 20, 2017, a police officer made inappropriate comments towards them in front of other staff members that caused the civilian employee to feel “bullied and harassed… embarrassed and belittled.”","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":899,"file":"2017-13186","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"needs to be knocked off their throne","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"While in a telephone conversation with another officer, the police officer stated that the civilian employee “needs to be knocked off their throne.”","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":900,"file":"2017-13186","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"the civilian employee was replaceable or could be replaced within minutes","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"In that same telephone conversation the police officer indicated that the civilian employee was replaceable or could be replaced within minutes. After reviewing the Internal Discipline Investigation Report, the Discipline Authority was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to support that the respondent police officer contravened the Respectful Workplace Policy relating to each of the three alleged comments about the civilian employee. The Discipline Authority recognized that there existed a power imbalance as the police officer was a senior member of the Vancouver Police Department. The police officer did not admit the misconduct as the police officer indicated that they could not recall their exact comments and did admit in the second part of the investigation that, while they did not recall what was said, they “cannot categorically deny making the statements.” The Discipline Authority considered that the corrective measures considered must provide deterrence to the both the respondent police officer and to the rest of the workforce. The Discipline Authority also recognized that corrective measures in general are to correct behaviour as opposed to punish that behaviour. *The Discipline Authority imposed one written reprimand for all three allegations of Neglect of Duty and directed the police officer to complete a training course on conflict management skills to assist with successfully managing interpersonal conflict. The OPCC reviewed the Internal Discipline Record of Decision and determined there were no public trust issues.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":901,"file":"2014-9409","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"Member A lost control of her police vehicle, striking a guard rail on the roadway.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police department received a request for assistance in relation to an altercation between several intoxicated people. Member A responded \"code 3\" with her police vehicle’s emergency lights and siren activated. During her response, Member A lost control of her police vehicle, striking a guard rail on the roadway. No one was injured as a result of the accident. It was determined that Member A failed to comply with section 122(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act and Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulation. Member B responded “code 3” to the same incident. A review of GPS records determined that Member B operated his police vehicle in a manner that was not compliant with section 122(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act and Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulation.","measures":["training"]},{"id":902,"file":"2019-15796","agency":"Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police Service","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"In the presence of their subordinate, repeatedly passing gas, making frivolous sexual offers, simulating sex acts, and making negative comments about the subordinate member to an RCMP member.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The text states the supervisor made \"frivolous sexual offers,\" \"inappropriate sexualized comments,\" and \"simulating sex acts\" toward a subordinate, constituting sexual harassment by the officer himself.","text":"According to the Stl’atl’imx Tribal Police Service, one of their members reported that they were the subject of workplace and sexual harassment by their supervisor. This included repeatedly passing gas, making inappropriate sexualized comments, and simulating sexual acts. Upon request from the Stl’atl’imx Tribal Police Service, the Commissioner initiated an investigation and appointed an external police agency to conduct the investigation. In the presence of their subordinate, repeatedly passing gas, making frivolous sexual offers, simulating sex acts, and making negative comments about the subordinate member to an RCMP member. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The Prehearing Conference Authority characterized the conduct as “immature” and “unprofessional”, and noted that while this conduct may have historically been characterized as “locker-room humour”, it was inappropriate for a respectful workplace. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member accepted full responsibility, expressed remorse, and had taken the initiative to enrol in a course to address his lapse in leadership. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":903,"file":"2018-14290","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Detention","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"two police officers detained the complainant for Breach of the Peace without good or sufficient cause","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On December 31, 2017, two police officers detained the complainant for Breach of the Peace without good or sufficient cause. The Discipline Authority determined that the allegations of Abuse of Authority in relation to unlawful detention and excessive force had not been substantiated. After reviewing the Final Investigation Report and the Discipline Authority’s decision, it was the Police Complaint Commissioner’s view that even on the officers’ own evidence, it was deficient in establishing a reasonable basis to detain the complainant and that the officers had no grounds to detain and arrest the complainant for a breach of the peace. Therefore, it was the Police Complaint Commissioner’s view that the force used on the complainant was not necessary nor reasonable in the circumstances. Consequently, pursuant to section 117(4) of the Police Act the Police Complaint Commissioner appointed Mr. Wally Oppal, Q.C., retired BC Court of Appeal Judge, to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Retired Judge Oppal reviewed the Final Investigation Report and its attachments including, but not limited to, surveillance video footage; witness and police statements; photographs; and the related materials arising in this disciplinary investigation. Retired Judge Oppal determined that based on the evidence it appeared that both allegations of Abuse of Authority had been proven and offered both members a prehearing conference. At the prehearing conference, the complainant was provided the opportunity to make oral submissions. The complainant advised, in part, that the events of December 31, 2017, significantly impacted him in terms of his embarrassment in front of friends and family. The Prehearing Conference Authority determined that any unlawful detention and subsequent use of force is a serious matter. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that Member 1 was genuinely concerned about how he could avoid this type of occurrence in the future. In particular, Member 1 described his proactive efforts, post incident, to educate himself in the following areas: participated in two modules of the acting supervisors program that included training related to arrest and detention, inclusive of policies and procedures such as breach of the peace as well as responsibilities associated with use of force; participated in the Investigator Development program with a focus on effective decision making; and participated in the Field Trainers program which includes competencies such as communications, problem solving, and decision making. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the complainant specifically spoke to the fact that Member 2 played a minimal role in this incident. Retired Judge Oppal noted in his section 117 review of the matter that “Member 2’s role in this matter was very much secondary to her partner’s”. Member 2 discussed being mindful, where the opportunity exists, to pause in the moment to gather better information prior to an arrest. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":[]},{"id":904,"file":"2018-14290","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"intentionally or recklessly used unnecessary force by taking physical control of the complainant and applying knee strikes to gain compliance","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On December 31, 2017, two police officers intentionally or recklessly used unnecessary force by taking physical control of the complainant and applying knee strikes to gain compliance. The Discipline Authority determined that the allegations of Abuse of Authority in relation to unlawful detention and excessive force had not been substantiated. After reviewing the Final Investigation Report and the Discipline Authority’s decision, it was the Police Complaint Commissioner’s view that even on the officers’ own evidence, it was deficient in establishing a reasonable basis to detain the complainant and that the officers had no grounds to detain and arrest the complainant for a breach of the peace. Therefore, it was the Police Complaint Commissioner’s view that the force used on the complainant was not necessary nor reasonable in the circumstances. Consequently, pursuant to section 117(4) of the Police Act the Police Complaint Commissioner appointed Mr. Wally Oppal, Q.C., retired BC Court of Appeal Judge, to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Retired Judge Oppal reviewed the Final Investigation Report and its attachments including, but not limited to, surveillance video footage; witness and police statements; photographs; and the related materials arising in this disciplinary investigation. Retired Judge Oppal determined that based on the evidence it appeared that both allegations of Abuse of Authority had been proven and offered both members a prehearing conference. At the prehearing conference, the complainant was provided the opportunity to make oral submissions. The complainant advised, in part, that the events of December 31, 2017, significantly impacted him in terms of his embarrassment in front of friends and family. The Prehearing Conference Authority determined that any unlawful detention and subsequent use of force is a serious matter. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that Member 1 was genuinely concerned about how he could avoid this type of occurrence in the future. In particular, Member 1 described his proactive efforts, post incident, to educate himself in the following areas: participated in two modules of the acting supervisors program that included training related to arrest and detention, inclusive of policies and procedures such as breach of the peace as well as responsibilities associated with use of force; participated in the Investigator Development program with a focus on effective decision making; and participated in the Field Trainers program which includes competencies such as communications, problem solving, and decision making. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the complainant specifically spoke to the fact that Member 2 played a minimal role in this incident. Retired Judge Oppal noted in his section 117 review of the matter that “Member 2’s role in this matter was very much secondary to her partner’s”. Member 2 discussed being mindful, where the opportunity exists, to pause in the moment to gather better information prior to an arrest. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":[]},{"id":905,"file":"2018-14290","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"neither officer completed a General Occurrence Report (GO), Subject Behaviour Officer Response (SBOR), or documented the use of force in their police notebooks","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On December 31, 2017, two police officers failed to properly document the use of force used to effect the arrest of the complainant. The Discipline Authority substantiated the Neglect of Duty allegation and the matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. The Prehearing Conference Authority was of the opinion that the use of force applied on a citizen is a serious matter that should be properly documented in every occurrence as per the VPD Regulations and Procedures Manual. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that neither officer completed a General Occurrence Report (GO), Subject Behaviour Officer Response (SBOR), or documented the use of force in their police notebooks. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that it is a department requirement to accurately document the use of force applied by police members. The Prehearing Conference Authority believed this was a learning event for the officers. The officers acknowledged and regretted not completing documentation on the use of force applied during the arrest. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference. The Discipline Authority determined that the allegations of Abuse of Authority in relation to unlawful detention and excessive force had not been substantiated. After reviewing the Final Investigation Report and the Discipline Authority’s decision, it was the Police Complaint Commissioner’s view that even on the officers’ own evidence, it was deficient in establishing a reasonable basis to detain the complainant and that the officers had no grounds to detain and arrest the complainant for a breach of the peace. Therefore, it was the Police Complaint Commissioner’s view that the force used on the complainant was not necessary nor reasonable in the circumstances. Consequently, pursuant to section 117(4) of the Police Act the Police Complaint Commissioner appointed Mr. Wally Oppal, Q.C., retired BC Court of Appeal Judge, to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Retired Judge Oppal reviewed the Final Investigation Report and its attachments including, but not limited to, surveillance video footage; witness and police statements; photographs; and the related materials arising in this disciplinary investigation. Retired Judge Oppal determined that based on the evidence it appeared that both allegations of Abuse of Authority had been proven and offered both members a prehearing conference. At the prehearing conference, the complainant was provided the opportunity to make oral submissions. The complainant advised, in part, that the events of December 31, 2017, significantly impacted him in terms of his embarrassment in front of friends and family. The Prehearing Conference Authority determined that any unlawful detention and subsequent use of force is a serious matter. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that Member 1 was genuinely concerned about how he could avoid this type of occurrence in the future. In particular, Member 1 described his proactive efforts, post incident, to educate himself in the following areas: participated in two modules of the acting supervisors program that included training related to arrest and detention, inclusive of policies and procedures such as breach of the peace as well as responsibilities associated with use of force; participated in the Investigator Development program with a focus on effective decision making; and participated in the Field Trainers program which includes competencies such as communications, problem solving, and decision making. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the complainant specifically spoke to the fact that Member 2 played a minimal role in this incident. Retired Judge Oppal noted in his section 117 review of the matter that “Member 2’s role in this matter was very much secondary to her partner’s”. Member 2 discussed being mindful, where the opportunity exists, to pause in the moment to gather better information prior to an arrest. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":906,"file":"2017-13496","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Unsafe Storage of Firearm","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"left a loaded service firearm in a public washroom","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On May 23, 2017, a police officer left a loaded service firearm in a public washroom. An outside policing agency conducted a criminal investigation for Careless Use of a Firearm pursuant to section 86(1) of the Criminal Code. A Report to Crown Counsel was submitted and Crown Counsel determined there was no substantial likelihood of conviction and no public interest in pursuing a prosecution. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. 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. In this case, as soon as the police officer realized their firearm was missing, the police officer immediately notified their supervisor, took steps to locate the firearm and have it secured, then retrieved it right away while offering apologies. Additionally, the police officer did not minimize their conduct and was open and transparent during their interview. The police officer readily admitted to what occurred and accepted responsibility for their actions. The police officer had also taken steps to ensure this behaviour will not occur again. After reviewing the criminal investigation into this matter and the Police Act investigation, it was the OPCC’s view that the discipline proposed was in the appropriate range based on the circumstances of the file. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":907,"file":"2023-23356","agency":"Port Moody Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The member requested another member to query a particular license plate knowing there was no investigational purpose.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Port Moody Police Department (PMPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of an on-duty PMPD member. It was reported that the member requested a colleague to query a particular license plate on a police database without disclosing the query was for a personal reason and unrelated to an investigation. The member requested another member to query a particular license plate knowing there was no investigational purpose. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted the member reported the incident to their supervisor prior to the end of their shift and took responsibility for their actions. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":908,"file":"2011-6287","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2013,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"arrested the complainant for obstruction, and handcuffed her to a rail unattended for 10 - 20 minutes","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member arrested the complainant for obstruction, and handcuffed her to a rail unattended for 10 - 20 minutes.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":909,"file":"2015-11237","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2016,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"queried their tenant using police databases","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On September 1, 2015, a police officer queried their tenant using police databases.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":910,"file":"2014-9620","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"used unnecessary force by punching a handcuffed female in the face after being advised by attending officers that they had the female under control","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On May 1, 2014, an off duty police officer used unnecessary force by punching a handcuffed female in the face after being advised by attending officers that they had the female under control. The police officer was charged with one count of assault pursuant to the Criminal Code. The criminal proceeding concluded with the police officer receiving a sentence that included 30 days incarceration under the terms of a conditional sentence order, a no contact order for the involved parties, 12 months’ probation, and counseling.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":911,"file":"2010-5619","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"was found driving his personal motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer, while off-duty, was found driving his personal motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. (The officer was served with a 24 hour prohibition and an administrative driving prohibition for 90 days).","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":912,"file":"2021-20777","agency":"Port Moody Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"directed disrespectful comments towards a subordinate officer that were considered to be intimidating/humiliating in nature","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An internal investigation was initiated into the conduct of a Port Moody Police Department member for a breach of Respectful Workplace Policy. It was reported that, while in the presence of other subordinate officers, the member directed disrespectful comments towards a subordinate officer that were considered to be intimidating/humiliating in nature. The member directed comments towards a subordinate officer that were contrary to Respectful Workplace policy.","measures":["training"]},{"id":913,"file":"2018-15472","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"made repeated unwelcome comments to another member about his appearance, namely his beard, implying the potential for negative professional repercussions","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An internal investigation was initiated into the conduct of a Vancouver Police Department (VPD) member, who was in a supervisory position. It was reported that the VPD member made repeated unwelcome comments to another member about his appearance, namely his beard, implying the potential for negative professional repercussions. Some of those comments continued after the subordinate member explained that he maintained his beard for religious reasons. It appeared that the comments were not confined to a single event, but rather, a series of events ranging from merely irritating to serious conduct that occurred over a span of time of approximately one year. Making comments to a subordinate that were contrary to Respectful Workplace Policy.","measures":["suspension","training","close supervision"]},{"id":914,"file":"2017-13726","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.96,"thin":false,"quote":"Pinning the woman to the ground and attempting to kiss her without her consent.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The allegation states the officer was \"pinning the woman to the ground and attempting to kiss her without her consent,\" plainly describing sexualized physical conduct by the officer himself.","text":"According to the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) the RCMP received a report of a criminal assault and sexual assault that was alleged to have been committed by an off-duty Vancouver Police Special Municipal Constable (SMC). It was reported that, while off-duty, the SMC met a woman at a pub. After consuming alcoholic drinks, they left the pub, where it was alleged that the SMC physically assaulted and sexually assaulted the woman. A criminal investigation into the matter was completed by police and charges were approved by the BC Prosecution Service; however, Crown Counsel ultimately entered a stay of proceedings. An investigation under the Police Act into this matter proceeded. Pinning the woman to the ground and attempting to kiss her without her consent.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":915,"file":"2017-13726","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"Sexually touching the woman without her consent.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The allegation is \"sexually touching the woman without her consent,\" alleging the officer himself sexually assaulted a woman he met at a pub.","text":"According to the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) the RCMP received a report of a criminal assault and sexual assault that was alleged to have been committed by an off-duty Vancouver Police Special Municipal Constable (SMC). It was reported that, while off-duty, the SMC met a woman at a pub. After consuming alcoholic drinks, they left the pub, where it was alleged that the SMC physically assaulted and sexually assaulted the woman. A criminal investigation into the matter was completed by police and charges were approved by the BC Prosecution Service; however, Crown Counsel ultimately entered a stay of proceedings. An investigation under the Police Act into this matter proceeded. Sexually touching the woman without her consent. This matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The SMC resigned from the Vancouver Police Department and did not attend or participate in the discipline process. The Discipline Authority determined that the conduct of the member to be “serious in nature and go to the heart of the principles of trust, decision making, ethics and integrity; all of which are essential in policing.” Furthermore, when arriving at the decision to dismiss the officer, the Discipline Authority noted that “integrity as a peace officer and the trust that comes with that office” were irreparably damaged as a result of the member’s conduct. The Discipline Authority imposed dismissal as the outcome. The Commissioner reviewed the Discipline Authority’s decision and the discipline imposed and determined that further review was not necessary. The members’ service record of discipline has been updated to include that he was dismissed from the Vancouver Police Department.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":916,"file":"2018-14708","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.55,"thin":false,"quote":"was in a personal, intimate relationship with a police officer who was under his direct supervision. The police officer further failed to disclose this relationship with his supervisor.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"That between June 2016 and October 2017, a police officer was in a personal, intimate relationship with a police officer who was under his direct supervision. The police officer further failed to disclose this relationship with his supervisor.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":917,"file":"2018-14708","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"entered into the relationship with another police officer with the knowledge that the police officer was in a vulnerable state, mentally and emotionally","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":false,"basis":"The text alleges only that the officer \"entered into the relationship\" with a colleague in a \"vulnerable state, mentally and emotionally,\" never describing sexual conduct, coercion, or violence.","text":"That the police officer entered into the relationship with another police officer with the knowledge that the police officer was in a vulnerable state, mentally and emotionally. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. 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. Although retired, the police officer cooperated fully in the investigation and participated in all relevant processes. The police officer sought professional help in understanding his actions and wrote an apology to the other police officer. Given the totality of the circumstances, including the retirement of the respondent officer at the time of the investigation, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference. *The suspensions were to be served concurrently.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":918,"file":"2022-21618","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member failed to complete the proper reports and/or notes documenting their use of force.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint regarding concerns with members of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) during the complainant’s detention and arrest, including the force used. It was reported that police attempted to conduct a traffic stop when the suspect vehicle drove away at a high rate of speed. The vehicle was located two kilometers away and the driver was no longer inside the vehicle. Police used force including Oleoresin Capsicum (OC) spray and strikes to remove the remaining occupants from the vehicle. The complainant alleged that VPD members arrested them without lawful authority, used excessive force during the arrest, used derogatory language and failed to provide medical aid as a result of being OC sprayed. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. During the investigation it was determined that a member failed to complete the proper documentation for their use of force during the incident. The member failed to complete the proper reports and/or notes documenting their use of force. The Discipline Authority determined the allegations related to the arrest and force were not substantiated but that the allegation concerning the lack of documentation of a member’s use of the OC spray did appear to constitute misconduct (see Disciplinary Process below). Upon review of the matter, the Commissioner determined there was a reasonable basis to disagree with the Discipline Authority as the evidence reasonably supported that the force used by police was excessive and disproportionate to the behaviours of the occupants of the vehicle and that police did not sufficiently consider that at least one of the members was close enough to hear that there was a child in the vehicle. The Commissioner appointed the Honourable Elizabeth Arnold-Bailey, retired Judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, to review the matter and arrive at their own decision based on the evidence. Ms. Arnold-Bailey reviewed the matter and determined that police did not commit any misconduct as it related to their conduct in arresting and using force on the complainants. Disciplinary Process As noted earlier, at the conclusion of the investigation the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct as it related to a lack of documentation for the force used. A prehearing conference was offered to the member which the member did not accept. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. 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. The Discipline Authority determined that the member did not complete and/or submit any notes in relation to the incident and there was no evidence to suggest that the member had good or sufficient cause for failing to document their force used. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":919,"file":"2022-23056","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"wrote false or misleading information on JIBC reports regarding the reporting of academic demerits","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The department initiated an internal discipline investigation into the conduct of a New Westminster Police Department (NWPD) member. It was alleged that the member, while a recruit at the Justice Institute of British Columbia (JIBC), wrote false or misleading information on JIBC reports regarding the reporting of academic demerits that they had received during training. The member knowingly entered false information on JIBC reports.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":920,"file":"2022-23056","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to report an academic demerit to the NWPD","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The department initiated an internal discipline investigation into the conduct of a New Westminster Police Department (NWPD) member. It was alleged that the member, while a recruit at the Justice Institute of British Columbia (JIBC), wrote false or misleading information on JIBC reports regarding the reporting of academic demerits that they had received during training. The member failed to report an academic demerit to the NWPD.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":921,"file":"2016-11665","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"flashed a police badge and requested preferential treatment","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An off-duty police officer attempted to enter a casino while intoxicated. After being denied entry, the off-duty officer flashed a police badge and requested preferential treatment.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":922,"file":"2016-11665","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"the off-duty police officer directed offensive and rude language at a security officer","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"When the off-duty police officer was denied entry into the casino, the off-duty police officer directed offensive and rude language at a security officer. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. An agreement was reached with respect to the proposed discipline of suspensions and training. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. 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. In reviewing the investigation, and considering all the relevant factors in this case, the OPCC determined that the Prehearing Conference Authority had appropriately considered the aggravating and mitigating factors pursuant to section 126 of the Police Act. In this case, the police officer took responsibility for his actions and had proactively taken a number of steps to address the concerns brought forward regarding his conduct. As a result, the OPCC determined that the discipline imposed was within the acceptable range. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":923,"file":"2017-13438","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2017,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"the investigator found the complaint to be without foundation and was made for ulterior motives (to deflect attention from the probationary police officer's performance issues and to retaliate against the probationary police officer's supervisor","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"In April of 2017, a probationary police officer filed a complaint of harassment and bullying against their supervisor. The complaint was investigated under the police department’s Respectful Workplace Policy. At the end of the investigation, the investigator found the complaint to be without foundation and was made for ulterior motives (to deflect attention from the probationary police officer’s performance issues and to retaliate against the probationary police officer’s supervisor for attempting to manage their performance). The complaint was dismissed and the matter was referred to senior management for consideration as to whether discipline against the probationary police officer was warranted for filing a baseless complaint. A member of senior management reviewed the investigation report and the Respectful Workplace Policy, which contemplates discipline against those who make baseless allegations. Based on a review of the material, the member of senior management recommended that the probationary police officer’s employment be terminated. It was determined that the probationary police officer failed to meet the standard of suitability as set out in TransLink Security Management Limited’s collective agreement in that the probationary police officer’s conduct, quality of work, and ability to work harmoniously with others fell below the required standard. The OPCC reviewed the investigation and the Internal Discipline Authority’s decision. The OPCC determined there were no public trust concerns that required investigation.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":924,"file":"2013-8482","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to provide a police statement and/or take adequate notes detailing the officer’s involvement in an investigation","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer failed to provide a police statement and/or take adequate notes detailing the officer’s involvement in an investigation.","measures":["advice future conduct","program activity"]},{"id":925,"file":"2020-18058","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Intimate Partner Violence","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"Causing his former spouse to have reasonable grounds to fear that he would cause her personal injury when he uttered threats and assaulted her in March 2014","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The text alleges the member \"uttered threats and assaulted\" his former spouse and \"abused his former spouse,\" which is intimate partner violence committed by the officer himself.","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. It was alleged that the member abused his former spouse and attempted to use his position as a VPD member for personal gain in communications relating to child custody. In addition, it was reported that the member suggested that his former spouse obtain a fraudulent doctor’s note to have marriage counselling fees paid for by a third party. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation. The matter was referred to the BC Prosecution Service and charges were approved; however, the criminal charges were later stayed. During the investigation, the member was dismissed in relation to another matter under the Police Act. Causing his former spouse to have reasonable grounds to fear that he would cause her personal injury when he uttered threats and assaulted her in March 2014 and for the former member attempting to counsel her to commit fraud.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":926,"file":"2020-18058","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Using or Attempting to Use Police Authority for Personal Gain (e.g., Preferential Treatment)","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.93,"thin":false,"quote":"Using his position of authority as a police officer to attempt to influence and/or gain personal advantage for matters relating to his personal life; namely the co-parenting of his child, which is unrelated to the performance of his duties as a police officer.Return the JSON now.Remember: your entire response must be a single line of valid JSON.., 'too_thin': bool}.., 'too_thin': bool}. No newlines.., 'too_thin': bool}.., 'too_thin': bool}.., 'too_thin': bool}.., 'too_thin': bool}.., 'too_thin': bool}.., 'too_thin': bool}.., 'too_thin': bool}.., 'too_thin': bool}.., 'too_thin': bool}.., 'too_thin': bool}.., 'too_thin': bool}.., 'too_thin': bool}.., 'too_thin': bool}.., 'too_thin': bool}.., 'too_thin': bool}.., 'too_thin': bool}. No newlines. No markdown.., 'too_thin': bool}. No newlines. No markdown. No triple backticks.., 'too_thin': bool}. No newlines. No markdown. No triple backticks. No text before or after the JSON object.., 'too_thin': bool}. No newlines. No markdown. No triple backticks. No text before or after the JSON object. Just the JSON. {\"categories\": [\"corruption_and_misuse_of_position\", \"gendered_and_sexualized_violence\"], \"primary\": \"corruption_and_misuse_of_position\", \"confidence\": 0.93, \"too_thin\": false, \"evidence_quote\": \"Using his position of authority as a police officer to attempt to influence and/or gain personal advantage for matters relating to his personal life\"}","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The Discipline Authority found the member's use of his position toward his former spouse was \"an extension of intimate partner violence,\" alongside findings of \"assault and threatening of his former spouse.\"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. It was alleged that the member abused his former spouse and attempted to use his position as a VPD member for personal gain in communications relating to child custody. In addition, it was reported that the member suggested that his former spouse obtain a fraudulent doctor’s note to have marriage counselling fees paid for by a third party. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation. The matter was referred to the BC Prosecution Service and charges were approved; however, the criminal charges were later stayed. During the investigation, the member was dismissed in relation to another matter under the Police Act. Using his position of authority as a police officer to attempt to influence and/or gain personal advantage for matters relating to his personal life; namely the co-parenting of his child, which is unrelated to the performance of his duties as a police officer. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the former member committed two counts of misconduct. No prehearing conference was offered to the former member and as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding without the former member’s participation. The Discipline Authority determined that the former member’s actions were “serious” and “troubling” with respect to the assault and threatening of his former spouse, and that serious consequences were required to denounce the misconduct. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority noted that that the former member’s conduct of using his position as a police officer in communications with his former spouse and others was “calculated and designed to establish a power imbalance and/or intimidate” and was an extension of intimate partner violence in seeking to cause emotional and mental harm to his former spouse. The former member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":927,"file":"2019-16684","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discourtesy","sublabel":"Discourteous - Verbal","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the member made numerous profane statements toward that same complainant, that the member was agitated and aggressive, that the member’s profane statements taken together amounted to discourtesy","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received three complaints describing concerns with a member stopping them for carrying open alcohol. The complainants reported that the member made inappropriate comments and became aggressive in his language and tone. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the matter was required. The member used profane and aggressive language in the course of an interaction with the complainants. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member did not commit misconduct. The Commissioner was of the view that there was a reasonable basis to believe that the decision of the Discipline Authority was incorrect and appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge, Mr. James Threlfall, to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Mr. Threlfall issued his decision where he determined that the member’s conduct during the interaction, including his aggression and repeated use of profanity, appeared to constitute misconduct. Disciplinary Process A prehearing conference was offered to the member; the member declined the offer and as a result this matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. Mr. Threlfall, as the Discipline Authority, found that the decision to stop the complainants was based upon members having observed one of the complainants with open alcohol. Mr. Threlfall further determined that during the course of the stop the member made numerous profane statements toward that same complainant, that the member was agitated and aggressive, that the member’s profane statements taken together amounted to discourtesy, and that the member’s use of profanity escalated a routine stop into a significant issue. Neither the member nor the complainants requested a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/","measures":["verbal reprimand","training"]},{"id":928,"file":"2012-7741","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"operated a motor vehicle after having consumed alcohol in such a quantity as to register a “warn” on an approved screening device","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer, while off-duty, operated a motor vehicle after having consumed alcohol in such a quantity as to register a “warn” on an approved screening device. The retired judge who conducted the review substantiated this allegation and the officer accepted a one-day suspension at a prehearing conference. For further information please go to Section 117 Reviews at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":929,"file":"2012-7741","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"used or attempted to use his/her position as a police officer to influence the outcome of an investigation into his/her operation of a motor vehicle while his/her ability to do so was affected by alcohol","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer, while off-duty, used or attempted to use his/her position as a police officer to influence the outcome of an investigation into his/her operation of a motor vehicle while his/her ability to do so was affected by alcohol. This allegation was unsubstantiated by the discipline authority. The Police Complaint Commissioner ordered a s.117 review. The retired judge who conducted the review substantiated this allegation and the officer accepted a one-day suspension at a prehearing conference. For further information please go to Section 117 Reviews at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":930,"file":"2018-15308","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"asking how their child pornography charges were going","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The complainant was on a public sidewalk video recording security officers arresting a male person. Upon police arrival, the complainant engaged police with antagonistic dialogue using loud vulgar language towards them. During this verbal exchange, the respondent member can be heard on video asking the complainant how his child pornography charges are going. The OPCC reviewed this complaint and determined that an investigation was required. For engaging in an inappropriate verbal exchange with a member of the public by asking how their child pornography charges were going in front of other VPD members and citizens. A prehearing conference was held in this matter where the member accepted responsibility for his actions and disciplinary or corrective measures were accepted. The OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":931,"file":"2014-9447","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.72,"thin":false,"quote":"became involved in a relationship with another individual who was being assessed by the officer for employment with the department","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer became involved in a relationship with another individual who was being assessed by the officer for employment with the department.","measures":["reduction in rank","close supervision","program activity"]},{"id":932,"file":"2014-9447","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Equipment","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"used his police-issued cell phone for a purpose unrelated to his duties as a police officer","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer used his police-issued cell phone for a purpose unrelated to his duties as a police officer.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":933,"file":"2014-9447","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.45,"thin":false,"quote":"the police officer acted in an unprofessional manner with female staff members at a restaurant","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":false,"basis":"The text only says the officer \"acted in an unprofessional manner with female staff members at a restaurant,\" specifying no sexual, sexualized, or violent conduct \"supis\": false}","text":"During the course of his duties, the police officer acted in an unprofessional manner with female staff members at a restaurant. *The suspensions were to be served consecutively.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":934,"file":"2022-22459","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"The member failed to follow policy and an established command structure during a serious police incident, which put themself and others at risk. Further, the member disobeyed orders, contrary to best practices and policy.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The department initiated an internal discipline investigation into the conduct of a Delta Police Department (DPD) member. It was alleged that the member, during a police incident, did not follow directions or act in accordance with their department’s training or best practices. The member also allegedly utilized the unauthorized assistance of a civilian to assist during a serous police incident. The member failed to follow policy and an established command structure during a serious police incident, which put themself and others at risk. Further, the member disobeyed orders, contrary to best practices and policy.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":935,"file":"2013-8992","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Unsafe Storage of Firearm","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"discovered his firearm was missing from his unsecured locker","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer attended work on his day off and discovered his firearm was missing from his unsecured locker. It was later determined that another officer, who was working a call-out the previous night, saw that the locker was unsecured and so secured the firearm.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":936,"file":"2011-6937","agency":"Oak Bay Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"involved in an inappropriate relationship with a female, while assigned as the primary investigator of a police file where the female was the complainant","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The text states the officer had an \"inappropriate relationship with a female\" whom he was investigating as complainant, plainly implying a romantic/sexual relationship exploiting his investigative power.","text":"The police officer was involved in an inappropriate relationship with a female, while assigned as the primary investigator of a police file where the female was the complainant.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":937,"file":"2011-6937","agency":"Oak Bay Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"spent large periods of time at the female’s residence while on duty for a purpose unrelated to his duties as a police officer","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer spent large periods of time at the female’s residence while on duty for a purpose unrelated to his duties as a police officer.","measures":["suspension","training","close supervision"]},{"id":938,"file":"2011-6937","agency":"Oak Bay Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"knowingly made a misleading or false oral statement to his supervisor regarding the nature of his relationship with the female","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer knowingly made a misleading or false oral statement to his supervisor regarding the nature of his relationship with the female. *The suspensions were to be served consecutively.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":939,"file":"2020-18782","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"Querying the PRIME police database for information which unrelated to an investigation.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a Special Municipal Constable (SMC). It was reported that during a pre-employment polygraph examination, that was a part of the selection process to become a regular VPD member, the SMC disclosed that on one occasion the SMC had queried a person on a police database for reasons unrelated to the SMC’s duties. Querying the PRIME police database for information which unrelated to an investigation. Following an investigation, the Discipline Authority (DA) determined that the member committed misconduct and offered a pre-hearing conference. After reviewing the prehearing conference report, the Commissioner did not approve the proposed disciplinary or corrective measures, as a result the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. At the Discipline Proceeding, the DA noted that the SMC did not access the information for any nefarious or malicious purpose and admitted the misconduct. The OPCC reviewed this matter and determined that there were insufficient grounds to arrange for a further review.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":940,"file":"2015-10904","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to cooperate with an impaired driving investigation","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On June 25, 2015, while off duty, a police officer failed to cooperate with an impaired driving investigation. 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. At the prehearing conference, a 4 day suspension was agreed upon. The Discipline Authority did not find that two other Discreditable Conduct allegations had been substantiated. 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. On December 9, 2015, Mr. 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. An officer with the Central Saanich Police Service was appointed to sit as an external prehearing conference authority. A prehearing conference was offered to the police officer where a 6 day suspension was agreed upon. The Police Complaint Commissioner did not believe that the discipline agreed to, was within the appropriate range and rejected the prehearing conference agreement. Therefore, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The Honourable Ian Pitfield was the Discipline Authority. As Discipline Authority, Mr. Pitfield noted that the police officer accepting a 6 day suspension fell within what he considered the appropriate range before taking into account the specific circumstances. However, it was Mr. Pitfield’s view that the bifurcation of the process resulted in a cumulative suspension of 10 days which was excessive having regard for prior decisions and sanctions to date. Taking everything into account, *Mr. Pitfield imposed a 4 day suspension without pay to be served consecutively to the sanction imposed earlier for the driving default for a total of an 8 day suspension. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":941,"file":"2015-10904","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"while off duty, a police officer operated a motor vehicle while impaired in contravention of the Motor Vehicle Act","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On June 25, 2015, while off duty, a police officer operated a motor vehicle while impaired in contravention of the Motor Vehicle Act. 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. At the prehearing conference, a 4 day suspension was agreed upon. The Discipline Authority did not find that two other Discreditable Conduct allegations had been substantiated. 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. On December 9, 2015, Mr. 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. An officer with the Central Saanich Police Service was appointed to sit as an external prehearing conference authority. A prehearing conference was offered to the police officer where a 6 day suspension was agreed upon. The Police Complaint Commissioner did not believe that the discipline agreed to, was within the appropriate range and rejected the prehearing conference agreement. Therefore, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The Honourable Ian Pitfield was the Discipline Authority. As Discipline Authority, Mr. Pitfield noted that the police officer accepting a 6 day suspension fell within what he considered the appropriate range before taking into account the specific circumstances. However, it was Mr. Pitfield’s view that the bifurcation of the process resulted in a cumulative suspension of 10 days which was excessive having regard for prior decisions and sanctions to date. Taking everything into account, *Mr. Pitfield imposed a 4 day suspension without pay to be served consecutively to the sanction imposed earlier for the driving default for a total of an 8 day suspension. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":942,"file":"2010-5415","agency":"Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police Service","year":2011,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Provide Medical Attention","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"the male was placed in a cell where he was left for over an hour without being decontaminated","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"After a prisoner was sprayed with Oleoresin Capsicum (pepper spray), the male was placed in a cell where he was left for over an hour without being decontaminated.","measures":["written reprimand","training","close supervision"]},{"id":943,"file":"2010-5415","agency":"Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police Service","year":2011,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to adequately report the incident as required by policy","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Further, the officer failed to adequately report the incident as required by policy.","measures":["written reprimand","training","close supervision"]},{"id":944,"file":"2010-5760","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"submitted inappropriate receipt claims that were not suitable for the plain-clothes assignment","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer submitted inappropriate receipt claims that were not suitable for the plain-clothes assignment.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":945,"file":"2017-14047","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Using or Attempting to Use Police Authority for Personal Gain (e.g., Preferential Treatment)","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"displayed his police badge identifying himself as a police officer while conducting a financial transaction at a bank","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On October 25, 2017, while off duty, a police officer displayed his police badge identifying himself as a police officer while conducting a financial transaction at a bank.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":946,"file":"2017-14047","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Using or Attempting to Use Police Authority for Personal Gain (e.g., Preferential Treatment)","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"the police officer displayed his police badge identifying himself as a police officer during a second banking transaction","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On October 25, 2017, while off duty, the police officer displayed his police badge identifying himself as a police officer during a second banking transaction. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. The Prehearing Conference Authority was of the opinion that this was a serious misconduct. The Prehearing Conference Authority spoke to the police officer at length and was convinced that he had learned a lesson as a result of this incident. The police officer took, and accepted, full responsibility for the misconducts and understood it was a mistake on his part. He was now aware that his conduct towards the two bank clerks was inappropriate and put them in a difficult position. The police officer stated that he would not repeat this behaviour again. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":947,"file":"2015-11042","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"intentionally or recklessly used unnecessary force on the complainant by tossing or hip-checking him to the ground and stepping on his chest","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On May 28, 2015, a police officer intentionally or recklessly used unnecessary force on the complainant by tossing or hip-checking him to the ground and stepping on his chest.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":948,"file":"2015-11042","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Detention","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the police officer detained and handcuffed the complainant without lawful authority","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On May 28, 2015, the police officer was part of an integrated unit that attended the complainant’s residence. Once inside the residence, the police officer detained and handcuffed the complainant without lawful authority.","measures":["training"]},{"id":949,"file":"2015-11042","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Provide Charter Rights","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to advise the complainant the reason for his detention and of his right to counsel","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On May 28, 2015, the police officer failed to advise the complainant the reason for his detention and of his right to counsel.","measures":["training"]},{"id":950,"file":"2015-11042","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Search - Non Person/Non-Dwelling","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"participated in a search of the complainant’s vehicle, house, garage and cell phone without good and sufficient cause and seized property belonging to the complainant","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On May 28, 2015, the police officer participated in a search of the complainant’s vehicle, house, garage and cell phone without good and sufficient cause and seized property belonging to the complainant. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. 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. The OPCC reviewed the prehearing conference reports and, considering all the relevant factors in this case, the OPCC determined the discipline was within the acceptable range for appropriate discipline based on the circumstances. A significant mitigating factor was the conduct of several other officers* who were present at the time that this incident occurred. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference. *This police officer was part of an integrated gang task force. There were other officers present during this conduct; however these officers were from an agency outside the jurisdiction of the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner.","measures":["training"]},{"id":951,"file":"2019-16566","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"derogatory nature of the comments and the sexual innuendo contained in these comments samthinking>The comments were sexualized toward a female civilian employee.To user>Please emit the JSON now.<br>ml:assistant>{","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The text states a female civilian employee reported repeated comments that were derogatory and contained \"sexual innuendo,\" conduct the officers themselves committed, constituting sexualized harassment.","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of two police officers for alleged workplace harassment. A female civilian employee reported numerous and repeated actions and statements that made her uncomfortable due to the derogatory nature of the comments and the sexual innuendo contained in these comments. It was also reported that the members made jokes and inappropriate comments about a personal matter involving the civilian employee. Making comments contrary to the VPD Respectful Workplace Policy and failing to maintain a respectful workplace. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the members. The Prehearing Conference Authority determined that neither member had a history of misconduct and that both had learned a lesson from this matter and would not repeat the behaviour. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["training"]},{"id":952,"file":"2013-9104-02","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"The officer experienced radio transmission problems and advised hospital staff that he was going outside to broadcast on his radio. The prisoner fled the hospital.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer was assigned to guard a prisoner who had been transported to hospital for assessment. The prisoner was placed in a room, on a gurney, without restraints or handcuffs. The officer experienced radio transmission problems and advised hospital staff that he was going outside to broadcast on his radio. The prisoner fled the hospital. The prisoner was subsequently located and taken back into custody.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":953,"file":"2013-8831","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"operating a police vehicle as an emergency vehicle when not responding to an emergency situation","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"While on duty, the police officer did not comply with section 122 of the BC Motor Vehicle Act , the Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulation , and VPD Policy by operating a police vehicle as an emergency vehicle when not responding to an emergency situation.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":954,"file":"2013-8831","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"While attempting to pass another vehicle, the police officer collided with the driver’s side of that vehicle.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"While attempting to pass another vehicle, the police officer collided with the driver’s side of that vehicle. This action resulted in minor damage to both vehicles. The police officer failed to stop his vehicle, remain at the scene, and follow VPD policy in relation to police involved collisions.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":955,"file":"2015-10394","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The officer became highly intoxicated and caused a disturbance. Police attended the scene and subsequently placed the off-duty member under arrest for public intoxication.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"While off-duty, the police officer attended a restaurant outside British Columbia. The officer became highly intoxicated and caused a disturbance. Police attended the scene and subsequently placed the off-duty member under arrest for public intoxication. There were no criminal charges but the officer received a violation ticket for public drunkenness.","measures":["suspension","counselling"]},{"id":956,"file":"2021-20328","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"inappropriate comments and giving unsolicited relationship advice in front of co-workers","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The department initiated an internal discipline investigation into the conduct of a Vancouver Police Department (VPD) member. According to the VPD, concerns were raised regarding a member’s inappropriate comments in the workplace including providing unsolicited relationship advice to a co-worker in front of other colleagues. The member contravened the VPD’s Respectful Workplace Policy by making inappropriate comments and giving unsolicited relationship advice in front of co-workers.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":957,"file":"2018-14783","agency":"Central Saanich Police Service","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Search","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to conduct a sufficiently thorough search of a person who was apprehended by police prior to transport and their admission to a secure psychiatric facility","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On May 16, 2018, a police officer failed to conduct a sufficiently thorough search of a person who was apprehended by police prior to transport and their admission to a secure psychiatric facility. Two hours after being admitted to hospital, the apprehended person pulled out a knife and started playing with it. The apprehended person relinquished the knife to hospital staff upon request. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. The police officer accepted full responsibility for his actions and wished to apologize to all those involved. The Prehearing Conference Authority recommended that the police department ensure a portable handheld metal detector was available for officers in the field to assist them in clothing searches. It was also recommended that police department representatives meet with hospital staff to discuss enhancing mutual safety protocols. This would include the potential use of the hospital's fully-trained Protective Services Officers to search patients in a clinical setting before allowing them access to their secured wards.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":958,"file":"2014-9953","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"engaged in an argument with his girlfriend, while off-duty, that escalated into a domestic assault","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"Text states the officer's argument with his girlfriend \"escalated into a domestic assault,\" with a resulting criminal process and Peace Bond — intimate partner violence by the officer himself.","text":"On September 4, 2014, a police officer on probation, engaged in an argument with his girlfriend, while off-duty, that escalated into a domestic assault. The officer resigned. The discipline authority determined that the resignation of the officer and the outcome of the criminal process which resulted in a Peace Bond between the two parties mitigated the final recommended disciplinary measure.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":959,"file":"2012-7579","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"On several occasions, the member conducted unauthorized queries on PRIME.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On several occasions, the member conducted unauthorized queries on PRIME.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":960,"file":"2012-7579","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Accessory to Misconduct","sublabel":"Aiding, Abetting or Counselling Misconduct","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"counseled another member to conduct an unauthorized search on the police database","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member also counseled another member to conduct an unauthorized search on the police database.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":961,"file":"2012-7665","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to submit photographs depicting an assault victim to Crown","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer failed to submit photographs depicting an assault victim to Crown.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":962,"file":"2018-14899","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"while off duty, a police officer was intoxicated and engaged in a verbal exchange with a neighbour that turned into a physical encounter where he pushed the female neighbor at least twice in the chest area","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On June 23, 2018, while off duty, a police officer was intoxicated and engaged in a verbal exchange with a neighbour that turned into a physical encounter where he pushed the female neighbor at least twice in the chest area.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":963,"file":"2018-14899","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Using or Attempting to Use Police Authority for Personal Gain (e.g., Preferential Treatment)","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"identified himself as an off duty VPD member to the investigating police officers in an attempt to gather personal gain or preferential treatment","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On June 23, 2018, while off duty, the police officer identified himself as an off duty VPD member to the investigating police officers in an attempt to gather personal gain or preferential treatment. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. 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. The Prehearing Conference Authority was of the view that the police officer had many other options available rather than to engage in a verbal and physical encounter with his neighbour. The Prehearing Conference Authority was also of the view that there was no reasonable explanation or duty to advise the investigating officers on scene that he was an off duty police member as the situation was off duty and not related to any police duties. The Discipline Authority did not believe that the reasonable expectation of the community was met. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference. *The suspensions were to be served consecutively.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":964,"file":"2019-17008","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"the video content amounted to an \"application of negative stereotypes or generalizations” and was intended to ridicule women","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An internal investigation was initiated into the conduct of an Abbotsford Police Department (APD) member who had played an inappropriate video to other officers during classroom training. It was determined that the video content amounted to an \"application of negative stereotypes or generalizations” and was intended to ridicule women. During the investigation, it was found that the member had disclosed details of the investigation to civilian staff and had accused staff of bringing forward the concerns regarding the video. Playing an inappropriate video during a training session thereby breaching APD Respectful Workplace policy (IB.060).","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":965,"file":"2019-17008","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"Discussing the internal investigation with three witnesses who were in class on the day the inappropriate video was shown thereby breaching the APD Respectful Workplace policy on three separate occasions.Abency: Abbotsford Police Department. Allegation 2 of 5 in this file.hwewrong** — ignore.ant:thinking_mode>auto</thinking_mode>ndard,","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An internal investigation was initiated into the conduct of an Abbotsford Police Department (APD) member who had played an inappropriate video to other officers during classroom training. It was determined that the video content amounted to an \"application of negative stereotypes or generalizations” and was intended to ridicule women. During the investigation, it was found that the member had disclosed details of the investigation to civilian staff and had accused staff of bringing forward the concerns regarding the video. Discussing the internal investigation with three witnesses who were in class on the day the inappropriate video was shown thereby breaching the APD Respectful Workplace policy on three separate occasions.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":966,"file":"2019-17008","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"Discussing the internal investigation with three witnesses who were in class on the day the inappropriate video was shown thereby breaching the APD Respectful Workplace policy on three separate occasions.','}","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An internal investigation was initiated into the conduct of an Abbotsford Police Department (APD) member who had played an inappropriate video to other officers during classroom training. It was determined that the video content amounted to an \"application of negative stereotypes or generalizations” and was intended to ridicule women. During the investigation, it was found that the member had disclosed details of the investigation to civilian staff and had accused staff of bringing forward the concerns regarding the video. Discussing the internal investigation with three witnesses who were in class on the day the inappropriate video was shown thereby breaching the APD Respectful Workplace policy on three separate occasions.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":967,"file":"2019-17008","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"Discussing the internal investigation with three witnesses who were in class on the day the inappropriate video was shown thereby breaching the APD Respectful Workplace policy on three separate occasions.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An internal investigation was initiated into the conduct of an Abbotsford Police Department (APD) member who had played an inappropriate video to other officers during classroom training. It was determined that the video content amounted to an \"application of negative stereotypes or generalizations” and was intended to ridicule women. During the investigation, it was found that the member had disclosed details of the investigation to civilian staff and had accused staff of bringing forward the concerns regarding the video. Discussing the internal investigation with three witnesses who were in class on the day the inappropriate video was shown thereby breaching the APD Respectful Workplace policy on three separate occasions.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":968,"file":"2019-17008","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"the member had disclosed details of the investigation to civilian staff and had accused staff of bringing forward the concerns regarding the video. Engaging in retaliation towards a complainant in contravention of section 25 of the Respectful Workplace policy.=","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An internal investigation was initiated into the conduct of an Abbotsford Police Department (APD) member who had played an inappropriate video to other officers during classroom training. It was determined that the video content amounted to an \"application of negative stereotypes or generalizations” and was intended to ridicule women. During the investigation, it was found that the member had disclosed details of the investigation to civilian staff and had accused staff of bringing forward the concerns regarding the video. Engaging in retaliation towards a complainant in contravention of section 25 of the Respectful Workplace policy.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":969,"file":"2011-7007","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Disorderly Conduct Prejudicial to the Maintenance of Discipline in the Department","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"engaged in a pursuit, drew his firearm and used force on a complainant","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member engaged in a pursuit, drew his firearm and used force on a complainant.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":970,"file":"2011-7007","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The member did not appropriately submit and document the incident.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member did not appropriately submit and document the incident.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":971,"file":"2013-8790","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"the officer made unprofessional remarks to the issuing officer.\"}","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer, while off duty, was the subject of a traffic stop. During the traffic stop, the officer identified himself as a police officer. After receiving the violation ticket, the officer made unprofessional remarks to the issuing officer.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":972,"file":"2011-6989","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Firearm","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"the police officer drew her service pistol, pointed it at the driver, forced her to the ground, and placed her in handcuffs","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer attempted to stop a vehicle with emergency lights and siren engaged, however, the vehicle failed to stop for police. When the vehicle was finally stopped, the police officer drew her service pistol, pointed it at the driver, forced her to the ground, and placed her in handcuffs.","measures":["training"]},{"id":973,"file":"2011-6989","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Discourtesy","sublabel":"Discourteous - Verbal","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"the police officer used inappropriate language towards the complainant","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"During this incident, the police officer used inappropriate language towards the complainant.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":974,"file":"2011-6989","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Oppressive Conduct","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.55,"thin":false,"quote":"It was later determined that the police officer did not provide the complainant a reasonable opportunity to produce her driver’s licence.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The complainant was later released without criminal charges, but was issued a violation ticket for failing to provide a driver’s licence. It was later determined that the police officer did not provide the complainant a reasonable opportunity to produce her driver’s licence.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":975,"file":"2010-5251","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Improper Off-Duty Conduct","sublabel":"Asserting/Purporting Police Authority and Committing a Default","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"While off duty but identifying himself as a police officer, the member spoke in a threatening manner to an employee of Revenue Canada.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"While off duty but identifying himself as a police officer, the member spoke in a threatening manner to an employee of Revenue Canada.","measures":["written reprimand","program activity"]},{"id":976,"file":"2014-9949","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"neglected to conduct reasonable follow-up investigative steps in relation to a sexual assault allegation","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer neglected to conduct reasonable follow-up investigative steps in relation to a sexual assault allegation. The officer also neglected to submit a Violent Crime Linkage Analysis System report within 24 days of the incident or to notify the Ministry of Child and Family Services of the incident in accordance with department policy.","measures":["written reprimand","program activity"]},{"id":977,"file":"2014-9949","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"neglected to notify or attempt to notify the victim of an alleged sexual assault that the investigation was concluded and the reasons why","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer neglected to notify or attempt to notify the victim of an alleged sexual assault that the investigation was concluded and the reasons why.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":978,"file":"2016-11864","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"presented department issued police identification to the woman","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On November 13, 2015, a police officer arranged to meet a woman that the police officer had initially met on the Ashley Madison dating website. At the time of the meeting, the police officer was on duty and, as a means of identification, presented department issued police identification to the woman.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":979,"file":"2016-11864","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"improperly used a police vehicle for the purpose of engaging in an extramarital affair and had an unauthorized civilian in a police vehicle","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"While “on call”, the police officer improperly used a police vehicle for the purpose of engaging in an extramarital affair and had an unauthorized civilian in a police vehicle.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":980,"file":"2016-11864","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Improper Disclosure of Information","sublabel":"Disclosing Information Acquired as a Police Officer","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"disclosed holdback information from a suspected homicide investigation to the woman","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer disclosed holdback information from a suspected homicide investigation to the woman.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":981,"file":"2016-11864","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Improper Disclosure of Information","sublabel":"Disclosing Information Acquired as a Police Officer","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"disclosed information from a drug warrant execution by showing the woman photographs","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer disclosed information from a drug warrant execution by showing the woman photographs.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":982,"file":"2016-11864","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Improper Disclosure of Information","sublabel":"Disclosing Information Acquired as a Police Officer","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"disclosed information from a fatal motor vehicle collision to the woman","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer disclosed information from a fatal motor vehicle collision to the woman.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":983,"file":"2016-11864","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"requested that the other police officer not identify themselves as a police officer when requesting the woman cease contact with the police officer","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer requested another police officer to block the phone number of the phone used to call the woman. The police officer further requested that the other police officer not identify themselves as a police officer when requesting the woman cease contact with the police officer.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":984,"file":"2016-11864","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"This created a conflict of interest in that Member 1 failed to make his report as a private citizen through the proper protocols.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Member 1 directed Member 3 to conduct an investigation into his complaint of criminal harassment. This created a conflict of interest in that Member 1 failed to make his report as a private citizen through the proper protocols.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":985,"file":"2016-11864","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"operated outside their authority as a police officer by requesting the woman to cease contacting the police officer with whom she was alleged to have been in a relationship with","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer operated outside their authority as a police officer by requesting the woman to cease contacting the police officer with whom she was alleged to have been in a relationship with.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":986,"file":"2016-11864","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to adequately investigate a complaint of harassment","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer failed to adequately investigate a complaint of harassment. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference for each of the police officers. 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. The OPCC reviewed the prehearing conference reports and, considering all the relevant factors in this case, the OPCC determined the discipline was within the acceptable range for appropriate discipline based on the circumstances. The OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference. *All suspensions for Member A were to be served concurrently.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":987,"file":"2019-16654","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Provide Charter Rights","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"the member should have facilitated the phone call","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The complainant reported that she was arrested by police at a hospital for disturbing the peace. The complainant was brought to the police station where she was advised that she could make a phone call. The complainant was subsequently taken to a cell where she was left for approximately nine hours. During this time, she was never provided an opportunity to make a phone call, despite providing a phone number multiple times to an officer. In response, the officer continued to tell her it was not a proper number for a lawyer. The complainant was released the following morning without having been provided the opportunity to consult legal counsel. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required into the matter. Failing to facilitate or allow the complainant to contact a lawyer by telephone, during the period in which she was being held in Abbotsford Police Department cells. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. Under section 10(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms , a person arrested or detained by police has the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay, and to be informed of that right. Everyone has this right regardless of whether a person will be charged criminally or will go to court. It was determined that the complainant’s request to contact a third party to assist her in contacting legal counsel was not unreasonable in the circumstances and that the member should have facilitated the phone call. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":988,"file":"2018-14510","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to slow his police vehicle to a speed consistent with reasonable care when approaching and entering an intersection so other motorists could fully react, considering the police officer was not utilizing the proper siren","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On July 26, 2017, a police officer failed to slow his police vehicle to a speed consistent with reasonable care when approaching and entering an intersection so other motorists could fully react, considering the police officer was not utilizing the proper siren. This resulted in a motor vehicle collision between the police vehicle and three civilian vehicles. Four individuals, including the police officer, sustained minor soft tissue injuries. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. The Prehearing Conference Authority found that the police officer took full responsibility for his actions and imposed the above-noted discipline. Section 111 of the Police Act authorizes that the Police Complaint Commissioner may report to Crown counsel any matter when the Commissioner considers that the conduct of the member under investigation may constitute an offence created under any enactment, including an enactment of Canada or another province. After a comprehensive assessment of the available evidence in this matter, the Police Complaint Commissioner determined that the conduct of the police officer may constitute an offence under the BC Motor Vehicle Act. Therefore, the Police Complaint Commissioner forwarded a Report to Crown Counsel requesting that the Criminal Justice Branch undertake a charge assessment in relation to this matter. Crown Counsel ultimately determined that it was not in the public interest to proceed with charges. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["training","advice future conduct"]},{"id":989,"file":"2014-9836","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2018,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Follow Supervisor's Lawful Order - Verbal","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"The two police officers failed to contact the local police department and request the back-up officers.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On July 18, 2014, two police officers were directed to attend a private residence to effect the arrest of a suspect in a criminal harassment complaint. A police supervisor instructed the two police officers to contact the local police department and request cover officers to prevent an escape of the suspect. The two police officers failed to contact the local police department and request the back-up officers. The two respondent police officers submitted a request for a Review on the Record to the Police Complaint Commissioner pursuant to section 141 of the Police Act . They believed that the decision of the Discipline Authority was incorrect and established a precedent where members must follow directions from a supervisor, regardless whether that direction is lawful. Additionally, the officers believed the discipline imposed was excessive and did not consider the intent of the Act to be corrective and educational. After reviewing all of the relevant material, the Police Complaint Commissioner agreed with the Discipline Authority’s determination that the alleged misconduct had been proven. However, the Police Complaint Commissioner determined that there was an arguable basis that the proposed discipline was inappropriate in the circumstances. Therefore, pursuant to sections 137(2) and 141 of the Police Act, the Police Complaint Commissioner arranged a Review on the Record to review the proposed disciplinary and corrective measures issued by the Discipline Authority in this matter. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Wally Oppal, Q.C., retired British Columbia Court of Appeal Judge to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. On January 22, 2018, Adjudicator Oppal, Q.C., issued his decision where he imposed a written reprimand to both officers for the failure to follow a lawful order and for failing to failing to execute the arrest of the suspect for both officers. Adjudicator Oppal directed the officer who unlawfully entered the residence to attend at least 10 hours of training on the law relating to entering and searching homes and buildings and the Charter protection against unreasonable search and seizure. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":990,"file":"2014-9836","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2018,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Entry","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"One of the police officers proceeded to enter the private residence without permission and without a warrant.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The two police officers attended the suspect’s apartment building and buzzed the suite to gain entry. The officers then proceeded to the apartment where a male answered the door. The male asked the reason for the police presence and then advised that he was going to telephone his lawyer. After waiting a few moments, a female exited one of the bedrooms. When questioned, the female advised that she did not know where the male had gone. One of the police officers proceeded to enter the private residence without permission and without a warrant. The two respondent police officers submitted a request for a Review on the Record to the Police Complaint Commissioner pursuant to section 141 of the Police Act . They believed that the decision of the Discipline Authority was incorrect and established a precedent where members must follow directions from a supervisor, regardless whether that direction is lawful. Additionally, the officers believed the discipline imposed was excessive and did not consider the intent of the Act to be corrective and educational. After reviewing all of the relevant material, the Police Complaint Commissioner agreed with the Discipline Authority’s determination that the alleged misconduct had been proven. However, the Police Complaint Commissioner determined that there was an arguable basis that the proposed discipline was inappropriate in the circumstances. Therefore, pursuant to sections 137(2) and 141 of the Police Act, the Police Complaint Commissioner arranged a Review on the Record to review the proposed disciplinary and corrective measures issued by the Discipline Authority in this matter. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Wally Oppal, Q.C., retired British Columbia Court of Appeal Judge to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. On January 22, 2018, Adjudicator Oppal, Q.C., issued his decision where he imposed a written reprimand to both officers for the failure to follow a lawful order and for failing to failing to execute the arrest of the suspect for both officers. Adjudicator Oppal directed the officer who unlawfully entered the residence to attend at least 10 hours of training on the law relating to entering and searching homes and buildings and the Charter protection against unreasonable search and seizure. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["training"]},{"id":991,"file":"2014-9836","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2018,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"officers neglected to comply with standard procedures of covering a potential escape route and did not have sufficient resources present for a person who was suicidal and an escape risk","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The male suspect was not located on July 18, 2014, despite the area being searched with the assistance of local officers and a police dog. It was determined that the officers neglected to comply with standard procedures of covering a potential escape route and did not have sufficient resources present for a person who was suicidal and an escape risk. These actions were deemed to be a disregard for basic procedures that placed the public at risk. This matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The Discipline Authority substantiated the three allegations of misconduct and, imposed discipline: a written reprimand for the unlawful entry of the complainant’s residence; a written reprimand for the failure to properly execute an arrest; and a four day suspension without pay for failing to obey a lawful order of a supervisor. The two respondent police officers submitted a request for a Review on the Record to the Police Complaint Commissioner pursuant to section 141 of the Police Act . They believed that the decision of the Discipline Authority was incorrect and established a precedent where members must follow directions from a supervisor, regardless whether that direction is lawful. Additionally, the officers believed the discipline imposed was excessive and did not consider the intent of the Act to be corrective and educational. After reviewing all of the relevant material, the Police Complaint Commissioner agreed with the Discipline Authority’s determination that the alleged misconduct had been proven. However, the Police Complaint Commissioner determined that there was an arguable basis that the proposed discipline was inappropriate in the circumstances. Therefore, pursuant to sections 137(2) and 141 of the Police Act, the Police Complaint Commissioner arranged a Review on the Record to review the proposed disciplinary and corrective measures issued by the Discipline Authority in this matter. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Wally Oppal, Q.C., retired British Columbia Court of Appeal Judge to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. On January 22, 2018, Adjudicator Oppal, Q.C., issued his decision where he imposed a written reprimand to both officers for the failure to follow a lawful order and for failing to failing to execute the arrest of the suspect for both officers. Adjudicator Oppal directed the officer who unlawfully entered the residence to attend at least 10 hours of training on the law relating to entering and searching homes and buildings and the Charter protection against unreasonable search and seizure. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":992,"file":"2011-6811","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Improvised Weapon","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"pinned him to a building using his police vehicle causing the complainant’s leg to break","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member intentionally or recklessly used unnecessary force when arresting the complainant when he pinned him to a building using his police vehicle causing the complainant’s leg to break.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":993,"file":"2020-18356","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Immediate Roadside Prohibition/Impaired Operation of a Motor Vehicle","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"The off-duty member was found operating a motor vehicle while affected by alcohol, and was served with a notice of three-day driving prohibition and vehicle impoundment","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a member for driving while affected by alcohol. According to the VPD, the off-duty member was stopped by an RCMP member for speeding and was issued a three-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition and their vehicle was impounded after the member provided a breath sample that registered a “warn” on an Approved Screening Device. The off-duty member was found operating a motor vehicle while affected by alcohol, and was served with a notice of three-day driving prohibition and vehicle impoundment in accordance with provisions of the BC Motor Vehicle Act. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":994,"file":"2010-5337","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"multiple encounters with female staff at a local restaurant that included unwanted physical contact, inappropriate comments and harassment","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The member had \"multiple encounters with female staff\" involving \"unwanted physical contact, inappropriate comments and harassment,\" plainly implying gendered/sexualized misconduct by the officer himself.","text":"While off duty, the member had multiple encounters with female staff at a local restaurant that included unwanted physical contact, inappropriate comments and harassment.","measures":["suspension","written reprimand","training","counselling"]},{"id":995,"file":"2019-16974","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the SMC conducted queries in PRIME looking for a police report related to an incident involving a personal acquaintance","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a Special Municipal Constable (SMC). It was reported that the SMC conducted queries in PRIME looking for a police report related to an incident involving a personal acquaintance. The SMC located the report and read the synopsis but did not disclose any of the information reviewed. Searching PRIME for personal reasons and outside the scope of lawful duties. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member accepted responsibility for their actions from the outset, and had expressed remorse and learned from their actions. The discipline was consistent with similar incident dispositions. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":996,"file":"2019-17197","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The member engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with a recruit.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The allegation states the training officer \"engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with a recruit,\" investigated criminally, which is sexualized conduct by the member within a power-imbalanced trainer relationship.","text":"Upon request from the Delta Police Department (DPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation following an allegation of inappropriate sexual conduct between a recruit and a training officer. In addition, it was reported that the member may have contravened departmental policy by engaging in a personal relationship as a field trainer with their trainee and failed to report this conflict of interest to Human Resources. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation. The matter was referred to the BC Prosecution Service but charges were not approved. The member engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct with a recruit.","measures":["suspension","training","close supervision"]},{"id":997,"file":"2019-17197","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"The member neglected to notify the Human Resources manager contrary to the provisions of DPD policy.this allegation, the Prehearing Conference Authority found that the member took full responsibility for his actions and expressed sincere regret and that he has learned from his mistakes.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Delta Police Department (DPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation following an allegation of inappropriate sexual conduct between a recruit and a training officer. In addition, it was reported that the member may have contravened departmental policy by engaging in a personal relationship as a field trainer with their trainee and failed to report this conflict of interest to Human Resources. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation. The matter was referred to the BC Prosecution Service but charges were not approved. The member neglected to notify the Human Resources manager contrary to the provisions of DPD policy. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member where it was noted that police recruits are in a “clearly disadvantaged position in that they do not enjoy the same job security as a first-class constable” and that a “significant power imbalance existed” between the two members at the time of the sexual encounter. In arriving a decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority found that the member took full responsibility for his actions and expressed sincere regret and that he has learned from his mistakes. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":998,"file":"2018-15338","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to control a police service dog which bit and caused injury to a member of the public who had approached the PSD handler’s vehicle in an animated state.output not exwrong key. Let me remove.,","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of VicPD members. According to the VicPD, a member (‘Member A’) failed to control a police service dog which bit and caused injury to a member of the public who had approached the PSD handler’s vehicle in an animated state. Member A also failed to accurately document the incident and had missing pages from their notebook. In addition, the supervising member (‘Member B’) who attended the incident failed to obtain all pertinent details from the involved member. The member neglected to properly and diligently maintain control the police service dog contrary to police policy and BC Provincial Policing Standards.","measures":["transfer reassignment"]},{"id":999,"file":"2018-15338","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"neglected to properly and diligently document the incident, and pages were missing from their notebook","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of VicPD members. According to the VicPD, a member (‘Member A’) failed to control a police service dog which bit and caused injury to a member of the public who had approached the PSD handler’s vehicle in an animated state. Member A also failed to accurately document the incident and had missing pages from their notebook. In addition, the supervising member (‘Member B’) who attended the incident failed to obtain all pertinent details from the involved member. The member neglected to properly and diligently document the incident, and pages were missing from their notebook. At the conclusion of the investigation the Discipline Authority found that Member A committed two allegations of misconduct and the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The Discipline Authority found that Member A had a duty to “control” the police service dog regardless of whether it was intentionally or accidentally deployed. The police service dog bit a member of the public twice, once on the hand and a second time in the hip area. Member A was required to deploy the police service dog in accordance with provincial, and police use of force policies. The evidence presented throughout the investigation indicated that there was no valid reason to deploy the police service dog. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority noted that the evidence indicated that the initial police report submitted by Member A was later changed and that Member A’s notebook was missing pages. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1000,"file":"2018-15338","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The member neglected to ensure details and information regarding the incident involving Member A were adequately obtained.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of VicPD members. According to the VicPD, a member (‘Member A’) failed to control a police service dog which bit and caused injury to a member of the public who had approached the PSD handler’s vehicle in an animated state. Member A also failed to accurately document the incident and had missing pages from their notebook. In addition, the supervising member (‘Member B’) who attended the incident failed to obtain all pertinent details from the involved member. The member neglected to ensure details and information regarding the incident involving Member A were adequately obtained. The Discipline Authority found that Member B who was the supervisor, committed one allegation of misconduct; the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The Discipline Authority determine that the member had a duty as a supervisor to ensure that basic information and details were obtained, including what had occurred and why. While not responsible for investigating the incident, the member did have a duty to gather available and essential information, particularly as this incident included the use of force by a police K9 unit and that there were injuries to the affected person. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority did not classify the misconduct as serious and noted that the issue of concern was how the member responded as a supervisor and what information, if any, was obtained after attending the scene. The Discipline Authority also noted that the member did not have a Service Record of Discipline and that the member’s performance over the years had been exemplary. The member requested a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed the findings and determined that further review was not in the public interest.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":1001,"file":"2012-8139","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"inappropriately touched another officer with a sex toy he had located","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The text states the officer \"inappropriately touched another officer with a sex toy,\" which is sexualized touching committed by the officer himself.'","text":"While part of a search team executing a warrant at a residence, a police officer inappropriately touched another officer with a sex toy he had located.","measures":["suspension","counselling"]},{"id":1002,"file":"2022-21564","agency":"Port Moody Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to adequately articulate material details of their investigation, including relevant driving behaviour, grounds for the arrest and detention of the driver, and identification of the driver of the vehicle","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Port Moody Police Department (PMPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a PMPD member for their handling of a prohibited driver investigation. It was reported that the member submitted a written report containing several inconsistencies and that the member failed to adequately articulate material details of their investigation, including relevant driving behaviour, grounds for the arrest and detention of the driver, and identification of the driver of the vehicle. As a result of a supervisory review, the vehicle impound was reversed, the Violation Ticket cancelled, and no charges were forwarded to Crown Counsel. Upon request by the PMPD, the Commissioner determined it was in the public interest for an external police agency to complete the investigation. The member failed to adequately investigate and document a prohibited driving incident. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member inaccurately depicted the sequence of significant events after writing their Report to Crown Counsel from memory several weeks after the incident, incorrectly quoted the accused admitting to driving and determined that the member’s conduct fell below the standard expected of an experienced police officer. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1003,"file":"2018-15600","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Arrest","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member did not have the lawful authority to arrest of one of the complainants.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received complaints from three complainants describing concerns with two members of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) who approached them after jaywalking in the early morning hours. An altercation ensued, during which force was used to arrest the complainants, including the deployment of pepper spray. The OPCC reviewed the complaints and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. During the course of the investigation, additional issues arose with respect to one member. It was alleged that the member failed to provide fulsome information on a submitted Report to Crown Counsel (RTCC), provided contradictory oral and written evidence during the Police Act investigation, and failed to provide Charter Rights to one of the complainants. The member did not have the lawful authority to arrest of one of the complainants. The Commissioner reviewed the outcome of the discipline proceeding, including the request of the member and determined that he would arrange a Review on the Record as the nature and seriousness of the misconduct included an allegation of Deceit, which is one of the most serious findings of misconduct under the Police Act, and also because the incident involved a significant use of force incident where there was the deployment of an intermediate weapon (i.e. OC spray). The Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge, James Threlfall, to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. In issuing his decision, Mr. Threlfall acknowledged that it was an evolving and dynamic situation that police were involved in; however, Mr. Threlfall noted a number of instances where the member had committed misconduct. Mr. Threlfall found that the member was reckless in not turning his mind to whether he had the ground to affect the arrest. Mr. Threlfall also found that there was a failure to provide one of the complainants with the reason for his arrest, and in particular his section 10 Charter Rights. In relation to the force used, Mr. Threlfall found that the member “failed to undertake the necessary analysis of the situation, in particular, the options available to him, and how the situation could be de-escalated without resorting to the use of force. All of these considerations should have been entertained before discharging OC spray.” In relation to the Report to Crown Counsel (RTCC), Mr. Threlfall found that the video of the incident indicated that the member’s comments in the RTCC “were clearly misleading and an apparent attempt to ensure that a charge of obstruction was laid with respect to [the complainant]”. In issuing his finding on this allegation, Mr. Threlfall emphasized how important it is to the administration of justice that Crown Counsel can rely upon and trust that the facts detailed in reports by police are accurate. Mr. Threlfall found there was no lawful excuse for these omissions. Mr. Threlfall could not find that the member committed deceit when he provided a statement to the investigator as it was not clear that the member definitively knew what actually did happen with respect to the deployment of pepper spray on one of the complainants. *The suspensions were to be served consecutively. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1004,"file":"2018-15600","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - OC Spray","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to undertake the necessary analysis of the situation, in particular, the options available to him, and how the situation could be de-escalated without resorting to the use of force","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received complaints from three complainants describing concerns with two members of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) who approached them after jaywalking in the early morning hours. An altercation ensued, during which force was used to arrest the complainants, including the deployment of pepper spray. The OPCC reviewed the complaints and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. During the course of the investigation, additional issues arose with respect to one member. It was alleged that the member failed to provide fulsome information on a submitted Report to Crown Counsel (RTCC), provided contradictory oral and written evidence during the Police Act investigation, and failed to provide Charter Rights to one of the complainants. The member inappropriately deployed OC spray on one of the complainants. The Commissioner reviewed the outcome of the discipline proceeding, including the request of the member and determined that he would arrange a Review on the Record as the nature and seriousness of the misconduct included an allegation of Deceit, which is one of the most serious findings of misconduct under the Police Act, and also because the incident involved a significant use of force incident where there was the deployment of an intermediate weapon (i.e. OC spray). The Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge, James Threlfall, to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. In issuing his decision, Mr. Threlfall acknowledged that it was an evolving and dynamic situation that police were involved in; however, Mr. Threlfall noted a number of instances where the member had committed misconduct. Mr. Threlfall found that the member was reckless in not turning his mind to whether he had the ground to affect the arrest. Mr. Threlfall also found that there was a failure to provide one of the complainants with the reason for his arrest, and in particular his section 10 Charter Rights. In relation to the force used, Mr. Threlfall found that the member “failed to undertake the necessary analysis of the situation, in particular, the options available to him, and how the situation could be de-escalated without resorting to the use of force. All of these considerations should have been entertained before discharging OC spray.” In relation to the Report to Crown Counsel (RTCC), Mr. Threlfall found that the video of the incident indicated that the member’s comments in the RTCC “were clearly misleading and an apparent attempt to ensure that a charge of obstruction was laid with respect to [the complainant]”. In issuing his finding on this allegation, Mr. Threlfall emphasized how important it is to the administration of justice that Crown Counsel can rely upon and trust that the facts detailed in reports by police are accurate. Mr. Threlfall found there was no lawful excuse for these omissions. Mr. Threlfall could not find that the member committed deceit when he provided a statement to the investigator as it was not clear that the member definitively knew what actually did happen with respect to the deployment of pepper spray on one of the complainants. *The suspensions were to be served consecutively. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["suspension","training","close supervision"]},{"id":1005,"file":"2018-15600","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Provide Charter Rights","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"there was a failure to provide one of the complainants with the reason for his arrest, and in particular his section 10 Charter Rights","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received complaints from three complainants describing concerns with two members of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) who approached them after jaywalking in the early morning hours. An altercation ensued, during which force was used to arrest the complainants, including the deployment of pepper spray. The OPCC reviewed the complaints and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. During the course of the investigation, additional issues arose with respect to one member. It was alleged that the member failed to provide fulsome information on a submitted Report to Crown Counsel (RTCC), provided contradictory oral and written evidence during the Police Act investigation, and failed to provide Charter Rights to one of the complainants. The member failed to provide one of the complainants with his Section 10 Charter Rights following his arrest. The Commissioner reviewed the outcome of the discipline proceeding, including the request of the member and determined that he would arrange a Review on the Record as the nature and seriousness of the misconduct included an allegation of Deceit, which is one of the most serious findings of misconduct under the Police Act, and also because the incident involved a significant use of force incident where there was the deployment of an intermediate weapon (i.e. OC spray). The Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge, James Threlfall, to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. In issuing his decision, Mr. Threlfall acknowledged that it was an evolving and dynamic situation that police were involved in; however, Mr. Threlfall noted a number of instances where the member had committed misconduct. Mr. Threlfall found that the member was reckless in not turning his mind to whether he had the ground to affect the arrest. Mr. Threlfall also found that there was a failure to provide one of the complainants with the reason for his arrest, and in particular his section 10 Charter Rights. In relation to the force used, Mr. Threlfall found that the member “failed to undertake the necessary analysis of the situation, in particular, the options available to him, and how the situation could be de-escalated without resorting to the use of force. All of these considerations should have been entertained before discharging OC spray.” In relation to the Report to Crown Counsel (RTCC), Mr. Threlfall found that the video of the incident indicated that the member’s comments in the RTCC “were clearly misleading and an apparent attempt to ensure that a charge of obstruction was laid with respect to [the complainant]”. In issuing his finding on this allegation, Mr. Threlfall emphasized how important it is to the administration of justice that Crown Counsel can rely upon and trust that the facts detailed in reports by police are accurate. Mr. Threlfall found there was no lawful excuse for these omissions. Mr. Threlfall could not find that the member committed deceit when he provided a statement to the investigator as it was not clear that the member definitively knew what actually did happen with respect to the deployment of pepper spray on one of the complainants. *The suspensions were to be served consecutively. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1006,"file":"2018-15600","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Failure to Report Info/Evidence Material to an Alleged Offence","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"were clearly misleading and an apparent attempt to ensure that a charge of obstruction was laid with respect to [the complainant]","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received complaints from three complainants describing concerns with two members of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) who approached them after jaywalking in the early morning hours. An altercation ensued, during which force was used to arrest the complainants, including the deployment of pepper spray. The OPCC reviewed the complaints and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. During the course of the investigation, additional issues arose with respect to one member. It was alleged that the member failed to provide fulsome information on a submitted Report to Crown Counsel (RTCC), provided contradictory oral and written evidence during the Police Act investigation, and failed to provide Charter Rights to one of the complainants. The member did not provide fulsome information on a submitted RTCC regarding force used on an arrested subject. 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. Following the outcome of the discipline proceeding, the member requested that the Commissioner arrange a Review on the Record. The Commissioner reviewed the outcome of the discipline proceeding, including the request of the member and determined that he would arrange a Review on the Record as the nature and seriousness of the misconduct included an allegation of Deceit, which is one of the most serious findings of misconduct under the Police Act, and also because the incident involved a significant use of force incident where there was the deployment of an intermediate weapon (i.e. OC spray). The Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge, James Threlfall, to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. In issuing his decision, Mr. Threlfall acknowledged that it was an evolving and dynamic situation that police were involved in; however, Mr. Threlfall noted a number of instances where the member had committed misconduct. Mr. Threlfall found that the member was reckless in not turning his mind to whether he had the ground to affect the arrest. Mr. Threlfall also found that there was a failure to provide one of the complainants with the reason for his arrest, and in particular his section 10 Charter Rights. In relation to the force used, Mr. Threlfall found that the member “failed to undertake the necessary analysis of the situation, in particular, the options available to him, and how the situation could be de-escalated without resorting to the use of force. All of these considerations should have been entertained before discharging OC spray.” In relation to the Report to Crown Counsel (RTCC), Mr. Threlfall found that the video of the incident indicated that the member’s comments in the RTCC “were clearly misleading and an apparent attempt to ensure that a charge of obstruction was laid with respect to [the complainant]”. In issuing his finding on this allegation, Mr. Threlfall emphasized how important it is to the administration of justice that Crown Counsel can rely upon and trust that the facts detailed in reports by police are accurate. Mr. Threlfall found there was no lawful excuse for these omissions. Mr. Threlfall could not find that the member committed deceit when he provided a statement to the investigator as it was not clear that the member definitively knew what actually did happen with respect to the deployment of pepper spray on one of the complainants. *The suspensions were to be served consecutively. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["suspension","close supervision"]},{"id":1007,"file":"2011-6938","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member failed the breathalyzer test and was issued an Immediate Roadside Prohibition.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member failed the breathalyzer test and was issued an Immediate Roadside Prohibition.","measures":["suspension","verbal reprimand"]},{"id":1008,"file":"2010-5186","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Search of a Person","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the member conducted unlawful pat-down searches of the complainant and his 2 companions, as well as a search of the complainant’s backpack","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"While dealing with the complainant for a bylaw offence, the member conducted unlawful pat-down searches of the complainant and his 2 companions, as well as a search of the complainant’s backpack.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":1009,"file":"2010-5186","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Discourtesy","sublabel":"Discourteous - General","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"the officer’s conduct was unnecessarily discourteous","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"In addition, the officer’s conduct was unnecessarily discourteous.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":1010,"file":"2021-20518","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Unsafe Storage of Firearm","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to properly care for and store their VPD issue firearm in a manner that was consistent with VPD policy and standards","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a member for failing to properly secure their firearm. It was reported that the member’s personal vehicle had been broken into and two duffel bags were removed from the vehicle. The member’s firearm and other pieces of police issued equipment were subsequently recovered because of a police investigation into the theft. The member resigned from the VPD prior to conclusion of the investigation. The member failed to properly care for and store their VPD issue firearm in a manner that was consistent with VPD policy and standards.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1011,"file":"2021-20518","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"had stored their firearm in the trunk of their insecure and unattended vehicle in an area associated with high rates of property crime offences, and had stored the keys to the \"trigger locking device\" and lock-box in the padlock of the lock-box itself","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a member for failing to properly secure their firearm. It was reported that the member’s personal vehicle had been broken into and two duffel bags were removed from the vehicle. The member’s firearm and other pieces of police issued equipment were subsequently recovered because of a police investigation into the theft. The member resigned from the VPD prior to conclusion of the investigation. The member failed to uphold the VPD’s Code of Ethics and failed to adhere to the VPD’s regulations pursuant to the safe storage of their VPD issue firearm. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the former member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered to the former member which the former member did not respond to. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding; the former member did not attend the proceedings which commenced in their absence. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority found that the actions of the former member demonstrated a lack of situational awareness, noting that the former member was uncertain about the location of their firearm, had stored their firearm in the trunk of their insecure and unattended vehicle in an area associated with high rates of property crime offences, and had stored the keys to the “trigger locking device” and lock-box in the padlock of the lock-box itself. Additionally, with respect to public safety, the Discipline Authority noted that the former member’s firearm fell into the hands of an unauthorized person. The former member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. Even though the former member resigned prior to the conclusion of this matter, their Service Record of Discipline will reflect the discipline imposed.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1012,"file":"2022-21412","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member switched prices on products in a store in order to reduce the retail purchase price, and thus committed fraud.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the off duty conduct of a VPD member. It was reported that the off-duty member was arrested at a retail establishment for switching bar codes on merchandise and paying a reduced price for the merchandise. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation in which the member admitted to one count of Fraud; the criminal matter was concluded through alternative measures. During the investigation, an additional allegation arose in relation to the member identifying themselves as a VPD member to the arresting officers and requesting that they not proceed with criminal charges. The member resigned from the VPD prior to the conclusion of the investigation. The member switched prices on products in a store in order to reduce the retail purchase price, and thus committed fraud.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":1013,"file":"2022-21412","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Using or Attempting to Use Police Authority for Personal Gain (e.g., Preferential Treatment)","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member used their position as a police officer to gain favour from the arresting officers.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the off duty conduct of a VPD member. It was reported that the off-duty member was arrested at a retail establishment for switching bar codes on merchandise and paying a reduced price for the merchandise. The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation in which the member admitted to one count of Fraud; the criminal matter was concluded through alternative measures. During the investigation, an additional allegation arose in relation to the member identifying themselves as a VPD member to the arresting officers and requesting that they not proceed with criminal charges. The member resigned from the VPD prior to the conclusion of the investigation. The member used their position as a police officer to gain favour from the arresting officers. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed two counts of misconduct. No prehearing conference was offered to the member and as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The member resigned prior to the discipline proceeding and did not participate in the process. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority determined that the member’s actions were “serious and egregious in nature.” Specifically, the Discipline Authority noted that the member’s “fraudulent offence” of switching price barcodes was premeditated, done for the member’s personal financial gain, and precipitated a costly police investigation. The Discipline Authority also noted that during the member’s arrest, the member attempted to use their status as an officer to mitigate an investigation and/or the ramifications of their own conduct. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. Even though the member resigned prior to the conclusion of this matter, their Service Record of Discipline will reflect that they were dismissed from the VPD.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1014,"file":"2017-13587","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Arrest","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"arrested the complainant without good and sufficient cause following a traffic stop by members of the Lower Mainland Integrated Road Safety Unit (IRSU).","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On May 23, 2017, a police officer arrested the complainant without good and sufficient cause following a traffic stop by members of the Lower Mainland Integrated Road Safety Unit (IRSU). The Police Complaint Commissioner reviewed the Discipline Authority’s decision and concluded there was a reasonable basis to believe that the decision was incorrect in relation to each of the allegations of misconduct. Therefore, pursuant to section 117(4) of the Police Act and based on a recommendation from the Associate Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable David Pendleton, retired Provincial Court Judge, to review this matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. On April 26, 2018, Adjudicator Pendleton issued his decision where he determined that based on the materials and evidence contained in the Final Investigation Report, the evidence appeared sufficient to substantiate the allegations that a police officer recklessly made an arrest without good and sufficient cause and recklessly used unnecessary force. Considering the factors in section 120 of the Police Act, Adjudicator Pendleton was willing to offer the police officer a prehearing conference. The range of disciplinary or corrective measures set out in the Act, which Adjudicator Pendleton would consider appropriate included: Training/Retraining Written reprimand Verbal reprimand Advice to Future Conduct Disciplinary Process This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. 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. When taking into consideration the requirements of the Police Act , the comments of retired Provincial Court Judge Pendleton, and all of the mitigating and aggravating factors the Prehearing Conference Authority advised that the above noted disciplinary and corrective measures had been agreed to. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["verbal reprimand","training"]},{"id":1015,"file":"2017-13587","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Arrest","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"forcefully pushing/shoving the complainant into the car door","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On May 23, 2017, a police officer used unnecessary force on the complainant while effecting the arrest by forcefully pushing/shoving the complainant into the car door. This matter was related to a traffic stop initiated by municipal police officers seconded to IRSU. As it involved more than one municipal police department the Police Complaint Commissioner determined that it was in the public interest that an external Discipline Authority be appointed to minimize any perception or apprehension of bias in the decision making. At the conclusion of the investigation, the external Discipline Authority determined there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the members committed misconduct. The Police Complaint Commissioner reviewed the Discipline Authority’s decision and concluded there was a reasonable basis to believe that the decision was incorrect in relation to each of the allegations of misconduct. Therefore, pursuant to section 117(4) of the Police Act and based on a recommendation from the Associate Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable David Pendleton, retired Provincial Court Judge, to review this matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. On April 26, 2018, Adjudicator Pendleton issued his decision where he determined that based on the materials and evidence contained in the Final Investigation Report, the evidence appeared sufficient to substantiate the allegations that a police officer recklessly made an arrest without good and sufficient cause and recklessly used unnecessary force. Considering the factors in section 120 of the Police Act, Adjudicator Pendleton was willing to offer the police officer a prehearing conference. The range of disciplinary or corrective measures set out in the Act, which Adjudicator Pendleton would consider appropriate included: Training/Retraining Written reprimand Verbal reprimand Advice to Future Conduct Disciplinary Process This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. 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. When taking into consideration the requirements of the Police Act , the comments of retired Provincial Court Judge Pendleton, and all of the mitigating and aggravating factors the Prehearing Conference Authority advised that the above noted disciplinary and corrective measures had been agreed to. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["verbal reprimand","training"]},{"id":1016,"file":"2012-7140","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member queried police databases for purposes unrelated to his duties as a police officer.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member queried police databases for purposes unrelated to his duties as a police officer.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1017,"file":"2012-7140","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Improper Disclosure of Information","sublabel":"Disclosing Information Acquired as a Police Officer","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"The member then disclosed the information.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member then disclosed the information.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1018,"file":"2015-11126","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.72,"thin":false,"quote":"took enforcement action in relation to an incident in which they were personally involved","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On July 25, 2016, a police officer took enforcement action in relation to an incident in which they were personally involved.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1019,"file":"2015-11126","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Improper Disclosure of Information","sublabel":"Disclosing Information Acquired as a Police Officer","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"disclosed part of a police report to the complainant’s employer.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer disclosed part of a police report to the complainant’s employer.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1020,"file":"2020-18079","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"accessing and searching the phone was not lawful in the circumstances, and that deleting the videos was purposeful and serious misconduct","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns regarding an interaction with the Abbotsford police which the complainant had filmed with his cellphone. The complainant reported that after being arrested and then released by police, he noticed that videos of the incident that he had recorded were not on his cell phone. The complainant found out a member had deleted the videos. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the matter was required. The member purposefully deleted video files from the complainant’s cell phone without his permission which depicted his interactions with police on that date. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority (DA) found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered to the member; the member declined the offer and as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The DA found that the member deleted the videos out of frustration, that accessing and searching the phone was not lawful in the circumstances, and that deleting the videos was purposeful and serious misconduct. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measure, the DA noted that the member was junior, had immediately reported the incident to their supervisor and took responsibility for their actions, and had taken self-imposed initiatives to address the misconduct, including seeking therapy, actively pursuing mentorship from senior members, educating themselves on jurisprudence around cell phone searches, and completing courses on Search and Seizure and Tactical Surveillance. Neither the member nor the complainant requested a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1021,"file":"2022-22706","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Immediate Roadside Prohibition/Impaired Operation of a Motor Vehicle","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"operated a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol resulting in the issuance of a 90-day driving prohibition and vehicle impoundment","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of an off-duty VPD member. The member had been operating a motor vehicle and was subsequently stopped by police. Upon request, the member provided two breath samples that both resulted in a “fail” reading on an Approved Screening Device. The member was issued a Notice of Driving Prohibition, and their vehicle was impounded. The member, while off-duty, operated a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol resulting in the issuance of a 90-day driving prohibition and vehicle impoundment in accordance with the provisions of the BC Motor Vehicle Act. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member took responsibility for their actions, demonstrated remorse, made no attempt to minimize their actions, and had no substantiated misconduct on their Service Record of Discipline. The Prehearing Conference Authority also noted that the member self-reported the off-duty incident to their employer. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1022,"file":"2018-15129","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"drove his personal vehicle while his ability was affected by alcohol in contravention of the BC Motor Vehicle Act","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On August 12, 2018, an off duty police officer drove his personal vehicle while his ability was affected by alcohol in contravention of the BC Motor Vehicle Act. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. 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. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the police officer took full responsibility for his behaviour and had reported receiving the 3 day Warn Immediate Roadside Suspension (IRP) to senior management. The Prehearing Conference Authority explored whether there was an underlying issue associated to the alcohol consumption and determined that there was not. Therefore, he was satisfied that there was no need for a program or activity in these circumstances. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1023,"file":"2015-10833","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"lost a personal thumb drive that was not encrypted and contained information that was the property of the Saanich Police Department.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer lost a personal thumb drive that was not encrypted and contained information that was the property of the Saanich Police Department. The lost information included digital material related to previously written search warrants and un-redacted confidential source information.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":1024,"file":"2014-9326","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Unsafe Storage of Firearm","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer left his bag with the firearm in the washroom and drove away.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer was part of a plainclothes surveillance detail. The police officer left the surveillance detail for a washroom break at a service station. At the time, the police officer was carrying a bag which contained his firearm, other police equipment and personal property. The police officer left his bag with the firearm in the washroom and drove away. The property was later recovered by police.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1025,"file":"2016-12313","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"searched police databases for a purpose unrelated to duties as a police officer","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer searched police databases for a purpose unrelated to duties as a police officer.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1026,"file":"2016-12313","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Improper Disclosure of Information","sublabel":"Disclosing Information Acquired as a Police Officer","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"improperly disclosed confidential information acquired from police databases to a member of the public","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer improperly disclosed confidential information acquired from police databases to a member of the public.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1027,"file":"2022-22042","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to adhere to investigative best practices, specifically relating to note taking and obtaining a written or audio statement from the complainant","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns regarding the adequacy of an investigation into an assault by a member of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD). The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The member failed to adhere to investigative best practices, specifically relating to note taking and obtaining a written or audio statement from the complainant. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member did not commit misconduct. The Commissioner disagreed as he was of the view that the Discipline Authority accorded undue weight to the member’s statement and improperly applied the legal test for determining a Neglect of Duty allegation. Upon review of the matter, the Commissioner determined that there was a reasonable basis to believe that the decision of the Discipline Authority 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. Mr. Pendleton determined there were questions as to whether the member neglected their duty by failing to meet the complainant in person and take a statement, or by failing to provide full written details of the results of their investigation, including the dates, times, and locations of their efforts to contact the suspect. Disciplinary Process A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member had accepted responsibility, acknowledged their investigative missteps, and had no current or prior substantiated misconduct on their Service Record of Discipline. The Prehearing Conference Authority further noted that at the time, the member was a junior officer assessing an allegation of assault with limited corroborative evidence. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["training","advice future conduct"]},{"id":1028,"file":"2016-11560","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.55,"thin":false,"quote":"responded in an official capacity to a request for assistance from a person they knew well","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer responded in an official capacity to a request for assistance from a person they knew well.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":1029,"file":"2019-16656","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - ERIW","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"Member C’s use of a less lethal shotgun appeared to be “objectively unnecessary” and that “there may have been insufficient consideration given to further attempts at communication and de-escalation","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Commissioner initiated an investigation following a significant use of force incident involving Vancouver Police Officers. It was reported that police attended a call regarding a male allegedly intimidating staff at a hotel. Member A and Member B were first on scene. After some interaction, it was reported that the male charged at Member A. Member B responded by deploying a Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW). The male fell to the ground, but did not comply with police commands to stay down. He was observed to get up and move toward Member B, who then “cycled” the CEW multiple times. The male went down to the ground again, this time staying down on his back, on the sidewalk. Member C, who arrived after the CEW deployment, fired three beanbag rounds from a Less Lethal Shotgun at the male’s thigh as he was lying on his back, initially with hands up. Members ultimately moved in to handcuff the male. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest to appoint an external police agency to conduct this investigation and designated a senior officer from outside the VPD to act as the Discipline Authority in this matter. Member C Only: Unnecessarily deploying a Less Lethal Shotgun. The Discipline Authority determined that none of the officers committed misconduct in relation to the force used to place this person into custody. After reviewing the investigation and the Discipline Authority’s decision, the Commissioner determined there was a reasonable basis to disagree with this finding as it related to the deployment of the less lethal shotgun. The Commissioner appointed the Honourable Ron McKinnon, retired BC Supreme Court Justice, to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Retired Justice McKinnon issued his decision where he determined that Member C’s use of a less lethal shotgun appeared to be “objectively unnecessary” and that “there may have been insufficient consideration given to further attempts at communication and de-escalation before using an intermediate weapon equivalent to a baton strike in order to gain compliance.” Disciplinary Process A prehearing conference was offered to and accepted by the member. The Prehearing Conference Authority reported that the member had expressed an understanding of the high threshold required to use an intermediate weapon and had volunteered to undertake retraining on the Less Lethal Shotgun. The member had no prior substantiated allegations of misconduct. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":1030,"file":"2020-17928","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2021,"heading":"Discourtesy","sublabel":"Discourteous - Verbal","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"Yelling at a cyclist to get back on the sidewalk.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of an MVTP member who was alleged to have yelled at a cyclist, believing that the cyclist had created an unsafe situation in traffic by blocking a transit bus from completing a turn. A review of CCTV video indicated that the member’s belief was incorrect. Yelling at a cyclist to get back on the sidewalk. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures considering that the member had accepted responsibility for his actions.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":1031,"file":"2022-22311","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discourtesy","sublabel":"Discourteous - Verbal","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the member yelled and swore when responding to the request","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. It was reported that a member of the public requested the member’s badge number when the member was providing security for an ongoing critical incident. The badge number on the member’s uniform had not been visible. After repeated inquiries for the badge number, the member yelled and swore when responding to the request. The member swore at a member of the public when asked for their badge number. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the call the member attended to included challenging circumstances and that the member took responsibility for their behaviour. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":1032,"file":"2016-11536","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to adequately investigate a report of a suspicious circumstance complaint","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On December 29, 2015, two police officers failed to adequately investigate a report of a suspicious circumstance complaint.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":1033,"file":"2016-11536","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to seek the assistance of a supervisor when the police officer was uncertain about whether or not he had the grounds to arrest a suspect for breach of conditions","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer failed to seek the assistance of a supervisor when the police officer was uncertain about whether or not he had the grounds to arrest a suspect for breach of conditions.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1034,"file":"2012-7582","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"The member harassed a fellow member.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member harassed a fellow member.","measures":["suspension","close supervision","transfer reassignment","program activity"]},{"id":1035,"file":"2011-6633","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Contravening a Provision of the Act, Regulation, Rule or Guideline","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"While off duty, a member was given an Immediate Roadside Prohibition for drinking and driving while “off-roading” on an ATV.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"While off duty, a member was given an Immediate Roadside Prohibition for drinking and driving while “off-roading” on an ATV.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1036,"file":"2020-18195","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Search - Non Person/Non-Dwelling","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"there were no valid grounds for the member’s search of the vehicle incident to the complainant’s arrest for Obstruction","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A complainant reported concerns with a police officer’s conduct during a vehicle stop. The complainant reported that he was arrested for obstruction for failing to produce his driver’s licence and his vehicle was unlawfully searched. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The member searched a vehicle incidental to arrest without valid grounds for the search. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority (DA) found that the member did not a commit misconduct. The Commissioner disagreed as it appeared the DA did not appropriately consider the scope and extent of the search. The Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge, Ms. Carole Lazar, to review the matter and arrive at her own decision based on the evidence. Ms. Lazar issued her decision where she determined that there were no valid grounds for the member’s search of the vehicle incident to the complainant’s arrest for Obstruction. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/ Disciplinary Process A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the disciplinary or corrective measure, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member fully acknowledged the misconduct and had taken steps to educate himself about the law in this area to ensure this situation would not recur. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":1037,"file":"2012-7531","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Damage to Police Property","sublabel":"Failure to Report Loss/Damage to Police Property or Property in Police Custody","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to report damage that was sustained to his police vehicle in a timely matter","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member failed to report damage that was sustained to his police vehicle in a timely matter.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1038,"file":"2018-15594","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"Unnecessary and inappropriate physical force on a citizen who was handcuffed and seated on the ground.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a member for unnecessary use of force. According to the VPD, the member informed his supervisor that he had “lost his cool” and slapped a handcuffed suspect during his shift, for the purpose of getting the suspect’s attention. The member’s supervisor reported the incident to the Professional Standards Section. A criminal investigation into this incident was completed and police forwarded a Report to Crown Counsel for charge assessment. No charges were approved. The incident was subsequently investigated under the Police Act where there was a finding of misconduct for using unnecessary force. Unnecessary and inappropriate physical force on a citizen who was handcuffed and seated on the ground. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The Prehearing Conference determined that any amount of force used in this situation would have been unreasonable in the circumstances and determined that the misconduct involved a single slap. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member took responsibility for his actions at the time of the incident. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1039,"file":"2021-19723","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Discourtesy","sublabel":"Discourteous - Verbal","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"used inappropriate language while booking the complainant into APD cells","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns regarding inappropriate language used by a member of the Abbotsford Police Department (APD) while booking the complainant into cells. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The member used inappropriate language while booking the complainant into APD cells. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member’s conduct was discourteous for a very short portion of a difficult interaction, and that his actions were a direct response to a member of the public who was non-compliant and appeared to be deliberately stalling. The Prehearing Conference Authority further noted that the member had taken full responsibility, was remorseful, and understood that as a supervisor, the standard of appropriate conduct needed to be higher. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":1040,"file":"2013-9281","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"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","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner received a request for an ordered investigation into the conduct of an off-duty officer while at a casino. 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. The member was offered a prehearing conference where he accepted a one-day suspension. After review, the Police Complaint Commissioner found that the discipline authority’s decision to substantiate the allegation and the disciplinary measures imposed were both correct and appropriate with respect to the circumstances. However, the discipline authority did not substantiate two further allegations. Pursuant to section 117 of the Police Act, the Police Complaint Commissioner appointed a retired judge to review the evidence and come to his own decision with respect to those allegations. Based on his review of the record, the retired judge found that the evidence available in relation to the two outstanding allegations appeared to be insufficient to substantiate either allegation. The retired judge’s Reasons for Decision in relation to Section 117 Review 2013-9281 can be found at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1041,"file":"2020-18167","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The member inappropriately engaged in a verbal dispute with an in-custody individual secured in the back of a police vehicle.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received complaints from multiple members of the public regarding a police officer who engaged in an argument with a prisoner who was secured in the back of a police cruiser. It was learned that a Nelson police officer was responding to back up other officers who were in a physical confrontation while attempting to arrest an individual. The member arrived on scene after the individual had been arrested by other officers and was secured inside the police vehicle. The member’s interaction with the subject in custody was determined to be aggressive in nature, resulting in a verbal confrontation; there was no evidence of any physical force used by the member. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The member inappropriately engaged in a verbal dispute with an in-custody individual secured in the back of a police vehicle. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. 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. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1042,"file":"2019-16399","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member made sexual, harassing and controlling comments to his partner numerous times over the course of their partnership together, between 2017 and 2019.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The text states the member \"made sexual, harassing and controlling comments to his female partner numerous times,\" plus vulgar language denigrating women — sexualized harassment committed by the officer himself.","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a member for workplace harassment. It was reported that the member made sexual, harassing and controlling comments to his female partner numerous times. In addition, the member allegedly used vulgar and inappropriate language in the workplace that could be seen to denigrate women generally, and more specifically his partner. During the course of the investigation, information came to the attention of the investigator that the member appeared to have disobeyed his supervisor’s order not to contact his partner. The member made sexual, harassing and controlling comments to his partner numerous times over the course of their partnership together, between 2017 and 2019.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":1043,"file":"2019-16399","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Follow Supervisor's Lawful Order - Verbal","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"Disobeying a supervisor’s order not to contact his partner.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a member for workplace harassment. It was reported that the member made sexual, harassing and controlling comments to his female partner numerous times. In addition, the member allegedly used vulgar and inappropriate language in the workplace that could be seen to denigrate women generally, and more specifically his partner. During the course of the investigation, information came to the attention of the investigator that the member appeared to have disobeyed his supervisor’s order not to contact his partner. Disobeying a supervisor’s order not to contact his partner. Following an investigation, this matter proceeded directly to a discipline proceeding. The Discipline Authority found that the member’s conduct as a whole would discredit the reputation of the VPD. The Discipline Authority noted in considering the range of discipline that the member’s actions affected the mental wellbeing of another officer. The Discipline Authority noted that the member had made efforts to change his interpersonal behaviour as evidenced by a letter from his most recent supervisor indicating a sustained change in behaviour, being respectful and professional to everyone on his team. In addition, the Neglect of Duty misconduct was considered to be on the lower end of seriousness as it was one attempt at contact and was not ill-intended. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not in the public interest.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":1044,"file":"2012-7689","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Equipment","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.55,"thin":false,"quote":"sent an email from his department email address that contained an image of a naked male","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":false,"basis":"The text states only that he \"sent an email from his department email address\" containing a nude image, identifying no recipient, target, or unwanted sexual conduct \",\" so it reads as an email-misuse policy breach.\"}","text":"The police officer sent an email from his department email address that contained an image of a naked male.","measures":["counselling"]},{"id":1045,"file":"2012-7689","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.5,"thin":false,"quote":"sent an email from his department email address that contained an image of a naked male","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":false,"basis":"The text says only that the officer \"sent an email... that contained an image of a naked male,\" without any indicated target, victim, or harassing/non-consensual context establishing sexualized abuse.","text":"The police officer sent an email from his department email address that contained an image of a naked male.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1046,"file":"2016-12822","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"Police officers from several policing agencies exchanged inappropriate messages using police Mobile Data Terminals (MDTs).","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Police officers from several policing agencies exchanged inappropriate messages using police Mobile Data Terminals (MDTs). A review of the messages determined that some of the exchanges involved a member of the Abbotsford Police Department. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. 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. The OPCC reviewed the prehearing conference report and, considering all the relevant factors in this case, the discipline fell within the acceptable range for appropriate discipline in the circumstances. The OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":1047,"file":"2012-7611","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"the member interfered when another IRSU constable was writing a Violation Ticket to an off-duty Delta Police Department member","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"While on duty with the Integrated Road Safety Unit (IRSU) and part of a Speed Enforcement Operation, the member interfered when another IRSU constable was writing a Violation Ticket to an off-duty Delta Police Department member.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1048,"file":"2012-7611","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"utilized the Mobile Data Terminal to send a series of messages that were provocative, demeaning, disrespectful and divisive to the workplace","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Further, the member utilized the Mobile Data Terminal to send a series of messages that were provocative, demeaning, disrespectful and divisive to the workplace.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1049,"file":"2019-16869","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to complete a thorough evidence based, risk focused investigation, failed in his duties to investigate intimate partner violence matters, and failed in his duty to ensure the safety of the Complainant","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns with a member of the Victoria Police Department conducting an inadequate investigation into a report of intimate partner violence by the complainant’s former partner. The complainant also reported that the member treated her in a degrading, demeaning, and discourteous manner. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The member failed to complete a thorough evidence based, risk focused investigation, failed in his duties to investigate intimate partner violence matters, and failed in his duty to ensure the safety of the Complainant. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member did not commit misconduct. The Commissioner disagreed with this finding and was of the view that the member did not adequately assess the risk posed by the suspect and that considering the context of a serious intimate-partner violence investigation, the DA did not employ a sufficiently high standard of care in his assessment of the member’s conduct. The Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge, Brian M. Neal, K.C., to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Mr. Neal issued his decision where he found that the member appeared to have committed three allegations of misconduct. Specifically, Mr. Neal determined that the member failed to complete a “thorough evidence based, risk focused investigation.” Additionally, Mr. Neal determined that the member “may have demonstrated discourteous behaviour towards the complainant” and that it appears the member “treated the complainant in an oppressive manner by using profane or insulting language that tended to demean or disrespect the complainant based on her sex.” Disciplinary Summary A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. *The suspensions were to be served concurrently. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":1050,"file":"2019-16869","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discourtesy","sublabel":"Discourteous - Verbal","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"treated the complainant in an oppressive manner by using profane or insulting language that tended to demean or disrespect the complainant based on her sex","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns with a member of the Victoria Police Department conducting an inadequate investigation into a report of intimate partner violence by the complainant’s former partner. The complainant also reported that the member treated her in a degrading, demeaning, and discourteous manner. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The member made comments that appeared to have been sexist, dismissive and demeaning. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member did not commit misconduct. The Commissioner disagreed with this finding and was of the view that the member did not adequately assess the risk posed by the suspect and that considering the context of a serious intimate-partner violence investigation, the DA did not employ a sufficiently high standard of care in his assessment of the member’s conduct. The Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge, Brian M. Neal, K.C., to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Mr. Neal issued his decision where he found that the member appeared to have committed three allegations of misconduct. Specifically, Mr. Neal determined that the member failed to complete a “thorough evidence based, risk focused investigation.” Additionally, Mr. Neal determined that the member “may have demonstrated discourteous behaviour towards the complainant” and that it appears the member “treated the complainant in an oppressive manner by using profane or insulting language that tended to demean or disrespect the complainant based on her sex.” Disciplinary Summary A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. *The suspensions were to be served concurrently. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1051,"file":"2019-16869","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Profanity/Abusive/Insulting Language","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.68,"thin":false,"quote":"treated the Complainant in an oppressive manner by using profane or insulting language that tended to demean or disrespect the Complainant based on her sex during the exercise of his duties","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The member himself \"treated the complainant in an oppressive manner by using profane or insulting language that tended to demean or disrespect the complainant based on her sex,\" a gender-based harassment finding.","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns with a member of the Victoria Police Department conducting an inadequate investigation into a report of intimate partner violence by the complainant’s former partner. The complainant also reported that the member treated her in a degrading, demeaning, and discourteous manner. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The member treated the Complainant in an oppressive manner by using profane or insulting language that tended to demean or disrespect the Complainant based on her sex during the exercise of his duties. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member did not commit misconduct. The Commissioner disagreed with this finding and was of the view that the member did not adequately assess the risk posed by the suspect and that considering the context of a serious intimate-partner violence investigation, the DA did not employ a sufficiently high standard of care in his assessment of the member’s conduct. The Commissioner appointed retired BC Provincial Court Judge, Brian M. Neal, K.C., to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Mr. Neal issued his decision where he found that the member appeared to have committed three allegations of misconduct. Specifically, Mr. Neal determined that the member failed to complete a “thorough evidence based, risk focused investigation.” Additionally, Mr. Neal determined that the member “may have demonstrated discourteous behaviour towards the complainant” and that it appears the member “treated the complainant in an oppressive manner by using profane or insulting language that tended to demean or disrespect the complainant based on her sex.” Disciplinary Summary A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. *The suspensions were to be served concurrently. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1052,"file":"2022-21117","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member neglected to properly and diligently operate a police vehicle in a safe manner and meet the requirements of the Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulation and the Motor Vehicle Act.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC ordered an investigation after receiving a report of a collision involving a Vancouver Police Department (VPD) vehicle and another vehicle. The member was operating an unmarked police vehicle and activated the emergency lights with the intention of making a U-turn on the roadway for the purpose of delivering property when they collided with another vehicle. The actions of member, in the described circumstances, appeared inconsistent with the Motor Vehicle Act (MVA) and Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulation (EVDR). The member neglected to properly and diligently operate a police vehicle in a safe manner and meet the requirements of the Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulation and the Motor Vehicle Act. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the civilian driver was uninjured in this collision, the member accepted responsibility for their mistake and that future misconduct was unlikely as the member resigned from the VPD. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":1053,"file":"2013-9033-02","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to take all the steps required when exercising the privileges of a code 3 emergency response, resulting in a single-vehicle accident","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer was responding to a call that could justify an emergency response; however, the police officer failed to take all the steps required when exercising the privileges of a code 3 emergency response, resulting in a single-vehicle accident. No one was injured as a result of the accident, but the officer was unable to attend the call.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1054,"file":"2019-17196","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2020,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"Not adhering to DPD policy related to domestic violence investigations.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The complainant reported concerns with the adequacy of an investigation completed by a member of the Delta Police Department (DPD). The complainant had reported an incident of domestic violence to police. The responding member had taken down the initial details but did not obtain an audio recorded statement. Upon completing further investigative steps, the member determined that the incident did not warrant a recommended criminal charge. The complainant was not satisfied with the investigation and the manner in which she was treated by the member. The complainant made inquiries with the member’s supervisors, which resulted in further investigation of the incident and a Report to Crown Counsel was forwarded for charge assessment. Not adhering to DPD policy related to domestic violence investigations. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The Prehearing Conference Authority identified a number of deficiencies with the investigation and noted that policy and training surrounding domestic violence investigations are clear and concise and that the length of time to reach a disposition on a domestic violence investigation in this case was unacceptable. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures.","measures":["verbal reprimand","training","advice future conduct"]},{"id":1055,"file":"2012-7769","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Damage to Police Property","sublabel":"Misusing/Losing/Damaging Police Property","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The member drove the police vehicle into a rock, sustaining minor damages.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member drove the police vehicle into a rock, sustaining minor damages. This was the sixth motor vehicle incident in a six-year period, being at fault in four of the prior accidents.","measures":["training"]},{"id":1056,"file":"2021-19408","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Follow Supervisor's Lawful Order - Written","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The member consumed alcohol in contravention of the terms and conditions of a written agreement between themself and the NPD.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Nelson Police Department (NPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the off duty conduct of an NPD member. It was reported that the member had consumed alcohol while being bound by a written agreement between themselves and the NPD which forbade the member from consuming alcohol while employed by the department. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation, and directed the Vancouver Police Department to conduct the investigation. The member consumed alcohol in contravention of the terms and conditions of a written agreement between themself and the NPD. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. No prehearing conference was offered to the member and as a result, the matter proceeded directly to a discipline proceeding. The member retired prior to the discipline proceeding and did not participate in the process. The Discipline Authority determined that the member had previously signed an agreement that required them to abstain from consuming alcohol, even off-duty, while employed by the department and that this agreement was the culmination of ongoing issues related to alcohol use and previous discipline that seemed connected to that alcohol use. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority noted that the member had been open and honest and had retired on their own accord. The Discipline Authority also expressed the opinion that alcohol abuse is an illness that had contributing impacts. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. Even though the member retired prior to the conclusion of this matter, their Service Record of Discipline will reflect the discipline imposed.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1057,"file":"2018-14590","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"sent an inappropriate text message that insinuated a forced sexual act","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The officer personally \"sent an inappropriate text message that insinuated a forced sexual act,\" which is sexualized communication by the officer, not mere workplace bullying or file mishandling.","text":"On March 14, 2018, a police officer sent an inappropriate text message that insinuated a forced sexual act.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":1058,"file":"2018-14590","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"used inappropriate and rude language in the workplace, specifically language that is seen to degrade women","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":false,"basis":"The text describes only \"inappropriate and rude language in the workplace\" that \"degrade[s] women\" — no sexualized conduct, contact, or violence is alleged.","text":"The police officer used inappropriate and rude language in the workplace, specifically language that is seen to degrade women.","measures":["suspension","written reprimand","verbal reprimand","training"]},{"id":1059,"file":"2018-14590","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"made a vulgar and inappropriate comment in the workplace","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer made a vulgar and inappropriate comment in the workplace.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":1060,"file":"2018-14590","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"made an inappropriate comment to multiple female officers related to a \"no dogs allowed\" poster in the workplace","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer made an inappropriate comment to multiple female officers related to a \"no dogs allowed\" poster in the workplace. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. 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. The police officer acknowledged the behaviour and comments were clearly a mistake on his part and put many people in an uncomfortable position. The police officer was transferred to a different patrol squad during the investigation of these allegations. The Prehearing Conference Authority further felt that the police officer’s agreement to the disciplinary/corrective measures proposed indicated his willingness to prevent this type of behaviour from recurring. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference. *The suspensions were to be served consecutively.","measures":["verbal reprimand","training"]},{"id":1061,"file":"2011-6700","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer retaliated by striking the male in the face.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"During the course of placing a male under arrest, the male spat in the police officer’s face. The police officer retaliated by striking the male in the face.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1062,"file":"2018-14542","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2019,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Oppressive Conduct","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"the police officer reached through the complainant’s car window and pulled a cigarette from the complainant’s mouth","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On March 14, 2018, a police officer initiated a traffic stop of the complainant. During the traffic stop the police officer reached through the complainant’s car window and pulled a cigarette from the complainant’s mouth. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. 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. The police officer had already sought out advice from senior police officers. The police officer confirmed that, in a similar situation, he would approach the investigation and the driver differently. The Prehearing Conference Authority believed that participating in the agreed-upon program would provide the police officer with further skills on how to more positively engage members of the public. The officer confirmed that he would not take the course simply to appease this process, rather he would take it with the goal of self-improvement as he understood his actions were wrong. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["training"]},{"id":1063,"file":"2013-8328","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"conducted unauthorized searches utilizing police databases for purposes unrelated to his duties as a police officer","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer conducted unauthorized searches utilizing police databases for purposes unrelated to his duties as a police officer.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":1064,"file":"2013-8328","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2013,"heading":"Improper Disclosure of Information","sublabel":"Disclosing Information Acquired as a Police Officer","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"shared the information with a person not entitled to receive or access this information","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"This same police officer shared the information with a person not entitled to receive or access this information.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":1065,"file":"2015-10834","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The officer failed to continue to communicate with the probation officer in a timely manner.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer responded to an “unwanted guest/intoxicated person” complaint at a private residence. The subject of the call, an intoxicated male, was found to be in breach of his court ordered conditions and his probation officer was notified. The officer failed to continue to communicate with the probation officer in a timely manner.","measures":["verbal reprimand","close supervision"]},{"id":1066,"file":"2013-8522","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the police officer intentionally struck the male once with a closed fist to the facial area","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On March 27, 2013, the OPCC received information from the media with a link to a Facebook page with video content. The video portrayed a member of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) punching a man in the face as he was attempting to handcuff him. The VPD was contacted and advised of the video as they were not aware of its existence. Further information was received that confirmed the time, location, and the identity of the officer involved. Due to the nature of the conduct, a criminal investigation was undertaken by an external police agency. The Criminal Justice Branch stayed the charges against the police officer following an appeal application. Once the criminal proceedings had concluded, the Police Act investigation was completed by an external police agency. Following a review of the investigation, the External Discipline Authority concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to support a finding the police officer committed misconduct in these circumstances. The External Discipline Authority noted that it was clear that the police officer intentionally struck the male once with a closed fist to the facial area. The External Discipline Authority further noted that the police officer’s actions were documented, acknowledged, and further reviewed by Use of Force experts. According to these experts, the police officer’s actions were consistent with his training and were considered to be an appropriate level of force for a resistive subject. The Police Complaint Commissioner considered that there was a reasonable basis to believe that the decision of the External Discipline Authority was incorrect. Pursuant to section 117(4) of the Police Act , the Commissioner appointed Mr. Brian Neal, Q.C., retired Provincial Court Judge, to review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Adjudicator Neal found that the record appeared to support the conclusion that the police officer’s actions constituted misconduct by the use of unnecessary force against the male and offered the police officer a prehearing conference. This offer was not accepted. A discipline proceeding was held in relation to this matter and Adjudicator Neal presided as the Discipline Authority. Adjudicator Neal noted that the police officer’s training and experience did not provide a reasonable basis for his belief that officer safety was an issue prior to punching the male. Additionally, the Adjudicator found that a reasonable officer with the similar training and experience might well conclude that the punch to the male was both unnecessary and an unreasonable use of force. The Adjudicator further stated that the evidence supported the police officer’s position that he used necessary and reasonable force in handcuffing the male but that the evidence did not support the police officer’s position that he used necessary and reasonable force in punching him. The Adjudicator determined that the police officer ought to receive additional training in use of force, with a specific emphasis on situation assessment and reassessment and de-escalation techniques. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/ Victoria The Co-Chairs of the Victoria Police Board conducted an Internal Discipline investigation into the (former) Chief Constable of the Victoria Police Department. Pursuant to section 174(4) of the Police Act the Internal Discipline Authority must copy the OPCC on any recommendation on disciplinary or corrective measures arising from an internal discipline matter and the final decision reached by the Internal Discipline Authority, the Board or Arbitrator. Upon receipt, the Police Complaint Commissioner reviewed the Preliminary Investigation Report and noted several concerns which included a number of investigative deficiencies, the non-participation of a key witness and the failure to address new allegations of potential misconduct that arose during the investigation. The Police Complaint Commissioner was also of the view that the Discipline Letter issued by the Co-Chairs did not adequately address the nature and seriousness of the alleged misconduct. 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 . Chief Superintendent Bourrie of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) conducted the external Police Act investigation. Working under his supervision was a senior team of external investigators with the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) under the command of Superintendent Laurence Rankin (OPCC 2015-11408 refers). Pursuant to section 135(2) of the Police Act, because this matter involved a Chief Constable of a municipal police department where the internal disciplinary process to date was of concern as previously noted, the Police Complaint Commissioner considered it necessary in the public interest to appoint a retired judge as Discipline Authority. Retired Provincial Court Judge Carol Baird Ellan was appointed as the Discipline Authority. Subsequent to the Police Act investigation into OPCC 2015-11048 being initiated, further information was received that required an additional investigation (OPCC 2015-11048-05 refers). The Police Complaint Commissioner directed these further misconduct allegations be investigated by the same RCMP/VPD investigators and that Retired Provincial Court Judge Carol Baird Ellan also act as the Discipline Authority (OPCC 2015-11408-05 refers). Furthermore, allegations of bullying and harassment by the (former) Chief Constable came to light involving both female police officers and civilian staff. 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. Before the retired judges could address the allegations, the (former) Chief Constable filed proceedings in the BC Supreme Court to stop the process. He was partially successful; the Court said that two of the five allegations could not proceed. The Police Complaint Commissioner appealed that court decision, and one year later the Court of Appeal overturned the lower court and ruled that all the allegations could be addressed. (This led to a separated discipline process, since some of the allegations were frozen, but then re-started later on.)","measures":["training"]},{"id":1067,"file":"2010-5398","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Equipment","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"used his police vehicle for a purpose unrelated to his duties as a police officer","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member used his police vehicle for a purpose unrelated to his duties as a police officer.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":1068,"file":"2019-17187","agency":"Central Saanich Police Service","year":2022,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Sexualized Harassment/Touching/Comments","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.93,"thin":false,"quote":"The member used inappropriate language and commentary that was sexual in nature.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The member \"made inappropriate comments and gestures of a sexual nature toward a junior colleague\" and \"used inappropriate language and commentary that was sexual in nature,\" constituting sexualized harassment by the officer.","text":"The OPCC initiated an investigation after receiving information that a member had made inappropriate comments and gestures of a sexual nature toward a junior colleague. At the time of the incident, the member was in a supervisory position. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The member retired from the Central Saanich Police Service (CSPS) prior to the conclusion of this matter. The member used inappropriate language and commentary that was sexual in nature. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. No prehearing conference was offered to the member and as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The member retired prior to the discipline proceeding and did not participate in the process. The Discipline Authority determined that the member’s conduct was inappropriate, demeaning, and “had no relevant, or meaningful purpose, other than to be an insult, and vulgar.” In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Discipline Authority further noted the member’s lack of acknowledgement of the incident and their position of authority and responsibility, as a supervisor, at the time of the incident. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. Even though the member retired prior to the conclusion of this matter, their Service Record of Discipline will reflect the discipline imposed.","measures":["reduction in rank"]},{"id":1069,"file":"2022-22012","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"a series of text messages to the complainant that the complainant found to be uncomfortable and suggestive","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The complaint describes the member sending the complainant text messages found \"uncomfortable and suggestive,\" i.e., the officer's own sexualized communications, not third-party conduct.","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns with a member of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) in relation to a series of text messages to the complainant that the complainant found to be uncomfortable and suggestive. In addition, it was alleged the member failed to complete a police report documenting the information being reported by the complainant. The member sent inappropriate text messages to the complainant that would bring discredit to the Vancouver Police Department.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1070,"file":"2022-22012","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The member did not complete a General Occurrence Report in relation to an ongoing suspicious person investigation.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns with a member of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) in relation to a series of text messages to the complainant that the complainant found to be uncomfortable and suggestive. In addition, it was alleged the member failed to complete a police report documenting the information being reported by the complainant. The member did not complete a General Occurrence Report in relation to an ongoing suspicious person investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. 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 the member admitted to the allegations of Discreditable Conduct and Neglect of Duty. In deciding the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority noted the member had apologized to the complainant and had no substantiated misconduct on their Service Record of Discipline. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["training","close supervision"]},{"id":1071,"file":"2014-9552","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Public Trust Offence","sublabel":"Discredit Reputation of Department (Conviction)","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The police officer committed the offence of Fraud contrary to section 380(1) of the Criminal Code by defrauding the BC Medical Services Plan.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer placed Citizen A and Citizen A’s child on the police officer’s employment benefits claiming they were cohabitating when they were not. The police officer committed the offence of Fraud contrary to section 380(1) of the Criminal Code by defrauding the BC Medical Services Plan. Pursuant to section 137 of the Police Act, where a Discipline Authority proposes a disciplinary measure of dismissal or reduction in rank, upon written request from the police officer, the Commissioner must promptly arrange a Public Hearing or Review on the Record. The police officer requested a Public Hearing into the matter. After reviewing all of the relevant information, the Police Complaint Commissioner determined that it would not be necessary to examine witnesses or receive evidence that was not part of the record of disciplinary decision. Therefore, pursuant to sections 137(2) and 143(2) of the Police Act, the Police Complaint Commissioner arranged a Review on the Record. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Ronald McKinnon, retired British Columbia Supreme Court Judge. On May 10, 2017, Adjudicator McKinnon determined that the Discipline Authority’s findings were correct and the discipline imposed was appropriate given the serious nature of the misconduct. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":1072,"file":"2014-9552","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Public Trust Offence","sublabel":"Discredit Reputation of Department (Conviction)","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"committed the offence of Fraud contrary to section 380(1) of the Criminal Code, by defrauding Pacific Blue Cross Health Benefits Society","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer committed the offence of Fraud contrary to section 380(1) of the Criminal Code, by defrauding Pacific Blue Cross Health Benefits Society. On April 20, 2015, the police officer entered a plea of guilty in Provincial Court to two counts of Fraud and was sentenced to a conditional discharge and was placed on probation for 12 months. Pursuant to section 137 of the Police Act, where a Discipline Authority proposes a disciplinary measure of dismissal or reduction in rank, upon written request from the police officer, the Commissioner must promptly arrange a Public Hearing or Review on the Record. The police officer requested a Public Hearing into the matter. After reviewing all of the relevant information, the Police Complaint Commissioner determined that it would not be necessary to examine witnesses or receive evidence that was not part of the record of disciplinary decision. Therefore, pursuant to sections 137(2) and 143(2) of the Police Act, the Police Complaint Commissioner arranged a Review on the Record. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Ronald McKinnon, retired British Columbia Supreme Court Judge. On May 10, 2017, Adjudicator McKinnon determined that the Discipline Authority’s findings were correct and the discipline imposed was appropriate given the serious nature of the misconduct. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":1073,"file":"2014-9552","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Follow Supervisor's Lawful Order - Written","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"On the same date the Order was issued, the police officer attempted communication with Citizen A. The police officer did not report this contact to the police supervisor.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On April 29, 2014, a police supervisor served the police officer with a written Order directing the police officer to have no further contact or communication with Citizen A or Citizen A’s family members. This Order also directed the police officer to notify the police supervisor in the event there was incidental contact. On the same date the Order was issued, the police officer attempted communication with Citizen A. The police officer did not report this contact to the police supervisor. Pursuant to section 137 of the Police Act, where a Discipline Authority proposes a disciplinary measure of dismissal or reduction in rank, upon written request from the police officer, the Commissioner must promptly arrange a Public Hearing or Review on the Record. The police officer requested a Public Hearing into the matter. After reviewing all of the relevant information, the Police Complaint Commissioner determined that it would not be necessary to examine witnesses or receive evidence that was not part of the record of disciplinary decision. Therefore, pursuant to sections 137(2) and 143(2) of the Police Act, the Police Complaint Commissioner arranged a Review on the Record. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Ronald McKinnon, retired British Columbia Supreme Court Judge. On May 10, 2017, Adjudicator McKinnon determined that the Discipline Authority’s findings were correct and the discipline imposed was appropriate given the serious nature of the misconduct. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":1074,"file":"2014-9552","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Follow Supervisor's Lawful Order - Written","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"In contravention of the April 29, 2014, department issued Order, the police officer answered one or more telephone calls from a family member of Citizen A","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"In contravention of the April 29, 2014, department issued Order, the police officer answered one or more telephone calls from a family member of Citizen A between the dates of April 30 and May 23, 2014. Due to the call display feature, the police officer knew who was calling and chose to answer the phone call. The police officer did not report this contact to the police supervisor. Pursuant to section 137 of the Police Act, where a Discipline Authority proposes a disciplinary measure of dismissal or reduction in rank, upon written request from the police officer, the Commissioner must promptly arrange a Public Hearing or Review on the Record. The police officer requested a Public Hearing into the matter. After reviewing all of the relevant information, the Police Complaint Commissioner determined that it would not be necessary to examine witnesses or receive evidence that was not part of the record of disciplinary decision. Therefore, pursuant to sections 137(2) and 143(2) of the Police Act, the Police Complaint Commissioner arranged a Review on the Record. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Ronald McKinnon, retired British Columbia Supreme Court Judge. On May 10, 2017, Adjudicator McKinnon determined that the Discipline Authority’s findings were correct and the discipline imposed was appropriate given the serious nature of the misconduct. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":1075,"file":"2014-9552","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Follow Supervisor's Lawful Order - Written","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"In contravention of the April 29, 2014, department issued Order, the police officer had two telephone conversations with a family member of Citizen A","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"In contravention of the April 29, 2014, department issued Order, the police officer had two telephone conversations with a family member of Citizen A between the dates of April 30, 2014, and May 26, 2014. The police officer did not report this contact to the police supervisor. Pursuant to section 137 of the Police Act, where a Discipline Authority proposes a disciplinary measure of dismissal or reduction in rank, upon written request from the police officer, the Commissioner must promptly arrange a Public Hearing or Review on the Record. The police officer requested a Public Hearing into the matter. After reviewing all of the relevant information, the Police Complaint Commissioner determined that it would not be necessary to examine witnesses or receive evidence that was not part of the record of disciplinary decision. Therefore, pursuant to sections 137(2) and 143(2) of the Police Act, the Police Complaint Commissioner arranged a Review on the Record. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Ronald McKinnon, retired British Columbia Supreme Court Judge. On May 10, 2017, Adjudicator McKinnon determined that the Discipline Authority’s findings were correct and the discipline imposed was appropriate given the serious nature of the misconduct. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":1076,"file":"2014-9552","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Follow Supervisor's Lawful Order - Written","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"In contravention of the April 29, 2014, department issued Order, the police officer had in-person contact with Citizen A at their place of employment on May 22, 2014.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"In contravention of the April 29, 2014, department issued Order, the police officer had in-person contact with Citizen A at their place of employment on May 22, 2014. The police officer did not report this contact to the police supervisor. Pursuant to section 137 of the Police Act, where a Discipline Authority proposes a disciplinary measure of dismissal or reduction in rank, upon written request from the police officer, the Commissioner must promptly arrange a Public Hearing or Review on the Record. The police officer requested a Public Hearing into the matter. After reviewing all of the relevant information, the Police Complaint Commissioner determined that it would not be necessary to examine witnesses or receive evidence that was not part of the record of disciplinary decision. Therefore, pursuant to sections 137(2) and 143(2) of the Police Act, the Police Complaint Commissioner arranged a Review on the Record. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Ronald McKinnon, retired British Columbia Supreme Court Judge. On May 10, 2017, Adjudicator McKinnon determined that the Discipline Authority’s findings were correct and the discipline imposed was appropriate given the serious nature of the misconduct. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":1077,"file":"2014-9552","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Follow Supervisor's Lawful Order - Written","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"In contravention of the April 29, 2014, department issued Order, the police officer sent a text message and had a telephone conversation with Citizen A on June 1, 2014.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"In contravention of the April 29, 2014, department issued Order, the police officer sent a text message and had a telephone conversation with Citizen A on June 1, 2014. The police officer did not report this contact to the police supervisor. Pursuant to section 137 of the Police Act, where a Discipline Authority proposes a disciplinary measure of dismissal or reduction in rank, upon written request from the police officer, the Commissioner must promptly arrange a Public Hearing or Review on the Record. The police officer requested a Public Hearing into the matter. After reviewing all of the relevant information, the Police Complaint Commissioner determined that it would not be necessary to examine witnesses or receive evidence that was not part of the record of disciplinary decision. Therefore, pursuant to sections 137(2) and 143(2) of the Police Act, the Police Complaint Commissioner arranged a Review on the Record. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Ronald McKinnon, retired British Columbia Supreme Court Judge. On May 10, 2017, Adjudicator McKinnon determined that the Discipline Authority’s findings were correct and the discipline imposed was appropriate given the serious nature of the misconduct. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":1078,"file":"2014-9552","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the police officer denied having any contact with Citizen A after receiving the department issued Order on April 29, 2014.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On May 23, 2014, during the course of the Police Act investigation, the investigator conducted an interview with the police officer. During that interview, the police officer denied having any contact with Citizen A after receiving the department issued Order on April 29, 2014. Pursuant to section 137 of the Police Act, where a Discipline Authority proposes a disciplinary measure of dismissal or reduction in rank, upon written request from the police officer, the Commissioner must promptly arrange a Public Hearing or Review on the Record. The police officer requested a Public Hearing into the matter. After reviewing all of the relevant information, the Police Complaint Commissioner determined that it would not be necessary to examine witnesses or receive evidence that was not part of the record of disciplinary decision. Therefore, pursuant to sections 137(2) and 143(2) of the Police Act, the Police Complaint Commissioner arranged a Review on the Record. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Ronald McKinnon, retired British Columbia Supreme Court Judge. On May 10, 2017, Adjudicator McKinnon determined that the Discipline Authority’s findings were correct and the discipline imposed was appropriate given the serious nature of the misconduct. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1079,"file":"2014-9552","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"In contravention of the April 29, 2014, department issued Order and/or the Recognizance of Bail (as applicable), the police officer sent text messages to Citizen A between the dates of June 8 and July 8, 2014.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On June 13, 2014, the police officer was arrested for Fraud and released on a Recognizance of Bail with eight conditions, including, in part, not to have contact or communication, directly or indirectly, with Citizen A or any member of Citizen A’s family and not to attend Citizen A’s place of employment. This Recognizance was in effect until April 20, 2015. In contravention of the April 29, 2014, department issued Order and/or the Recognizance of Bail (as applicable), the police officer sent text messages to Citizen A between the dates of June 8 and July 8, 2014. The police officer did not report these contacts to the police supervisor. Pursuant to section 137 of the Police Act, where a Discipline Authority proposes a disciplinary measure of dismissal or reduction in rank, upon written request from the police officer, the Commissioner must promptly arrange a Public Hearing or Review on the Record. The police officer requested a Public Hearing into the matter. After reviewing all of the relevant information, the Police Complaint Commissioner determined that it would not be necessary to examine witnesses or receive evidence that was not part of the record of disciplinary decision. Therefore, pursuant to sections 137(2) and 143(2) of the Police Act, the Police Complaint Commissioner arranged a Review on the Record. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Ronald McKinnon, retired British Columbia Supreme Court Judge. On May 10, 2017, Adjudicator McKinnon determined that the Discipline Authority’s findings were correct and the discipline imposed was appropriate given the serious nature of the misconduct. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":1080,"file":"2014-9552","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"attended Citizen A’s place of employment on approximately three different occasions in contravention of the April 29, 2014, department issued Order and/or the Recognizance of Bail","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Between July 9, 2014, and September 19, 2014, the police officer attended Citizen A’s place of employment on approximately three different occasions in contravention of the April 29, 2014, department issued Order and/or the Recognizance of Bail (as applicable). Pursuant to section 137 of the Police Act, where a Discipline Authority proposes a disciplinary measure of dismissal or reduction in rank, upon written request from the police officer, the Commissioner must promptly arrange a Public Hearing or Review on the Record. The police officer requested a Public Hearing into the matter. After reviewing all of the relevant information, the Police Complaint Commissioner determined that it would not be necessary to examine witnesses or receive evidence that was not part of the record of disciplinary decision. Therefore, pursuant to sections 137(2) and 143(2) of the Police Act, the Police Complaint Commissioner arranged a Review on the Record. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Ronald McKinnon, retired British Columbia Supreme Court Judge. On May 10, 2017, Adjudicator McKinnon determined that the Discipline Authority’s findings were correct and the discipline imposed was appropriate given the serious nature of the misconduct. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":1081,"file":"2014-9552","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"searched police databases for a purpose unrelated to his duties and accessed reports he was not authorized to access","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On April 11, 2014, the police officer searched police databases for a purpose unrelated to his duties and accessed reports he was not authorized to access. Pursuant to section 137 of the Police Act, where a Discipline Authority proposes a disciplinary measure of dismissal or reduction in rank, upon written request from the police officer, the Commissioner must promptly arrange a Public Hearing or Review on the Record. The police officer requested a Public Hearing into the matter. After reviewing all of the relevant information, the Police Complaint Commissioner determined that it would not be necessary to examine witnesses or receive evidence that was not part of the record of disciplinary decision. Therefore, pursuant to sections 137(2) and 143(2) of the Police Act, the Police Complaint Commissioner arranged a Review on the Record. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Ronald McKinnon, retired British Columbia Supreme Court Judge. On May 10, 2017, Adjudicator McKinnon determined that the Discipline Authority’s findings were correct and the discipline imposed was appropriate given the serious nature of the misconduct. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1082,"file":"2014-9552","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Improper Disclosure of Information","sublabel":"Disclosing Information Acquired as a Police Officer","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"sent a text message to Citizen A which contained confidential police information that the police officer was not authorized to disclose","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On April 11, 2014, the police officer sent a text message to Citizen A which contained confidential police information that the police officer was not authorized to disclose. Pursuant to section 137 of the Police Act, where a Discipline Authority proposes a disciplinary measure of dismissal or reduction in rank, upon written request from the police officer, the Commissioner must promptly arrange a Public Hearing or Review on the Record. The police officer requested a Public Hearing into the matter. After reviewing all of the relevant information, the Police Complaint Commissioner determined that it would not be necessary to examine witnesses or receive evidence that was not part of the record of disciplinary decision. Therefore, pursuant to sections 137(2) and 143(2) of the Police Act, the Police Complaint Commissioner arranged a Review on the Record. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Ronald McKinnon, retired British Columbia Supreme Court Judge. On May 10, 2017, Adjudicator McKinnon determined that the Discipline Authority’s findings were correct and the discipline imposed was appropriate given the serious nature of the misconduct. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1083,"file":"2014-9552","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the police officer searched police databases for a purpose unrelated to his duties","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Between February 20, 2012, and April 11, 2014, the police officer searched police databases for a purpose unrelated to his duties. This matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The Discipline Authority substantiated each allegation of misconduct and issued a decision on the appropriate disciplinary/corrective measures. This decision included the disciplinary measure of dismissing the police officer from employment at the department. Pursuant to section 137 of the Police Act, where a Discipline Authority proposes a disciplinary measure of dismissal or reduction in rank, upon written request from the police officer, the Commissioner must promptly arrange a Public Hearing or Review on the Record. The police officer requested a Public Hearing into the matter. After reviewing all of the relevant information, the Police Complaint Commissioner determined that it would not be necessary to examine witnesses or receive evidence that was not part of the record of disciplinary decision. Therefore, pursuant to sections 137(2) and 143(2) of the Police Act, the Police Complaint Commissioner arranged a Review on the Record. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Ronald McKinnon, retired British Columbia Supreme Court Judge. On May 10, 2017, Adjudicator McKinnon determined that the Discipline Authority’s findings were correct and the discipline imposed was appropriate given the serious nature of the misconduct. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1084,"file":"2011-6637","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to document his conversation with the suspect vehicle’s registered owner","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Relating to an investigation into a driving complaint, the officer failed to document his conversation with the suspect vehicle’s registered owner.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1085,"file":"2011-6637","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"Altering/Erasing/Adding to Official Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"attempted to remove the registered owner’s name and vehicle entities from the file.rd The suspensions were to be served concurrently.rd The suspensions were to be served concurrently.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer also attempted to remove the registered owner’s name and vehicle entities from the file. *The suspensions were to be served concurrently.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1086,"file":"2018-15690","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"the member committed misconduct when they made a joke demeaning to persons with disabilities and engaged in inappropriate conversations about “indecent proposals.”Delta Police Department Allegation 1 of 1 in this file...your your your JOUR JSON had a typo (","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":false,"basis":"The findings describe workplace bullying: a joke \"demeaning to persons with disabilities\" and vague \"inappropriate conversations about 'indecent proposals,'\" with no stated sexual or gendered conduct by the member.","text":"The OPCC received a complaint alleging that a senior Vancouver Police Department (VPD) member had consistently acted in a bullying and harassing manner towards other officers and civilian staff. Information contained in the complaint included specific allegations that the member made a civilian staff member quit due to constant bullying and harassment, which included asking inappropriate questions and making inappropriate jokes. The member made inappropriate remarks to two civilian staff members at the VPD. This matter proceeded directly to a discipline proceeding where the Discipline Authority (DA) found that the member committed misconduct when they made a joke demeaning to persons with disabilities and engaged in inappropriate conversations about “indecent proposals.” It was determined that the member was in a supervisory position at the time of the conduct. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":1087,"file":"2016-12409","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"The off-duty police officer spoke to the attending officers in an unprofessional manner.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On July 31, 2016, an off-duty police officer was a registered guest at a hotel in another policing jurisdiction. There was a report of a disturbance at the hotel causing police to attend. The off-duty police officer spoke to the attending officers in an unprofessional manner. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. 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. The OPCC reviewed the prehearing conference report and, considering all the relevant factors in this case, the discipline fell within the acceptable range for appropriate discipline in the circumstances. In this case, the police officer accepted responsibility for their conduct which was evidenced in part, through self-disclosure of this matter to their supervisor. The OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":1088,"file":"2021-20264","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"the member sent communications to several female NWPD employees seeking reference letters, in contravention of the conditions placed on the member’s employment that were intended, at least in part, to protect female employees of the NWPD","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the New Westminster Police Department (NWPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of an NWPD member. It was reported that the member contacted several NWPD female employees while being subject to a condition placed on their employment by the NWPD, stemming from a separate Police Act matter, that the member not initiate contact of any form with any female employee or volunteer of the NWPD. Three affected persons in this matter filed complaints and were added to the record and recognized as complainants to the investigation. The member breached the conditions imposed on them by the NWPD. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered to the member; the member declined the offer and as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the member denied the allegation. The Discipline Authority determined that the member sent communications to several female NWPD employees seeking reference letters, in contravention of the conditions placed on the member’s employment that were intended, at least in part, to protect female employees of the NWPD. The Discipline Authority further found that, at the time of contact, the member was aware of the conditions and believed the conditions to be valid and in force. While the member said he had relied on legal advice before sending the communications, the Discipline Authority found the member had given misleading information to a lawyer when obtaining the advice later sought to be relied on. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority noted the member had not accepted responsibility for his misconduct. The Discipline Authority commented that an officer of such rank and credentials as the member would be expected to understand the importance of following orders and/or conditions, particularly where they are imposed for the safety and security of their colleagues. The Discipline Authority also acknowledged, however, that the member had been under these conditions for a significant period and had not breached any of the conditions previously. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension","training","transfer reassignment"]},{"id":1089,"file":"2018-15027","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"improperly handled a less lethal shotgun resulting in an unintentional discharge","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On July 19, 2018, a police officer improperly handled a less lethal shotgun resulting in an unintentional discharge. The OPCC reviewed the investigation and the Internal Discipline Authority’s decision. The OPCC determined there were no public trust concerns that required investigation. The Discipline Authority determined that the police officer did not follow his training and, as such, was in breach of department policy OB30 Intermediate Weapons. The police officer immediately reported the unintentional discharge to his supervisor and took full responsibility. No one was injured and there was only minor cosmetic damage to a storage cabinet. Since this incident, the department has taken numerous measures to ensure that all police officers have reviewed the safe handling procedures for each of the weapons platforms. These steps will enhance safety and promote ongoing supervisor engagement in weapons handling in all three of the department’s buildings. A proficiency test must be completed by each member in every section or platoon in the department. The outcome of the proficiency test is accompanied by documentation for each member. In addition, new signage was being placed in all equipment rooms that outline loading and unloading procedures for all platforms and ensuring that the proper equipment tracking systems are being utilized. Lastly, proper space was being secured for storage of long guns. These steps will enhance safety, mitigate future risk of unintentional discharges and hold members and supervisors accountable.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1090,"file":"2017-13291","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"while off duty, a special municipal constable was issued with a 90 day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) and their vehicle was impounded for 30 days.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On March 21, 2017, while off duty, a special municipal constable was issued with a 90 day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) and their vehicle was impounded for 30 days. 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. The Police Complaint Commissioner rejected the Prehearing Conference Agreement on the basis that the imposed disciplinary measure did not address the seriousness of the misconduct. Pursuant to section 135(1) of the Police Act , the Police Complaint Commissioner designated an external discipline authority to exercise the powers and perform the duties of a Discipline Authority in relation to this matter. Following the discipline proceeding, and after considering the available evidence and submissions, the new Discipline Authority proposed the disciplinary measure of a one day suspension without pay. After reviewing all of the relevant material, the Police Complaint Commissioner agreed with the Discipline Authority’s determination that the alleged misconduct had been proven. However, the Police Complaint Commissioner determined that there was an arguable basis that the proposed discipline was still inappropriate in the circumstances. In particular, the Commissioner was of the view the Discipline Authority erred in her determination that the conduct in question was mitigated based on an artificial distinction relating to the nature of special municipal constables’ duties versus other municipal constables, including that she does not wear a uniform. Therefore, pursuant to sections 137(2) and 141 of the Police Act, the Police Complaint Commissioner arranged a Review on the Record to review the proposed disciplinary and corrective measures issued by the Discipline Authority in this matter. The Police Complaint Commissioner appointed the Honourable Brian Neal, Q.C., retired British Columbia Provincial Court Judge to preside as an Adjudicator in these proceedings. On August 9, 2018, Adjudicator Neal issued his decision where he determined the following: It is incorrect to analyze the Member’s misconduct from the perspective that there is any diminished responsibility as a result of either the relevant legislation, or the specific role performed by the Member as a Special Municipal Constable; The Member’s specific duties and assignments do not establish a lesser standard of conduct relative to other municipal constables; and There is no principled reason why the Member’s role as a Special Municipal Constable should be considered as a mitigating factor in considering just and appropriate disciplinary sanctions. The Adjudicator imposed a two day suspension and counselling to consist of alcohol impairment driving behaviours - not less than five hours in duration, to be completed within six months. For further information on this decision, please visit the OPCC website at: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["suspension","counselling"]},{"id":1091,"file":"2017-13127","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"neglected to follow the proper procedures for the disposition of drug exhibits","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On February 9, 2017, a police officer neglected to follow the proper procedures for the disposition of drug exhibits. The OPCC reviewed the Internal Discipline Record of Decision and determined there were no public trust issues.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":1092,"file":"2022-21206","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to stop before entering an intersection on a red light without emergency equipment activated and struck a civilian vehicle","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department, the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a Vancouver Police Department member. It was reported that a member was responding to a robbery call and proceeded into an intersection against a red light without emergency equipment activated and struck a civilian vehicle. The member failed to stop before entering an intersection on a red light without emergency equipment activated and struck a civilian vehicle. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted the member accepted responsibility for their actions and that recurrence of the misconduct was not likely as the member had engaged in an additional review of their obligations for emergency driving. It was also noted that the member had no prior substantiated misconduct on their Service Record of Discipline. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1093,"file":"2017-14130","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The trigger of the LLSG was pressed which caused the shotgun to discharge one round at the floor in the LLSG storage room.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On November 11, 2017, a police officer attended the Public Service Building’s Exhibits and Less Lethal Shot Gun (LLSG) storage room. The police officer obtained an LLSG from a secure locker and proceeded to load the magazine with 4 bean bag rounds. The police officer had several other items with him at the time and became distracted while attempting to adjust the articles in his hands. The trigger of the LLSG was pressed which caused the shotgun to discharge one round at the floor in the LLSG storage room. There was no damage to any property or person. The OPCC reviewed the investigation and the Internal Discipline Authority’s decision. The OPCC determined there were no public trust concerns that required investigation. The police officer acknowledged that he made several handling mistakes during this incident which were not consistent with his training. The LLSG was being phased out of deployment within the department and being replaced in fall of 2018 by a new less lethal intermediate weapon. As such, the police officer would not be utilizing the LLSG prior to its decommission and therefore no additional training or review for the LLSG would be applicable.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1094,"file":"2017-14029","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"during the meeting, the police officer touched the SMC in an inappropriate manner","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The text states the officer \"touched the SMC in an inappropriate manner,\" conduct he admitted was \"highly inappropriate\" and left the constable in an \"uncomfortable and awkward position\" — plainly implying sexualized touching.","text":"On October 19, 2017, a police officer attended an offsite meeting away from the department. A Special Municipal Constable (SMC) reported that during the meeting, the police officer touched the SMC in an inappropriate manner. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. A Report on Disciplinary or Corrective Measures Following a Prehearing Conference was forwarded to the OPCC for review. 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. In this case, the police officer took responsibility for his actions. The police officer fully agreed that their conduct was highly inappropriate and placed the special municipal constable in an uncomfortable and awkward position. Given the totality of the circumstances, the OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["training"]},{"id":1095,"file":"2021-20960","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The member engaged in inappropriate sexualized conduct with Member C in front of co-workers.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The allegation states the member \"engaged in inappropriate sexualized conduct with Member C in front of co-workers,\" i.e., sexualized physical contact in non-private station areas, committed by the member himself.","text":"Upon request from the Nelson Police Department (NPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of three NPD members. It was alleged that a member (“Member A”) had entered the office of a co-worker with a medical mask over the front of their pants and repeatedly made inappropriate physical contact with the back of that co-worker’s chair. During the investigation, it was established that another member (“Member B”) photographed Member A during the incident and posted that picture to a chat group. Additionally, it was alleged that Member A was seen engaged in inappropriate (consensual) physical contact with a co-worker (“Member C”) in areas of the station which were not private. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The member engaged in inappropriate sexualized conduct with Member C in front of co-workers.","measures":["suspension","training","close supervision"]},{"id":1096,"file":"2021-20960","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.92,"thin":false,"quote":"The member wore a protective medical mask over the front of their pants, pushed against the back of a co-worker's chair, and posed for a picture during the incident.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The member \"wore a protective medical mask over the front of their pants\" and \"pushed against the back of a co-worker's chair,\" simulating genital contact — plainly sexualized conduct toward a colleague.","text":"Upon request from the Nelson Police Department (NPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of three NPD members. It was alleged that a member (“Member A”) had entered the office of a co-worker with a medical mask over the front of their pants and repeatedly made inappropriate physical contact with the back of that co-worker’s chair. During the investigation, it was established that another member (“Member B”) photographed Member A during the incident and posted that picture to a chat group. Additionally, it was alleged that Member A was seen engaged in inappropriate (consensual) physical contact with a co-worker (“Member C”) in areas of the station which were not private. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The member wore a protective medical mask over the front of their pants, pushed against the back of a co-worker's chair, and posed for a picture during the incident.","measures":["suspension","training","close supervision"]},{"id":1097,"file":"2021-20960","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"took a photograph of another member (Member A) who was ridiculing a fellow member by making inappropriate gestures and then shared that photograph in a group chat","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Nelson Police Department (NPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of three NPD members. It was alleged that a member (“Member A”) had entered the office of a co-worker with a medical mask over the front of their pants and repeatedly made inappropriate physical contact with the back of that co-worker’s chair. During the investigation, it was established that another member (“Member B”) photographed Member A during the incident and posted that picture to a chat group. Additionally, it was alleged that Member A was seen engaged in inappropriate (consensual) physical contact with a co-worker (“Member C”) in areas of the station which were not private. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The member took a photograph of another member (Member A) who was ridiculing a fellow member by making inappropriate gestures and then shared that photograph in a group chat which was later deleted.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":1098,"file":"2021-20960","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.72,"thin":false,"quote":"The member engaged in inappropriate sexualized conduct with Member A in front of co-workers.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":false,"basis":"The text describes \"inappropriate (consensual) physical contact\" between two members, deemed \"unprofessional\" for occurring in a non-private area o or or or or coercion, assault, or targeted sexual harassment alleged.","text":"Upon request from the Nelson Police Department (NPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of three NPD members. It was alleged that a member (“Member A”) had entered the office of a co-worker with a medical mask over the front of their pants and repeatedly made inappropriate physical contact with the back of that co-worker’s chair. During the investigation, it was established that another member (“Member B”) photographed Member A during the incident and posted that picture to a chat group. Additionally, it was alleged that Member A was seen engaged in inappropriate (consensual) physical contact with a co-worker (“Member C”) in areas of the station which were not private. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The member engaged in inappropriate sexualized conduct with Member A in front of co-workers. A prehearing conference was offered to the members. Members A and C declined and, as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding in respect of those members. Member B accepted a pre-hearing conference. In respect of Member B, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that their conduct was serious, but the member accepted responsibility, had learned a lesson and would not repeat the behaviour. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. In respect of Allegations 1 and 4, the Discipline Authority found that the conduct of Members A and C was unprofessional in nature. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority noted that the conduct occurred in a non-private area and was witnessed by a number of other NPD employees. Both members (A & C) resigned from the department prior to the conclusion of these proceedings. In respect of Allegation 2, the Discipline Authority noted that Member A’s conduct was serious and unprofessional in nature. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority noted that the conduct was premeditated and aimed at causing embarrassment and occurred at the police station in full uniform. The members did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. Even though two of the members resigned prior to the conclusion of this matter, their Service Record of Discipline will reflect the discipline imposed.","measures":["suspension","training","close supervision"]},{"id":1099,"file":"2015-10826","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Equipment","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"used their department email account to solicit donations for a private non-profit organization","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On multiple occasions, a police officer used their department email account to solicit donations for a private non-profit organization.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1100,"file":"2015-10826","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Follow Supervisor's Lawful Order - Written","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"provided with one verbal and two written direct orders to cease using police resources for duties unrelated to their position as a police officer... However, the police officer continued","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer was provided with one verbal and two written direct orders to cease using police resources for duties unrelated to their position as a police officer. The police officer signed both written orders indicating that they understood the contents. However, the police officer continued, for an extended period of time, to use his department email to send and/or receive emails that were unrelated to their duties as a police officer. *The suspensions were to be served consecutively.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1101,"file":"2022-21882","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"member’s actions in exercising the provisions found under section 122(1) of the MVA presented more of a risk to the public than the risk posed by the possible reporting of an impaired driver","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Delta Police Department (DPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a DPD member who was involved in a motor vehicle accident while responding to a call of a possible impaired driver. As the member was clearing an intersection (with their lights and siren activated), their unmarked police vehicle struck a vehicle, and that vehicle subsequently struck a pedestrian. The member, the driver of the other vehicle, and the pedestrian were transported to hospital for minor injuries. The member failed to comply with the provisions of the BC Motor Vehicle Act (MVA), Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulations (EVDR), and DPD Policy OD10-Emergency Vehicle Operation while operating their police vehicle. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The investigation revealed that the member’s actions in exercising the provisions found under section 122(1) of the MVA presented more of a risk to the public than the risk posed by the possible reporting of an impaired driver. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that this was a sustained two-minute violation of the MVA, EVDR, and DPD policy. In arriving at the decision on disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the speeds of the police vehicle exceeded 100 km/hr, that the nature of the roadway included a playground zone and a posted speed limit of 50 km/hr, and that the collision resulted in injuries to the member and two members of the public. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":1102,"file":"2014-9583","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2014,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"emails on their computers contained images and jokes that contravened the employer's Acceptable Use of Corporate Computing Systems and Respectful Workplace policies","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"In the course of investigating an unrelated matter, it was determined that two police officers’ emails on their computers contained images and jokes that contravened the employer's Acceptable Use of Corporate Computing Systems and Respectful Workplace policies.","measures":[]},{"id":1103,"file":"2010-5915","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Contravening a Provision of the Act, Regulation, Rule or Guideline","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"placing his Police Service dog in his back yard unattended whereupon he escaped through an open gate and was at large in the community for approximately 45 minutes","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member breached departmental policy by placing his Police Service dog in his back yard unattended whereupon he escaped through an open gate and was at large in the community for approximately 45 minutes.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":1104,"file":"2016-11928","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"received remuneration for teaching courses at the Justice Institute of British Columbia while off on sick leave","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer received remuneration for teaching courses at the Justice Institute of British Columbia while off on sick leave. This matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. At the time of the discipline proceeding, the police officer was no longer a member with the VPD. The former police officer did not make any submissions during the discipline proceeding. The former police officer was provided with a copy of the Discipline Authority’s decision and was informed that if they were aggrieved by either the findings or determinations, they could file a written request with the Police Complaint Commissioner (the Commissioner) to arrange a Public Hearing or Review on the Record. The OPCC did not receive a request from the former member. Given the seriousness of the misconduct, the lack of acceptance of responsibility from the former member, the former member’s past record of employment, the range of discipline in similar circumstances, and the public interest, a fifteen day suspension without pay, the OPCC was satisfied that the decision of the Discipline Authority was appropriate considering the circumstances.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1105,"file":"2020-18716","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Immediate Roadside Prohibition/Impaired Operation of a Motor Vehicle","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"attended a restaurant and consumed an unknown quantity of alcohol over approximately four hours before driving home","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Delta Police Department (DPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a member for driving under the influence of alcohol. According to the DPD, the member, who was off-duty and on long term leave, attended a restaurant and consumed an unknown quantity of alcohol over approximately four hours before driving home. An Integrated Road Safety Unit (IRSU) officer was conducting road safety enforcement in the area. The IRSU officer observed the member leave the parking lot and fail to properly navigate a left turn resulting in the vehicle crossing a solid line. The IRSU officer conducted a roadside stop and ultimately issued the member with a 3-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition. Impaired operation of a motor vehicle. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that impaired driving is a serious concern and that impaired driving enforcement is a pillar of police strategy to keep the public safe. It was also noted that the member had no prior misconduct on their service record of discipline and self-reported the incident. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1106,"file":"2016-12392","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to properly document a contemporaneous detailed account of the vehicle stop, arrest, and search of the complainant and the driver of the vehicle","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On July 22, 2016, a police officer initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle where the complainant was a passenger. The police officer failed to properly document a contemporaneous detailed account of the vehicle stop, arrest, and search of the complainant and the driver of the vehicle. The matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. 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. The OPCC reviewed the prehearing conference report and, considering all the relevant factors in this case, the OPCC determined the discipline was within the acceptable range for appropriate discipline based on the circumstances. The OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":1107,"file":"2015-11259","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Improper/Inadequate Documentation of Seized Property","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"did not secure those items at the property office nor comment on them in their police report","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On November 2, 2015, a police officer removed a folding knife, a fixed blade knife and a wrist filler from an intoxicated person before placing him in a police transport vehicle. The police officer did not secure those items at the property office nor comment on them in their police report. The items were subsequently returned to the complainant.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":1108,"file":"2022-22191","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"having verbal outbursts of anger or aggression, overreacting to situations, and displaying excessive emotion at inappropriate times","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The department initiated an internal discipline investigation into the conduct of a Saanich Police Department member. It was alleged that the member violated the departmental Respectful Workplace Policy by engaging in bullying behaviour towards subordinate members including yelling at and ridiculing other members which contributed to a toxic work environment. The member violated the Respectful Workplace Policy by having verbal outbursts of anger or aggression, overreacting to situations, and displaying excessive emotion at inappropriate times. Additionally, the member would address performance issues with members in public, making adverse assumptions and drawing negative conclusions about staff when the member only possessed partial information.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1109,"file":"2012-7363","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2014,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Improper/Inadequate Documentation of Seized Property","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to record in his notebook the count of all money seized, recovered, or found","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer failed to record in his notebook the count of all money seized, recovered, or found.","measures":["written reprimand","training","close supervision"]},{"id":1110,"file":"2012-7363","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2014,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Account For Money/Property Received","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to account for money or property received in his capacity as a police officer","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer failed to account for money or property received in his capacity as a police officer.","measures":["written reprimand","training","close supervision"]},{"id":1111,"file":"2012-7363","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2014,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Improper/Inadequate Documentation of Seized Property","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to record in her notebook the count of all money seized, recovered, or found.'","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The officer failed to record in her notebook the count of all money seized, recovered, or found.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":1112,"file":"2021-19515","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Discourtesy","sublabel":"Discourteous - Verbal","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"go back to dealing drugs was discourteous, rude, and uncivil, apparently without a basis in fact, and completely unnecessary","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the OPCC ordered an investigation in relation to a video that was posted on social media which captured the actions of a member and comments he made to a member of the public. The member was working with three other police officers in the Downtown Eastside of Vancouver when police noticed a woman taking photos and/or recording the police on her cell phone. A conversation ensued where it was alleged that the member made inappropriate comments. The member failed to behave with courtesy to the affected person during their interaction. Following an investigation into the matter, the Discipline Authority did not find that the member committed misconduct. The Commissioner disagreed and determined, in part, that the DA failed to properly consider all the available evidence and assess it against the expectations of a reasonable member of the community. The Commissioner appointed retired BC Supreme Court Justice, Elizabeth Arnold-Bailey, to review this matter and arrive at her own decision based on the evidence. Ms. Arnold-Bailey issued her decision in which she determined that the allegation of Discourtesy appeared to be substantiated. She found that while the allegation that the member threatened to smack the individual did not “appear to be born out by the evidence”, at times the member’s interactions with the individual made the situation worse by being discourteous to them. Ms. Arnold Bailey noted that the member’s tone was at times sarcastic and lacking in respect. In particular, she found that the member’s comment that the individual “go back to dealing drugs was discourteous, rude, and uncivil, apparently without a basis in fact, and completely unnecessary.” For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/ Disciplinary Process A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. The OPCC noted that, during the PHC, the member took responsibility for his actions and acknowledged that it was a mistake.","measures":["written reprimand","training"]},{"id":1113,"file":"2015-10427","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2016,"heading":"Discourtesy","sublabel":"Discourteous - Verbal","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"During the street check a heated exchange occurred where the police officer and the male both used profanities.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On August 29, 2014, while off duty, a police officer noted the presence of a male in a gym. The off duty police officer contacted police dispatch and queried the name of the male. Based on the results of that query, the off duty police officer contacted the on duty police supervisor to discuss his/her concerns and the necessity to conduct a street check of the male. An on duty police officer was dispatched as a cover officer for the street check. The off duty officer then approached the male in the gym, identified himself/herself as a police officer, and requested the male step outside. The off duty officer, by these actions, placed himself/herself on duty. During the street check a heated exchange occurred where the police officer and the male both used profanities.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1114,"file":"2011-6860","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.62,"thin":false,"quote":"received and sent emails with sexualized, lewd and pornographic images, thereby breaching the department’s email and internet policies","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":false,"basis":"The text describes only a breach of \"email and internet policies\" by sending pornographic images among members, with no identified target, unwelcome conduct, or non-consensual intimate imagery of any person.","text":"Fourteen sworn members were found to have received and sent emails with sexualized, lewd and pornographic images, thereby breaching the department’s email and internet policies.","measures":["suspension","transfer reassignment"]},{"id":1115,"file":"2011-6860","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.9,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1116,"file":"2011-6860","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.9,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1117,"file":"2011-6860","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.9,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1118,"file":"2011-6860","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.95,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1119,"file":"2011-6860","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.95,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1120,"file":"2011-6860","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.95,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1121,"file":"2011-6860","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.9,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1122,"file":"2011-6860","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.9,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1123,"file":"2011-6860","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.95,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1124,"file":"2011-6860","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.95,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1125,"file":"2011-6860","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.9,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1126,"file":"2011-6860","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.9,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1127,"file":"2011-6860","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"insufficient_information","conf":0.9,"thin":true,"quote":"As above.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"As above. Mitigating factors were considered for each individual member including, but not limited to: the seriousness of the misconduct; if it was an isolated incident, or whether the member received previous warnings with regard to such behavior; and the nature of that member’s rank. All 14 members received discipline in the form of being banned from entering the promotion process for a period of one year. As well, each member received discipline in the form of a written reprimand, and/or a 1-, 3- or 5-day suspension without pay and transfer.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1128,"file":"2014-9467","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Damage to Police Property","sublabel":"Misusing/Losing/Damaging Police Property","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"damaged a computer monitor in the patrol writing room","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer damaged a computer monitor in the patrol writing room.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1129,"file":"2014-9467","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2014,"heading":"Damage to Police Property","sublabel":"Failure to Report Loss/Damage to Police Property or Property in Police Custody","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to report the damage","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer subsequently failed to report the damage.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1130,"file":"2011-6868","agency":"Port Moody Police Department","year":2012,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"The member failed to follow protocol when calibrating the approved screening devices.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member failed to follow protocol when calibrating the approved screening devices.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":1131,"file":"2020-18635","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2022,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"posting harassing and defamatory comments as well as personal information on a social media platform","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns regarding a Vancouver Police Department (VPD) member posting harassing and defamatory comments as well as personal information on a social media platform. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required into the matter. The member posted inappropriate messages on social media. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by the member. The member agreed to the proposed discipline. After review, the Commissioner did not approve the disciplinary or corrective measures. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the member admitted the allegation of Discreditable Conduct. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority noted that the complainant and witness were aware that the member was employed as a member of the VPD and that the member should have known that their actions would be a reflection on their profession. The Discipline Authority further considered that the member accepted responsibility and acknowledged the conduct was a mistake. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not in the public interest.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":1132,"file":"2014-9458","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"The officer approached another officer involved in the RESPOND inspection and requested a delay.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A RESPOND inspection was ordered on a property either owned, or associated to three police officers. The mandate of the RESPOND team, comprised of investigators from several agencies including police, fire, health, building, animal control and city by-law, is to inspect buildings that are the subject of complaints relating to noise, health concerns, police calls for service, other public nuisance issues or questionable living conditions. The officer approached another officer involved in the RESPOND inspection and requested a delay.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":1133,"file":"2014-9458","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"Officer 2, while in uniform, attended the City of Victoria bylaw office and requested a delay of the RESPOND inspection.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A RESPOND inspection was ordered on a property either owned, or associated to three police officers. The mandate of the RESPOND team, comprised of investigators from several agencies including police, fire, health, building, animal control and city by-law, is to inspect buildings that are the subject of complaints relating to noise, health concerns, police calls for service, other public nuisance issues or questionable living conditions. Officer 2, while in uniform, attended the City of Victoria bylaw office and requested a delay of the RESPOND inspection.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":1134,"file":"2014-9458","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"Officer 3 accessed the PRIME report documenting the RESPOND inspection of the rental property.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A RESPOND inspection was ordered on a property either owned, or associated to three police officers. The mandate of the RESPOND team, comprised of investigators from several agencies including police, fire, health, building, animal control and city by-law, is to inspect buildings that are the subject of complaints relating to noise, health concerns, police calls for service, other public nuisance issues or questionable living conditions. Officer 3 accessed the PRIME report documenting the RESPOND inspection of the rental property.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1135,"file":"2013-9225-01","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2015,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to properly document the authorisation and strip search of the complainant and his two associates","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Three police members failed to properly document the authorisation and strip search of the complainant and his two associates.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":1136,"file":"2017-13019","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Misappropriation of Property or Money Received in Course of Duty","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"misappropriated monies seized from a member of the public","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer misappropriated monies seized from a member of the public.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":1137,"file":"2017-13019","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.5,"thin":false,"quote":"A police officer threatened a member of the public.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"A police officer threatened a member of the public.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":1138,"file":"2017-13019","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"knowingly provided false or misleading evidence to the Police Act investigator in relation to the meaning of text messages","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer knowingly provided false or misleading evidence to the Police Act investigator in relation to the meaning of text messages relevant to the allegation that the police officer committed Corrupt Practice by misappropriating money.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":1139,"file":"2017-13019","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2018,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"knowingly provided false or misleading evidence to the Police Act investigator","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The police officer knowingly provided false or misleading evidence to the Police Act investigator. This matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the Discipline Authority substantiated each allegation of misconduct and determined that the conduct of the member warranted dismissal from employment at the police department. In cases where the imposed discipline is dismissal or reduction in rank, the police officer has a right to a Public Hearing or a Review on the Record, if requested. No request was received from the police officer. Based on a review of the evidence, the OPCC was satisfied that the decision of the Discipline Authority was appropriate considering the circumstances.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":1140,"file":"2011-6059","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"accessed police databases to query associates of his estranged wife for purposes unrelated to the performance of his duties","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The member accessed police databases to query associates of his estranged wife for purposes unrelated to the performance of his duties as a police officer.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1141,"file":"2011-6059","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2011,"heading":"Improper Disclosure of Information","sublabel":"Disclosing Information Acquired as a Police Officer","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the member disclosed to his estranged wife confidential information he had obtained from the queries","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Further, the member disclosed to his estranged wife confidential information he had obtained from the queries. *The suspensions were to be served consecutively.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1142,"file":"2020-18809","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2021,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Sexualized Harassment/Touching/Comments","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.92,"thin":false,"quote":"The member spoke to a female officer in a derogatory manner that contained sexual context, and referred to her in an inappropriate manner.:]},","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"Text states the member \"made inappropriate comments to her, including comments that were sexually demeaning\" and spoke to a female officer \"in a derogatory manner that contained sexual context.\"","text":"Upon request from the Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP), the OPCC ordered an investigation into the conduct of a member for Discreditable Conduct. According to the information received from the MVTP, the member, while acting in a supervisory capacity, approached another member and made inappropriate comments to her, including comments that were sexually demeaning. The member made these comments in front of witnesses. The member spoke to a female officer in a derogatory manner that contained sexual context, and referred to her in an inappropriate manner. Several other employees in the work area overheard these comments and actions. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority (DA) found that the member appeared to have committed one count of misconduct. No prehearing conference was offered to the member and, as a result, the matter proceeded directly to a discipline proceeding, at which time the member admitted the allegation. In arriving at a decision on discipline, the DA noted that the member had apologized for their actions and had taken training courses in advance of any measures being imposed. The DA also noted that the comments and actions of the member were “personal in nature, were extremely offensive, and were made in the presence of other members” and that the member was in the role of an acting supervisor at the time. The DA also restricted the member’s ability to fill any acting supervisory positions for a period of five years. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension","training"]},{"id":1143,"file":"2017-13478","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2017,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Unsafe Storage of Firearm","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"placed an unlocked black gun box containing the police officer’s department issued firearm and ammunition onto the driver’s side rear wheel. The police officer failed to remove the gun box from the wheel before driving away.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"On May 29, 2017, a police officer was scheduled to attend a rifle operator’s course in Langley, BC. While loading items into a personal vehicle, the police officer placed an unlocked black gun box containing the police officer’s department issued firearm and ammunition onto the driver’s side rear wheel. The police officer failed to remove the gun box from the wheel before driving away. The police officer reported the matter to the police agency with jurisdiction. A civilian subsequently found the gun case and its contents and turned it over to the police agency without incident. This matter proceeded to a prehearing conference. 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. The OPCC reviewed the prehearing conference report and, considering all the relevant factors in this case, the OPCC determined the discipline was within the acceptable range for appropriate discipline based on the circumstances. In this case, the police officer accepted full responsibility for their actions in not locking the transport container, knowing that it contained both ammunition and a departmental firearm. The police officer also accepted responsibility for failing to ensure that the police issued firearm remained under their control and not considering the serious potential consequences resulting from its loss. It was determined that additional training with respect to the safe handling of firearms was not required for the member as they are considered to be an experienced firearms handler. The OPCC approved the agreement reached at the prehearing conference.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1144,"file":"2010-5217","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2014,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The officer made a false entry in his notebook and failed to make a note about the force used on the male to which he was a witness.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An RCMP Code of Conduct investigation was initiated into an allegation of excessive force used on a male by a member of the RCMP. During the Code of Conduct investigation, it was determined that a SCBCTAPS officer was also present when the incident took place. Accordingly, the department requested an Order for Investigation in relation to the police officer. The officer made a false entry in his notebook and failed to make a note about the force used on the male to which he was a witness.","measures":["reduction in rank","suspension"]},{"id":1145,"file":"2010-5217","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2014,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The officer made an entry in his PRIME-BC synopsis page that he knew was false or misleading.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An RCMP Code of Conduct investigation was initiated into an allegation of excessive force used on a male by a member of the RCMP. During the Code of Conduct investigation, it was determined that a SCBCTAPS officer was also present when the incident took place. Accordingly, the department requested an Order for Investigation in relation to the police officer. The officer made an entry in his PRIME-BC synopsis page that he knew was false or misleading.","measures":["reduction in rank","suspension"]},{"id":1146,"file":"2010-5217","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2014,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Entry in Official Document or Record","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The officer made a PRIME-BC statement that to his knowledge was false or misleading.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An RCMP Code of Conduct investigation was initiated into an allegation of excessive force used on a male by a member of the RCMP. During the Code of Conduct investigation, it was determined that a SCBCTAPS officer was also present when the incident took place. Accordingly, the department requested an Order for Investigation in relation to the police officer. The officer made a PRIME-BC statement that to his knowledge was false or misleading.","measures":["reduction in rank","suspension"]},{"id":1147,"file":"2010-5217","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2014,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the officer provided a duty report to the investigator that he knew was false or misleading","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An RCMP Code of Conduct investigation was initiated into an allegation of excessive force used on a male by a member of the RCMP. During the Code of Conduct investigation, it was determined that a SCBCTAPS officer was also present when the incident took place. Accordingly, the department requested an Order for Investigation in relation to the police officer. During the Police Act investigation, the officer provided a duty report to the investigator that he knew was false or misleading.","measures":["reduction in rank","suspension"]},{"id":1148,"file":"2010-5217","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2014,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the officer made an oral statement to the investigator that he knew was false or misleading","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An RCMP Code of Conduct investigation was initiated into an allegation of excessive force used on a male by a member of the RCMP. During the Code of Conduct investigation, it was determined that a SCBCTAPS officer was also present when the incident took place. Accordingly, the department requested an Order for Investigation in relation to the police officer. During the Police Act investigation, the officer made an oral statement to the investigator that he knew was false or misleading. *The suspensions were to be served concurrently.","measures":["reduction in rank","suspension"]},{"id":1149,"file":"2018-14493","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"The member attempted to physically and psychologically intimidate a Crown Prosecutor while off-duty and attending a criminal trial.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns with the behavior of a member of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) while at a Provincial Courthouse, specifically, for attempting to physically and psychologically intimidate a Crown Prosecutor. This alleged interaction occurred while the member was off-duty and attending a criminal trial of a person related to the member’s former work partner. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the RCMP to conduct the investigation and designated the Chief Constable of the Central Saanich Police Service as the Discipline Authority.Additional allegations of misconduct were raised during the course of the investigation. The member attempted to physically and psychologically intimidate a Crown Prosecutor while off-duty and attending a criminal trial.","measures":["reduction in rank"]},{"id":1150,"file":"2018-14493","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member knowingly made a false or misleading statement in their duty report regarding their interaction with the Crown Prosecutor.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns with the behavior of a member of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) while at a Provincial Courthouse, specifically, for attempting to physically and psychologically intimidate a Crown Prosecutor. This alleged interaction occurred while the member was off-duty and attending a criminal trial of a person related to the member’s former work partner. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the RCMP to conduct the investigation and designated the Chief Constable of the Central Saanich Police Service as the Discipline Authority.Additional allegations of misconduct were raised during the course of the investigation. The member knowingly made a false or misleading statement in their duty report regarding their interaction with the Crown Prosecutor.","measures":["reduction in rank"]},{"id":1151,"file":"2018-14493","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"The member knowingly made a false or misleading statement when describing their interaction with the Crown Prosecutor during their interview with investigators.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns with the behavior of a member of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) while at a Provincial Courthouse, specifically, for attempting to physically and psychologically intimidate a Crown Prosecutor. This alleged interaction occurred while the member was off-duty and attending a criminal trial of a person related to the member’s former work partner. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the RCMP to conduct the investigation and designated the Chief Constable of the Central Saanich Police Service as the Discipline Authority.Additional allegations of misconduct were raised during the course of the investigation. The member knowingly made a false or misleading statement when describing their interaction with the Crown Prosecutor during their interview with investigators. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed three counts of misconduct. No prehearing conference was offered and the matter proceeded directly to a discipline proceeding where the member denied each of the allegations. In arriving at the discipline or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority noted that deceit is one of the most serious acts of police misconduct and that the member made ongoing deceitful statements throughout the investigation. The Discipline Authority commented that the foundation of police legitimacy is that police officers will tell the truth regarding their actions and observations, particularly when under oath in a legal proceeding. Further, the Discipline Authority noted the member did not accept responsibility for their actions.. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["reduction in rank"]},{"id":1152,"file":"2018-14528","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - CEW","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"The member used a CEW three times on the affected person, for which they were criminally convicted of Assault with a Weapon.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Commissioner ordered an investigation after receiving information from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) about an incident involving two VPD members. It was reported that the affected person was stopped by police for crossing the street against a red light, refused to provide identification, and was subsequently arrested for Obstructing a Peace Officer. During the course of the arrest, members used significant force to take the affected person into custody, which included Member A deploying their Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) three times and Member B delivering a kick while the affected person was lying on their back with members on top of them.The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the Victoria Police Department (VicPD) to conduct the investigation and a senior officer of the VicPD was designated to be the Discipline Authority.The Police Act investigation was initially suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation. The matter was referred to the BC Prosecution Service by the OPCC and charges were approved against Member A and Member B. The charge against Member B was later stayed. Member A was convicted of Assault with a Weapon Causing Bodily Harm and received a conditional discharge with 18 months of probation and conditions. The member used a CEW three times on the affected person, for which they were criminally convicted of Assault with a Weapon. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that Member A appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by Member A. In arriving at the decision on disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted Member A had taken responsibility for their actions and had demonstrated significant remorse, utilizing their experience to help train other members on the importance of crisis intervention and de-escalation techniques. The Prehearing Conference Authority also noted that Member A had no prior substantiated misconduct on their service record of discipline and had regularly engaged in training using scenarios that reflected this incident to improve their skills and judgement.The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1153,"file":"2018-14528","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"Member B delivering a kick while the affected person was lying on their back with members on top of them","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Commissioner ordered an investigation after receiving information from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) about an incident involving two VPD members. It was reported that the affected person was stopped by police for crossing the street against a red light, refused to provide identification, and was subsequently arrested for Obstructing a Peace Officer. During the course of the arrest, members used significant force to take the affected person into custody, which included Member A deploying their Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) three times and Member B delivering a kick while the affected person was lying on their back with members on top of them.The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the Victoria Police Department (VicPD) to conduct the investigation and a senior officer of the VicPD was designated to be the Discipline Authority.The Police Act investigation was initially suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation. The matter was referred to the BC Prosecution Service by the OPCC and charges were approved against Member A and Member B. The charge against Member B was later stayed. Member A was convicted of Assault with a Weapon Causing Bodily Harm and received a conditional discharge with 18 months of probation and conditions. The member used unnecessary force in kicking the affected person. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that Member B appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by Member B. In arriving at the decision on disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted Member B had accepted responsibility for their conduct, shown regret for their involvement, and demonstrated initiative to improve their abilities as a police officer, including by seeking mentorship and taking courses.The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1154,"file":"2019-16234","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Sexualized Harassment/Touching/Comments","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"The member made inappropriate sexual advances and comments toward a female member.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"Text states the member \"made inappropriate sexual advances and comments toward a female member,\" including unwanted physical contact and a \"pattern of predation\" toward female subordinates.","text":"Upon request from the New Westminster Police Department (NWPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of an NWPD member. It was reported that in 2017 the member made unwanted sexual advances toward a female member which included inappropriate sexual comments and touching. It was further reported that in 2018 and 2019, the member made unwanted sexual advances toward another female member. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) to conduct the investigation and appointed a senior member of the VPD as the Discipline Authority.The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation into the conduct of the member. No charges were recommended at the conclusion of the criminal investigation.During the course of the Police Act investigation, it was further reported that the member had engaged in additional instances of inappropriate conduct, including sexual advances and comments, toward additional female employees. The member made inappropriate sexual advances and comments toward a female member. The Commissioner reviewed the outcome of the discipline proceeding and determined that a Review on the Record was necessary in the public interest as the disciplinary or corrective measure proposed by the Discipline Authority did not reflect the seriousness and circumstances of the misconduct. 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.Accordingly, the Commissioner appointed Ms. Carol Baird Ellan, K.C., retired BC Provincial Court Judge, to act as an adjudicator and arrive at her own decision on disciplinary or corrective measures, based on the evidence.During the course of the Review on the Record, the member resigned from the NWPD.Adjudicator Baird Ellan noted that the misconduct in this case “might best be described as inappropriate sexual advances toward subordinates.” 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. Considering all the circumstances, Adjudicator Baird Ellan determined that no disciplinary or corrective measure short of dismissal would be appropriate in the circumstances. Adjudicator Baird Ellan found that the combination of incidents amounted to a pattern of predation by the member, that the member repeatedly violated the values they were expected to uphold as a superior officer, and that “confidence in the administration of police discipline would be irreparably damaged if…[the member] was permitted to resume his duties in any setting that placed him in proximity to female subordinate or colleagues.” Even though the member resigned before the conclusion of this matter, their Service Record of Discipline will reflect that they were dismissed from the NWPD. Disciplinary Process - Discipline ProceedingAt the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member committed two counts of misconduct. No prehearing conference was offered to the member and as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the member admitted misconduct with respect to some of their interactions with one of the affected persons.The Discipline Authority found the allegations against the member were substantiated with respect to three members and one civilian employee. In arriving at the proposed disciplinary or corrective measure of reduction in rank, the Discipline Authority determined that the member’s actions were “very serious” and “predatory in nature”, that the member was in a position of authority, and that the affected persons were vulnerable relative to the member’s position.For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":1155,"file":"2019-16234","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Sexualized Harassment/Touching/Comments","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"The member made inappropriate sexualized comments and/or advances toward two other members and a civilian employee.ant:thinking_mode>off</thinking_mode>","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"Text states the member \"made inappropriate sexualized comments and/or advances\" toward subordinates, with three of four recipients experiencing unwanted physical contact, amounting to a \"pattern of predation.\"","text":"Upon request from the New Westminster Police Department (NWPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of an NWPD member. It was reported that in 2017 the member made unwanted sexual advances toward a female member which included inappropriate sexual comments and touching. It was further reported that in 2018 and 2019, the member made unwanted sexual advances toward another female member. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) to conduct the investigation and appointed a senior member of the VPD as the Discipline Authority.The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation into the conduct of the member. No charges were recommended at the conclusion of the criminal investigation.During the course of the Police Act investigation, it was further reported that the member had engaged in additional instances of inappropriate conduct, including sexual advances and comments, toward additional female employees. The member made inappropriate sexualized comments and/or advances toward two other members and a civilian employee. The Commissioner reviewed the outcome of the discipline proceeding and determined that a Review on the Record was necessary in the public interest as the disciplinary or corrective measure proposed by the Discipline Authority did not reflect the seriousness and circumstances of the misconduct. 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.Accordingly, the Commissioner appointed Ms. Carol Baird Ellan, K.C., retired BC Provincial Court Judge, to act as an adjudicator and arrive at her own decision on disciplinary or corrective measures, based on the evidence.During the course of the Review on the Record, the member resigned from the NWPD.Adjudicator Baird Ellan noted that the misconduct in this case “might best be described as inappropriate sexual advances toward subordinates.” 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. Considering all the circumstances, Adjudicator Baird Ellan determined that no disciplinary or corrective measure short of dismissal would be appropriate in the circumstances. Adjudicator Baird Ellan found that the combination of incidents amounted to a pattern of predation by the member, that the member repeatedly violated the values they were expected to uphold as a superior officer, and that “confidence in the administration of police discipline would be irreparably damaged if…[the member] was permitted to resume his duties in any setting that placed him in proximity to female subordinate or colleagues.” Even though the member resigned before the conclusion of this matter, their Service Record of Discipline will reflect that they were dismissed from the NWPD. Disciplinary Process - Discipline ProceedingAt the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member committed two counts of misconduct. No prehearing conference was offered to the member and as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the member admitted misconduct with respect to some of their interactions with one of the affected persons.The Discipline Authority found the allegations against the member were substantiated with respect to three members and one civilian employee. In arriving at the proposed disciplinary or corrective measure of reduction in rank, the Discipline Authority determined that the member’s actions were “very serious” and “predatory in nature”, that the member was in a position of authority, and that the affected persons were vulnerable relative to the member’s position.For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":1156,"file":"2020-18785","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2024,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"The member operated their police vehicle at a speed not consistent with reasonable care in the circumstances and the requirements set out in the Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulation and MVTP policy.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC initiated a mandatory investigation following a review of injuries sustained by an affected person. It was reported that a member of the Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP) was responding to an in-progress priority call in their unmarked police vehicle at a high rate of speed, with emergency equipment activated, when they collided with the affected person’s vehicle. Both the member and the affected person sustained serious injuries that required treatment at hospital. Due to the serious nature of the injuries, the Independent Investigations Office (IIO) investigated this matter for possible criminal charges. In addition, the Police Act requires that the OPCC initiate a misconduct investigation whenever death or serious harm results from an incident involving municipal police officers. These investigations are separate and distinct from investigations by the IIO and are not restricted to evidence gathered by the IIO. Under the Police Act, officers may be compelled to provide statements, answer questions, and otherwise account for their actions in an investigation into possible misconduct. The IIO referred the matter to the BC Prosecution Service and a criminal charge was approved. The member ultimately pled guilty to an offence of operating a motor vehicle at excessive speeds relative to the conditions, contrary to section 144(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicle Act. An investigation under the Police Act also found that the member committed misconduct. The member operated their police vehicle at a speed not consistent with reasonable care in the circumstances and the requirements set out in the Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulation and MVTP policy. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member accepted responsibility for their actions, had taken steps to prevent its recurrence by completing training and reviewing the applicable laws and policies respecting emergency vehicle operations, and had no past record of discipline. The Prehearing Conference Authority further noted that as a result of the incident, the member had been the subject of a criminal investigation, had received a fine pursuant to the Motor Vehicle Act, and had missed time due to their injury. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":1157,"file":"2021-20297","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"The member entered the complainant’s residence without consent and initiated sexual contact without identifying themselves or obtaining the complainant’s consent.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The member \"entered the complainant's residence... and initiated sexual contact without... obtaining the complainant's consent,\" a substantiated non-consensual sexual act by the officer himself.","text":"Upon request from the Saanich Police Department (SPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the off-duty conduct of an SPD member. The affected person reported that after a social interaction at a restaurant, the member entered the affected person’s residence and bedroom without invitation or announcement and initiated sexual contact with the affected person without obtaining the affected person’s consent.The Commissioner determined that it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct the investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) to conduct the investigation, and a senior VPD officer was designated as Discipline Authority. The affected person filed a complaint with the OPCC and was added as a complainant.The misconduct investigation was initially suspended as the RCMP had initiated a criminal investigation. The suspension was lifted after the RCMP investigation was concluded with no criminal charges recommended. The member entered the complainant’s residence without consent and initiated sexual contact without identifying themselves or obtaining the complainant’s consent. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. No prehearing conference was offered, and the matter proceeded directly to a discipline proceeding. The member resigned before the conclusion of the discipline proceeding and made no submissions about whether the misconduct should be substantiated. The Discipline Authority found on a balance of probabilities that the member had committed the alleged misconduct. The Discipline Authority further found this conduct was unprofessional, egregious, and amounted to the highest level of Police Act misconduct. The Discipline Authority determined that no disciplinary or corrective measure short of dismissal would be appropriate in the circumstances, noting the complainant had suffered significant on-going emotional trauma from the incident. Neither the member nor the complainant requested a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. Even though the member resigned before the conclusion of this matter, their Service Record of Discipline will reflect that they were dismissed from the SPD.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":1158,"file":"2021-20358","agency":"Port Moody Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the member entered the residence without having first obtained a warrant authorizing police to enter a dwelling unit","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC initiated a mandatory investigation following a review of injuries sustained by an affected person. It was reported that a member of the Port Moody Police Department (PMPD) entered a residence to arrest the affected person on an outstanding warrant. The affected person fled to the upstairs, then jumped to the ground from an upper floor balcony. The affected person sustained serious injuries and was transported to hospital.Due to the serious nature of the injuries, the Independent Investigations Office (IIO) investigated this matter for possible criminality. In addition, the Police Act requires the OPCC to initiate an investigation into possible misconduct whenever death or serious harm results from an incident involving municipal police officers. These investigations are separate and distinct from investigations by the IIO and are not restricted to evidence gathered by the IIO. Under the Police Act investigation into potential misconduct, officers may be compelled to provide statements, answer questions and otherwise account for their actions. The IIO referred the matter to the BC Prosecution Service who did not approve charges. An investigation under the Police Act determined that the member entered the residence without having first obtained a warrant authorizing police to enter a dwelling unit. The member neglected to obtain appropriate judicial authorization prior to entering a residence to arrest an individual on a Canada-wide warrant. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the incident unfolded rapidly, the member had taken full responsibility and acknowledged their lapse in judgement, and that the member had no previous substantiated misconduct on their Service Record of Discipline. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1159,"file":"2021-20794","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2025,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to document a use of force incident in the police file contrary to policy","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Abbotsford Police Department (APD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of an APD member. It was reported that the member failed to document a use of force incident that occurred during an arrest and did not complete a Subject Behaviour Officer Response Report (SBORR) required per policy. The member failed to document a use of force incident in the police file contrary to policy. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member had no previous substantiated misconduct on their service record of discipline and was unlikely to repeat the misconduct. Additionally, the member admitted to the misconduct, took full responsibility for their actions, and fully cooperated throughout the investigation. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":1160,"file":"2021-20921","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2025,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"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","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns regarding members of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) possessing/sharing text messages that contained information and negative commentary pertaining to the complainant’s testimony in a criminal trial as the victim of a sexual assault, despite the existence of a court-imposed publication ban. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required into the matter.The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the RCMP to conduct the investigation and appointed the Chief Constable of the New Westminster Police Department as Discipline Authority. During the Police Act investigation, it was reported that the member had received a copy of the text messages and shared them with another VPD member. The member distributed disrespectful text messages about the complainant, a victim of sexual violence, to another member. At the conclusion of the investigation the Discipline Authority found that the member committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered which the member declined. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. 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. The Discipline Authority retired after making the finding of misconduct, but before making a decision on disciplinary and corrective measures. The Commissioner appointed a new external Discipline Authority to issue a disciplinary decision. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority noted that while the misconduct was serious, the member was a long-serving police officer with no prior substantiated misconduct on their service record of discipline and their conduct appeared to be an isolated incident. The complainant requested a public hearing into their allegations. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1161,"file":"2021-20924","agency":"Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police Service","year":2024,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Arrest","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the member did not have sufficient grounds to make an arrest and that there are no powers to arrest for the offence of \"stunting.\"","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a registered complaint describing concerns with a member of the Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police Service (STPS). The complainant alleged that the member arrested them for stunt driving after the complainant slowly drove around the member’s police vehicle and two other vehicles that were stopped at the roadside during a blizzard in an attempt to prevent an accident with the vehicles driving behind the complainant.The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required.During the course of the investigation, the Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) to conduct the investigation and a senior officer from the VPD was delegated as the Discipline Authority. The member arrested the complainant for stunting while driving during severe winter conditions. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary and corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member did not have sufficient grounds to make an arrest and that there are no powers to arrest for the offence of “stunting.” However, the Prehearing Conference Authority also considered that the member relied on advice from an officer of another jurisdiction in making the decision to arrest the complainant, accepted responsibility and acknowledged they had made a mistake, and had no substantiated misconduct on their service record of discipline. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1162,"file":"2022-21613","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.55,"thin":false,"quote":"The member did not disclose a personal relationship as required by VPD Personal Relationship Policy.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. It was reported that the member, who was a supervisor and senior male member, was engaged in a sexual relationship with a junior female member and had not disclosed their relationship as required by VPD policy. During the Police Act investigation, additional allegations arose in relation to the member disobeying an order from a senior officer to cease contact with the female member and attempting to contact the female member specifically to obtain details about their Police Act interview.During the course of the investigation, the Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the Delta Police Department to conduct the investigation and designated a senior officer of the Saanich Police Department as Discipline Authority. The member did not disclose a personal relationship as required by VPD Personal Relationship Policy.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1163,"file":"2022-21613","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Follow Supervisor's Lawful Order - Written","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.92,"thin":false,"quote":"The member failed to obey direct orders from a senior officer to not contact the female member.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. It was reported that the member, who was a supervisor and senior male member, was engaged in a sexual relationship with a junior female member and had not disclosed their relationship as required by VPD policy. During the Police Act investigation, additional allegations arose in relation to the member disobeying an order from a senior officer to cease contact with the female member and attempting to contact the female member specifically to obtain details about their Police Act interview.During the course of the investigation, the Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the Delta Police Department to conduct the investigation and designated a senior officer of the Saanich Police Department as Discipline Authority. The member failed to obey direct orders from a senior officer to not contact the female member.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1164,"file":"2022-21613","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.72,"thin":false,"quote":"The member engaged in a sexual relationship with a subordinate member that included going to her residence and having sex on-duty.","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The text states the supervisor \"engaged in a sexual relationship with a subordinate member that included going to her residence and having sex on-duty,\" i.e., sexual conduct by the officer within a power imbalance.","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. It was reported that the member, who was a supervisor and senior male member, was engaged in a sexual relationship with a junior female member and had not disclosed their relationship as required by VPD policy. During the Police Act investigation, additional allegations arose in relation to the member disobeying an order from a senior officer to cease contact with the female member and attempting to contact the female member specifically to obtain details about their Police Act interview.During the course of the investigation, the Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the Delta Police Department to conduct the investigation and designated a senior officer of the Saanich Police Department as Discipline Authority. The member engaged in a sexual relationship with a subordinate member that included going to her residence and having sex on-duty.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":1165,"file":"2022-21613","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Contravening a Provision of the Act, Regulation, Rule or Guideline","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.6,"thin":false,"quote":"The member sent multiple text messages to the female member to obtain details relating to her Police Act investigation interview.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. It was reported that the member, who was a supervisor and senior male member, was engaged in a sexual relationship with a junior female member and had not disclosed their relationship as required by VPD policy. During the Police Act investigation, additional allegations arose in relation to the member disobeying an order from a senior officer to cease contact with the female member and attempting to contact the female member specifically to obtain details about their Police Act interview.During the course of the investigation, the Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the Delta Police Department to conduct the investigation and designated a senior officer of the Saanich Police Department as Discipline Authority. The member sent multiple text messages to the female member to obtain details relating to her Police Act investigation interview. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. 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 the member admitted to the allegations (with some exceptions to Allegation 1). The member subsequently resigned from the VPD. The Discipline Authority found on a balance of probabilities that all four allegations of misconduct were substantiated. In deciding the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority found that, while the member displayed remorse and took full responsibility for their actions, significant disciplinary measures were required given the member’s “egregious” conduct and prolonged commitment to pursuing their own self-interest at the expense of others. 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. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. Even though the member resigned before the conclusion of this matter, their Service Record of Discipline will reflect that he was dismissed from the VPD.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":1166,"file":"2022-21634","agency":"Central Saanich Police Service","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Provide Charter Rights","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"the complainant was not provided with their Charter rights until approximately one hour and twenty-five minutes after their arrest","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns about an interaction with members of the Central Saanich Police Service (CSPS) where the attending members failed to investigate the complainant’s report of an assault against them and instead arrested the complainant for obstruction. The complainant self-identified as Black and alleged that members made negative comments and treated them differently because of their race.The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The Commissioner subsequently determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the Saanich Police Department (SPD) to conduct the investigation and designated the Chief Constable of the SPD as the Discipline Authority.During the Police Act investigation it was determined that, among other things, the complainant was not provided with their Charter rights until approximately one hour and twenty-five minutes after their arrest and was advised they would go to jail if they did not sign an undertaking for release. The member who arrested the complainant failed to provide the complainant with their Charter rights after arresting them. The Discipline Authority did not find that the members committed misconduct. The Commissioner reviewed this decision and determined there was a reasonable basis to disagree with some aspects of the Discipline Authority’s decision. The Commissioner raised concerns regarding the conduct of two of the members at the scene. Specifically, the Commission was concerned that these members had not obtained the complainant’s version of events, delayed in providing the complainant with their Charter rights, and did not adequately respond to the complainant’s reasonable requests for clarification about the signing of the undertaking. The Commissioner also raised concerns the discipline authority had not adequately addressed the complainant’s allegations regarding race-based comments. As a result, the Commissioner appointed Mr. James Threlfall, retired Provincial Court Judge, to act as an adjudicator and to review the matter under section 117 of the Police Act and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Adjudicator Threlfall found an appearance that some, but not all, of the misconduct alleged against the two members appeared to be substantiated. Among other things, he found an appearance of misconduct relating to the allegations of inadequate investigation, the failure to provide Charter rights in a timely manner, and telling the complainant they would go to jail if they did not sign the undertaking without first having explained the release conditions. Adjudicator Threlfall did not find an appearance of misconduct relating to the allegations linked to the complainant’s race. Disciplinary Process In his section 117 decision, Adjudicator Threlfall offered the members a prehearing conference. One member declined the offer and proceeded to a discipline proceeding, where Adjudicator Threlfall found the allegations against that member were not substantiated. The other member accepted the offer and attended a prehearing conference that addressed two allegations of Neglect of Duty (inadequate investigation, and failure to provide Charter rights) and one allegation of Abuse of Authority (regarding the comments around the signing of the undertaking).In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member had accepted responsibility for their actions and had no substantiated misconduct on their Service Record of Discipline. The Prehearing Conference Authority further noted that the member had demonstrated their understanding of the shortcomings of their investigation and that this matter appeared to be an isolated mistake.The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1167,"file":"2022-21634","agency":"Central Saanich Police Service","year":2023,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to adequately investigate the assault allegation brought forward by the complainant","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns about an interaction with members of the Central Saanich Police Service (CSPS) where the attending members failed to investigate the complainant’s report of an assault against them and instead arrested the complainant for obstruction. The complainant self-identified as Black and alleged that members made negative comments and treated them differently because of their race.The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The Commissioner subsequently determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the Saanich Police Department (SPD) to conduct the investigation and designated the Chief Constable of the SPD as the Discipline Authority.During the Police Act investigation it was determined that, among other things, the complainant was not provided with their Charter rights until approximately one hour and twenty-five minutes after their arrest and was advised they would go to jail if they did not sign an undertaking for release. The member who arrested the complainant failed to adequately investigate the assault allegation brought forward by the complainant. The Discipline Authority did not find that the members committed misconduct. The Commissioner reviewed this decision and determined there was a reasonable basis to disagree with some aspects of the Discipline Authority’s decision. The Commissioner raised concerns regarding the conduct of two of the members at the scene. Specifically, the Commission was concerned that these members had not obtained the complainant’s version of events, delayed in providing the complainant with their Charter rights, and did not adequately respond to the complainant’s reasonable requests for clarification about the signing of the undertaking. The Commissioner also raised concerns the discipline authority had not adequately addressed the complainant’s allegations regarding race-based comments. As a result, the Commissioner appointed Mr. James Threlfall, retired Provincial Court Judge, to act as an adjudicator and to review the matter under section 117 of the Police Act and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Adjudicator Threlfall found an appearance that some, but not all, of the misconduct alleged against the two members appeared to be substantiated. Among other things, he found an appearance of misconduct relating to the allegations of inadequate investigation, the failure to provide Charter rights in a timely manner, and telling the complainant they would go to jail if they did not sign the undertaking without first having explained the release conditions. Adjudicator Threlfall did not find an appearance of misconduct relating to the allegations linked to the complainant’s race. Disciplinary Process In his section 117 decision, Adjudicator Threlfall offered the members a prehearing conference. One member declined the offer and proceeded to a discipline proceeding, where Adjudicator Threlfall found the allegations against that member were not substantiated. The other member accepted the offer and attended a prehearing conference that addressed two allegations of Neglect of Duty (inadequate investigation, and failure to provide Charter rights) and one allegation of Abuse of Authority (regarding the comments around the signing of the undertaking).In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member had accepted responsibility for their actions and had no substantiated misconduct on their Service Record of Discipline. The Prehearing Conference Authority further noted that the member had demonstrated their understanding of the shortcomings of their investigation and that this matter appeared to be an isolated mistake.The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":1168,"file":"2022-21634","agency":"Central Saanich Police Service","year":2023,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Oppressive Conduct","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"did not adequately respond to the complainant’s reasonable requests for clarification about the signing of the undertaking","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns about an interaction with members of the Central Saanich Police Service (CSPS) where the attending members failed to investigate the complainant’s report of an assault against them and instead arrested the complainant for obstruction. The complainant self-identified as Black and alleged that members made negative comments and treated them differently because of their race.The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The Commissioner subsequently determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct this investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the Saanich Police Department (SPD) to conduct the investigation and designated the Chief Constable of the SPD as the Discipline Authority.During the Police Act investigation it was determined that, among other things, the complainant was not provided with their Charter rights until approximately one hour and twenty-five minutes after their arrest and was advised they would go to jail if they did not sign an undertaking for release. The member who arrested the complainant did not explain the release conditions of the undertaking before telling the complainant they would go to jail unless they signed it. The Discipline Authority did not find that the members committed misconduct. The Commissioner reviewed this decision and determined there was a reasonable basis to disagree with some aspects of the Discipline Authority’s decision. The Commissioner raised concerns regarding the conduct of two of the members at the scene. Specifically, the Commission was concerned that these members had not obtained the complainant’s version of events, delayed in providing the complainant with their Charter rights, and did not adequately respond to the complainant’s reasonable requests for clarification about the signing of the undertaking. The Commissioner also raised concerns the discipline authority had not adequately addressed the complainant’s allegations regarding race-based comments. As a result, the Commissioner appointed Mr. James Threlfall, retired Provincial Court Judge, to act as an adjudicator and to review the matter under section 117 of the Police Act and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Adjudicator Threlfall found an appearance that some, but not all, of the misconduct alleged against the two members appeared to be substantiated. Among other things, he found an appearance of misconduct relating to the allegations of inadequate investigation, the failure to provide Charter rights in a timely manner, and telling the complainant they would go to jail if they did not sign the undertaking without first having explained the release conditions. Adjudicator Threlfall did not find an appearance of misconduct relating to the allegations linked to the complainant’s race. Disciplinary Process In his section 117 decision, Adjudicator Threlfall offered the members a prehearing conference. One member declined the offer and proceeded to a discipline proceeding, where Adjudicator Threlfall found the allegations against that member were not substantiated. The other member accepted the offer and attended a prehearing conference that addressed two allegations of Neglect of Duty (inadequate investigation, and failure to provide Charter rights) and one allegation of Abuse of Authority (regarding the comments around the signing of the undertaking).In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member had accepted responsibility for their actions and had no substantiated misconduct on their Service Record of Discipline. The Prehearing Conference Authority further noted that the member had demonstrated their understanding of the shortcomings of their investigation and that this matter appeared to be an isolated mistake.The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/section-117-reviews/","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":1169,"file":"2022-21801","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"Despite this, the member re-submitted the same overtime claim to their supervisor. The supervisor approved the overtime claim again and processed it through the RCMP.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An internal investigation was initiated into the conduct of two Nelson Police Department (NPD) members. One of the members worked in a joint NPD/RCMP unit and was required to attend mandatory training. The member could not attend for medical reasons and obtained a doctor’s note. The member was asked to provide the department with additional information about why they could not attend the training. The member submitted another doctor’s medical note as well as submitted an overtime claim to the NPD for attending the medical appointment. The overtime claim was approved by the member’s supervisor. The overtime claim was denied by the NPD Chief Constable. Despite this, the member re-submitted the same overtime claim to their supervisor. The supervisor approved the overtime claim again and processed it through the RCMP. The member submitted an overtime slip to be processed through the RCMP after being denied by the NPD.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1170,"file":"2022-21801","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"The supervisor approved an overtime slip for the member to be processed through the RCMP after it was denied by the NPD.'","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"An internal investigation was initiated into the conduct of two Nelson Police Department (NPD) members. One of the members worked in a joint NPD/RCMP unit and was required to attend mandatory training. The member could not attend for medical reasons and obtained a doctor’s note. The member was asked to provide the department with additional information about why they could not attend the training. The member submitted another doctor’s medical note as well as submitted an overtime claim to the NPD for attending the medical appointment. The overtime claim was approved by the member’s supervisor. The overtime claim was denied by the NPD Chief Constable. Despite this, the member re-submitted the same overtime claim to their supervisor. The supervisor approved the overtime claim again and processed it through the RCMP. The supervisor approved an overtime slip for the member to be processed through the RCMP after it was denied by the NPD.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1171,"file":"2022-22122","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2025,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Immediate Roadside Prohibition/Impaired Operation of a Motor Vehicle","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member drove while impaired by alcohol and was issued an IRP.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a VPD member. It was reported that while driving their personal vehicle, the member rear ended a civilian vehicle. The police of jurisdiction attended the collision scene. The member provided a breath sample and registered a “fail” on the Roadside Screening Device. Subsequently the member was issued a 24-hour Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) and a 90-day administrative driving prohibition. The member also pled guilty to a Motor Vehicle Act offence.During the ensuing Police Act investigation, it was reported that the member had attempted to conceal evidence that he had been drinking while driving. The member drove while impaired by alcohol and was issued an IRP. The Commissioner reviewed the outcome of the discipline proceeding and determined that a Review on the Record was necessary in the public interest as the disciplinary or corrective measures proposed did not adequately address the seriousness of the member’s conduct. The Commissioner noted that the member’s conduct included driving in a significant state of impairment, causing a motor vehicle accident with an occupied vehicle containing multiple persons, including children, and attempting to conceal evidence they had been drinking while driving.The Commissioner appointed the Honourable David Frankel, K.C., retired BC Court of Appeal Justice, to act as an adjudicator and arrive at their own independent decision on disciplinary and corrective measures based on the evidence.In his decision, Adjudicator Frankel noted that drinking and driving is a serious matter deserving of denunciation. He found that the member’s actions were reckless and dangerous, and showed a lack of judgement from someone sworn to uphold the law. In arriving at the disciplinary or corrective measures imposed, Adjudicator Frankel considered general deterrence and public denunciation to be of paramount importance. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1172,"file":"2022-22122","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2025,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The member attempted to dispose of evidence at the scene of the collision.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a VPD member. It was reported that while driving their personal vehicle, the member rear ended a civilian vehicle. The police of jurisdiction attended the collision scene. The member provided a breath sample and registered a “fail” on the Roadside Screening Device. Subsequently the member was issued a 24-hour Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) and a 90-day administrative driving prohibition. The member also pled guilty to a Motor Vehicle Act offence.During the ensuing Police Act investigation, it was reported that the member had attempted to conceal evidence that he had been drinking while driving. The member attempted to dispose of evidence at the scene of the collision. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. After reviewing the prehearing conference report, the Commissioner did not approve the proposed disciplinary or corrective measures as they were not considered to reflect the seriousness of the misconduct. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the member admitted to the allegations. The Discipline Authority imposed a 5-day suspension without pay for the admitted discreditable conduct. The Commissioner reviewed the outcome of the discipline proceeding and determined that a Review on the Record was necessary in the public interest as the disciplinary or corrective measures proposed did not adequately address the seriousness of the member’s conduct. The Commissioner noted that the member’s conduct included driving in a significant state of impairment, causing a motor vehicle accident with an occupied vehicle containing multiple persons, including children, and attempting to conceal evidence they had been drinking while driving.The Commissioner appointed the Honourable David Frankel, K.C., retired BC Court of Appeal Justice, to act as an adjudicator and arrive at their own independent decision on disciplinary and corrective measures based on the evidence.In his decision, Adjudicator Frankel noted that drinking and driving is a serious matter deserving of denunciation. He found that the member’s actions were reckless and dangerous, and showed a lack of judgement from someone sworn to uphold the law. In arriving at the disciplinary or corrective measures imposed, Adjudicator Frankel considered general deterrence and public denunciation to be of paramount importance. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1173,"file":"2022-22331","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Driving Offences","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"allowing a prohibited driver to drive their vehicle and switching seats in order to represent themselves as the driver","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a member. According to the VPD, the off-duty member was identified as the registered owner of a vehicle being driven by a prohibited driver. Upon being pulled over by the RCMP, the member switched seats with the prohibited driver in an effort to portray themselves as driving. The member also identified themselves as a police officer during the traffic stop. Specifically, allowing a prohibited driver to drive their vehicle and switching seats in order to represent themselves as the driver.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1174,"file":"2022-22331","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Using or Attempting to Use Police Authority for Personal Gain (e.g., Preferential Treatment)","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"identifying themselves as a police officer multiple times and asking RCMP officers to speak with their VPD partner in an attempt to gain favor","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a member. According to the VPD, the off-duty member was identified as the registered owner of a vehicle being driven by a prohibited driver. Upon being pulled over by the RCMP, the member switched seats with the prohibited driver in an effort to portray themselves as driving. The member also identified themselves as a police officer during the traffic stop. Specifically, identifying themselves as a police officer multiple times and asking RCMP officers to speak with their VPD partner in an attempt to gain favor. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. In arriving at the decision on disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member took full responsibility for their actions, recognized they made a series of poor decisions, was genuinely apologetic, and expressed a high level of shame and regret. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1175,"file":"2022-22407","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Immediate Roadside Prohibition/Impaired Operation of a Motor Vehicle","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member drove their personal vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, did not listen to the advice of colleagues to not drive, and caused a single motor vehicle accident when their vehicle went off the roadway.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a VPD member. It was reported that while on a trip with colleagues, the member drove their personal motor vehicle after consuming several alcoholic beverages, despite their colleagues’ attempts to prevent them from driving, and was subsequently involved in a single motor vehicle collision. The member’s colleagues reported the member for driving while impaired to the police of jurisdiction.The Police Act investigation was suspended pending the outcome of a criminal investigation. The matter was referred to the BC Prosecution Service where charges for impaired driving were approved. The charge was later stayed when the member pled guilty to the offence of Driving Without Consideration under section 144(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicle Act and was required to pay a monetary fine. The member drove their personal vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, did not listen to the advice of colleagues to not drive, and caused a single motor vehicle accident when their vehicle went off the roadway. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. In arriving at the decision on disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member had no substantiated misconduct on their service record of discipline, took full responsibility and was remorseful for their actions, and acknowledged their poor judgement on the night in question. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1176,"file":"2022-22434","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Provide Assistance (General)","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to notify the police of jurisdiction of an incident involving an off-duty member and a potential criminal offence and failed to ensure that anyone else had notified the police of jurisdictioneedd to remove typo field","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of two VPD members. It was reported that a VPD duty officer (Member A) received information about an incident that occurred during an off-duty team trip, including that a member had driven away while possibly impaired. Member A contacted the member to obtain their location and dispatched a VPD supervisor to attend the member’s location. It was further reported that the supervisor (Member B) located the member and transported them back to their family home. Neither Member A nor Member B contacted the police of jurisdiction regarding the incident or the member’s possible impaired operation of their vehicle. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct the investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the Delta Police Department (DPD) to conduct the investigation and a senior officer of DPD was designated as Discipline Authority. The duty officer failed to notify the police of jurisdiction of an incident involving an off-duty member and a potential criminal offence and failed to ensure that anyone else had notified the police of jurisdiction.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1177,"file":"2022-22434","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Provide Assistance (General)","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"failed to contact the police of jurisdiction upon attending the location where potential criminal offences had occurred or take steps to further engage the duty officer","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of two VPD members. It was reported that a VPD duty officer (Member A) received information about an incident that occurred during an off-duty team trip, including that a member had driven away while possibly impaired. Member A contacted the member to obtain their location and dispatched a VPD supervisor to attend the member’s location. It was further reported that the supervisor (Member B) located the member and transported them back to their family home. Neither Member A nor Member B contacted the police of jurisdiction regarding the incident or the member’s possible impaired operation of their vehicle. The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct the investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the Delta Police Department (DPD) to conduct the investigation and a senior officer of DPD was designated as Discipline Authority. The supervisor failed to contact the police of jurisdiction upon attending the location where potential criminal offences had occurred or take steps to further engage the duty officer. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the members appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted by both members. In arriving at the decision in discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that neither member had any previous record of discipline, the members took full responsibility for their actions and that their actions/omissions occurred out of concern for member welfare, and they believed the members would not repeat the conduct. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":1178,"file":"2022-22450","agency":"Surrey Police Service","year":2024,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Immediate Roadside Prohibition/Impaired Operation of a Motor Vehicle","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the off-duty member was stopped by a Delta Police Department (DPD) member and provided a breath sample that resulted in a “Fail” reading on an Approved Screen Device which resulted in a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition being issued","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Surrey Police Service (SPS), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of an SPS member. It was reported that the off-duty member was stopped by a Delta Police Department (DPD) member and provided a breath sample that resulted in a “Fail” reading on an Approved Screen Device which resulted in a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition being issued. The member was also driving with an expired driver’s license and identified themselves as a police officer to the investigating DPD member while making numerous requests to be released with a warning only. The member operated a motor vehicle while impaired.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1179,"file":"2022-22450","agency":"Surrey Police Service","year":2024,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Driving Offences","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The member was also driving with an expired driver’s license","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Surrey Police Service (SPS), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of an SPS member. It was reported that the off-duty member was stopped by a Delta Police Department (DPD) member and provided a breath sample that resulted in a “Fail” reading on an Approved Screen Device which resulted in a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition being issued. The member was also driving with an expired driver’s license and identified themselves as a police officer to the investigating DPD member while making numerous requests to be released with a warning only. The member operated a motor vehicle without a valid driver’s license.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1180,"file":"2022-22450","agency":"Surrey Police Service","year":2024,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Using or Attempting to Use Police Authority for Personal Gain (e.g., Preferential Treatment)","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"identified themselves as an SPS member and requested the investigating member give them preferential treatment by letting them off with a warning","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Surrey Police Service (SPS), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of an SPS member. It was reported that the off-duty member was stopped by a Delta Police Department (DPD) member and provided a breath sample that resulted in a “Fail” reading on an Approved Screen Device which resulted in a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition being issued. The member was also driving with an expired driver’s license and identified themselves as a police officer to the investigating DPD member while making numerous requests to be released with a warning only. The member identified themselves as an SPS member and requested the investigating member give them preferential treatment by letting them off with a warning. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. After reviewing the prehearing conference report, the Commissioner did not approve the proposed disciplinary or corrective measures as they were not considered to reflect the seriousness of the misconduct. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the member admitted to the allegations. The Discipline Authority imposed a five-day suspension without pay in relation to driving while impaired, a written reprimand in relation to driving with an expired driver’s license, and a three-day suspension without pay (to be served concurrently) in relation to seeking preferential treatment. Adjudicative Review - Review on the Record (S.141) The Commissioner reviewed the outcome of the discipline proceeding and determined that a Review on the Record was necessary in the public interest as the disciplinary or corrective measures proposed by the Discipline Authority still did not reflect the seriousness of the misconduct. The Commissioner noted that the members’ conduct included driving in a significant state of impairment and making repeated and direct requests for preferential treatment. Additionally, the Commissioner noted that the Discipline Authority did not appear to accord sufficient weight to the aggravating factors, including the member’s own knowledge of the serious implications of impaired driving given the member’s certification as a Field Sobriety Test Operator. The Commissioner appointed the Honourable Elizabeth Arnold-Bailey, retired BC Supreme Court Justice, to act as an adjudicator and arrive at her own decision on disciplinary and corrective measures based on the evidence. At the review on the record, the Commissioner and the member made a joint submission on appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures. Adjudicator Arnold-Bailey accepted the joint submission and ordered the measures that had been jointly proposed. She found that joint submissions in this context should be accepted unless the proposed outcome would be viewed by reasonable and informed persons as a breakdown in the maintenance of high policing standards, the proper administration of police discipline, and the proper functioning of the police as an integral part of the administration of justice. Adjudicator Arnold-Bailey added that while serious, this was not the most egregious case of this type of misconduct, noting that the member had admitted the misconduct and had no history of prior misconduct. She further found that while the member did seek preferential treatment, he appeared to have done so in a moment of panic. For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/decisions/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1181,"file":"2022-22575","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2025,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Driving Offences","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The Member drove their police vehicle over the speed limit in an area where they should have exercised more caution driving a motor vehicle.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Commissioner initiated a mandatory investigation after receiving information from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) that a VPD member, while responding to a call for service and driving a marked police vehicle, had struck a pedestrian who was on the roadway. The pedestrian sustained injuries including road rash and an orbital fracture requiring surgery.As a result of the serious nature of the injuries, the Independent Investigations Office (IIO) investigated this matter. In addition, the Police Act requires the OPCC to initiate an investigation into potential misconduct whenever death or serious harm results from an incident involving municipal police officers. These investigations are separate and distinct from investigations by the IIO and are not restricted to evidence gathered by the IIO. In an investigation into potential misconduct under the Police Act, officers may be compelled to provide statements, answer questions and otherwise account for their actions. The Police Act misconduct investigation was suspended pending the outcome of the IIO investigation. The matter was referred to the British Columbia Prosecution Service (BCPS), and charges were approved under the Motor Vehicle Act against the member, who pled guilty to one charge in May 2024. The Member drove their police vehicle over the speed limit in an area where they should have exercised more caution driving a motor vehicle. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member had no previous substantiated misconduct on their service record of discipline, undertook re-training in Emergency Vehicle Operations, and fully cooperated throughout the process, including accepting responsibility for their actions and showed deep remorse for what occurred. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1182,"file":"2022-23068","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.98,"thin":false,"quote":"the affected person had been taken to the ground and was being controlled by five members when the member ran up, kicked the affected person in the back, then stood on the affected person’s lower legs","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Commissioner ordered an investigation after receiving information from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) regarding force used by members on an affected person. It was reported that the affected person was observed driving a vehicle through two intersections on solid red-light signals without stopping. Members attempted to conduct a traffic stop as well as a box and pin maneuver; however, this failed. The affected person was found outside their residence where members used force to make an arrest. The member unnecessarily kicked the affected person and then stood on their lower leg/calf. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that while the affected person was arrestable and had been non-compliant, the affected person had been taken to the ground and was being controlled by five members when the member ran up, kicked the affected person in the back, then stood on the affected person’s lower legs. The Prehearing Conference Authority further noted that the member took responsibility for their actions and learned from the incident. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1183,"file":"2023-23143","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Improvised Weapon","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"used their police vehicle to make contact with the rear wheel of the individual’s cycle","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"After receiving information from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into a member who utilized a police vehicle to stop an individual who was riding an electric cycle. According to information received from the department, the driver of the electric cycle was observed committing a Motor Vehicle Act offence. The member attempted to initiate a traffic stop and used their police vehicle to make contact with the rear wheel of the individual’s cycle. The member inappropriately used a police vehicle as an intermediate force option.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1184,"file":"2023-23143","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The member failed to submit the appropriate administrative documentation in relation to use of force.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"After receiving information from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into a member who utilized a police vehicle to stop an individual who was riding an electric cycle. According to information received from the department, the driver of the electric cycle was observed committing a Motor Vehicle Act offence. The member attempted to initiate a traffic stop and used their police vehicle to make contact with the rear wheel of the individual’s cycle. The member failed to submit the appropriate administrative documentation in relation to use of force. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that while the member was in the lawful execution of their duties, the decision to use a police vehicle as an intermediate force option to take an individual into custody was not justified. The Prehearing Conference Authority also noted that the member’s neglect of duty was at the lower end of misconduct, as they had neglected administrative aspects of their reporting but had recorded their use of force and been fulsome in describing their actions. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":1185,"file":"2023-23290","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.88,"thin":false,"quote":"the member had lied to the female about their age and was verbally and emotionally abusive towards her","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The member entered an intimate relationship with a student he met through work, lied about his age, and was \"verbally and emotionally abusive towards her\" — intimate partner abuse in a position of trust.","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. It was reported that the member attended a high school to provide a presentation on policing, following which the member exchanged emails with a female student regarding a career in policing. After the student had graduated high school, the two became engaged in an intimate relationship. The investigation showed that the member had lied to the female about their age and was verbally and emotionally abusive towards her. The member developed an inappropriate relationship with the female which included the member’s behaviour towards the female during their relationship. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. No prehearing conference was offered and as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the member admitted the allegation. The member resigned from the VPD before the conclusion of the discipline proceeding. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority noted the seriousness of the misconduct, that the member was in a clear position of trust, influence, and authority and would have significant influence over the female’s career aspirations. The Discipline Authority also noted the abusive and demeaning behaviour was shown to be sustained throughout the relationship rather than limited to a single outburst, and that the member kept the relationship hidden, indicating he understood the relationship was inappropriate. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":1186,"file":"2023-23476","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2025,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"giving a reporter copies of documents from a confidential Police Act process that included protected personal information of other members and civilians","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into a report that a news media outlet was in possession of an un-redacted Final Investigation Report (FIR) from a historical Police Act investigation involving VicPD members. During the investigation, it was reported that the member allegedly responsible for disclosing the document to the media outlet had been identified. The Member contravened VPD policies by giving a reporter copies of documents from a confidential Police Act process that included protected personal information of other members and civilians. Under section 137(1) of the Police Act, the Commissioner must arrange a Public Hearing on receiving a request from a member where the Discipline Authority has proposed as a disciplinary measure dismissal or reduction in rank.However, pursuant to section 137(2) the Commissioner may arrange a Review on the Record instead of a Public Hearing if he is satisfied that certain conditions are met.The member in this case requested a Public Hearing or Review on the Record pursuant to section 136(1) of the Police Act. The Commissioner concluded that a Public Hearing was not necessary as the investigative record was thorough and complete and the examination of witnesses was not necessary. Therefore, the Commissioner ordered a Review on the Record.The Commissioner appointed Mr. James Threlfall, retired Provincial Court Judge, to act as an adjudicator and make his own decision about the matters in issue.Adjudicator Threlfall issued an initial decision finding that a reasonable and informed person would have perceived the Discipline Authority to be biased against the member. He then issued a second decision making his own independent and unbiased findings about misconduct and disciplinary and corrective measures.In determining disciplinary or corrective measures, Adjudicator Threlfall found that the release of sensitive, confidential information to the media is serious. He said that while the member perceived themselves to be a whistleblower attempting to effect necessary change within the department, it was not permissible to release confidential information, regardless of the motivation.Adjudicator Threlfall also noted that the member had admitted the misconduct during the review on the record and apologized for their actions, and that the member had retired from active policing after “27 years of stellar service and significant contribution to his community.” In all the circumstances, Adjudicator Threlfall determined that a written reprimand was appropriate.Even though the member retired before the conclusion of this matter, their Service Record of Discipline will record the discipline imposed. Disciplinary Process - Discipline ProceedingAt the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. No prehearing conference was offered to the member and, as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The member resigned while the investigation was underway and did not make submissions at the discipline proceeding about misconduct or disciplinary or corrective measures. The Discipline Authority determined that the member’s actions were serious, reckless, and intentional, and had breached the trust of their colleagues by sharing information with the media that contained their personal information. The Discipline Authority imposed the disciplinary measure of reduction in rank. For further information on this decision go to https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/reviews-on-the-record/","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1187,"file":"2023-23532","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2025,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Arrest","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"a reasonable officer in the member’s circumstances would have known there were no grounds to arrest the complainant, and that there was therefore no basis to search the complainant","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns regarding two members of the Victoria Police Department (VicPD) during a traffic stop in which the complainant was the passenger. The complainant reported they were, without reasonable grounds, arrested and searched on suspicion of drug possession for the purpose of trafficking.The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The member who arrested the complainant intentionally or recklessly did so without good and sufficient cause. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the members did not commit misconduct. After reviewing the investigation and the Discipline Authority’s decision, the Commissioner determined that there was a reasonable basis to believe that the decision of the Discipline Authority was incorrect in relation to the allegations of Abuse of Authority. The Commissioner appointed Mr. Mark Takahashi, retired Provincial Court Judge, to act as an adjudicator and to review the matter under section 117 of the Police Act and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence.Adjudicator Takahashi found that one of the two members did not commit misconduct. However, he also found an appearance that the other member committed misconduct by arresting and searching the complainant without good and sufficient cause. Diciplinary Process - Discipline ProceedingA prehearing conference was offered to the member, which the member declined. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding with Adjudicator Takahashi as the Discipline Authority.Adjudicator Takahashi found that a reasonable officer in the member’s circumstances would have known there were no grounds to arrest the complainant, and that there was therefore no basis to search the complainant. He held that observations about the manner in which the vehicle was being driven, or the behaviour of the driver during the traffic stop, could not be imputed to the complainant as a passenger. In Adjudicator Takahashi’s view, the mere fact that the complainant was a passenger in a car that had been at a place known for drug activity did not provide grounds to arrest and search. When arriving at disciplinary or corrective measures, Adjudicator Takahashi noted that while the arrest and resulting detention were short in duration, the loss of liberty was serious misconduct, and the incidental search may have been embarrassing and was moderately serious misconduct. He further held that the member did not offer any explanation as to why the misconduct occurred or what they would need to do to prevent a recurrence. 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. The member requested a Review on the Record pursuant to section 136(1) of the Police Act. The Commissioner reviewed the request and the disciplinary decision and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. For further information on this decision, go to: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1188,"file":"2023-23532","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2025,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Search of a Person","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"a reasonable officer in the member’s circumstances would have known there were no grounds to arrest the complainant, and that there was therefore no basis to search the complainant","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns regarding two members of the Victoria Police Department (VicPD) during a traffic stop in which the complainant was the passenger. The complainant reported they were, without reasonable grounds, arrested and searched on suspicion of drug possession for the purpose of trafficking.The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The member who searched the complainant intentionally or recklessly did so without good and sufficient cause. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the members did not commit misconduct. After reviewing the investigation and the Discipline Authority’s decision, the Commissioner determined that there was a reasonable basis to believe that the decision of the Discipline Authority was incorrect in relation to the allegations of Abuse of Authority. The Commissioner appointed Mr. Mark Takahashi, retired Provincial Court Judge, to act as an adjudicator and to review the matter under section 117 of the Police Act and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence.Adjudicator Takahashi found that one of the two members did not commit misconduct. However, he also found an appearance that the other member committed misconduct by arresting and searching the complainant without good and sufficient cause. Diciplinary Process - Discipline ProceedingA prehearing conference was offered to the member, which the member declined. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding with Adjudicator Takahashi as the Discipline Authority.Adjudicator Takahashi found that a reasonable officer in the member’s circumstances would have known there were no grounds to arrest the complainant, and that there was therefore no basis to search the complainant. He held that observations about the manner in which the vehicle was being driven, or the behaviour of the driver during the traffic stop, could not be imputed to the complainant as a passenger. In Adjudicator Takahashi’s view, the mere fact that the complainant was a passenger in a car that had been at a place known for drug activity did not provide grounds to arrest and search. When arriving at disciplinary or corrective measures, Adjudicator Takahashi noted that while the arrest and resulting detention were short in duration, the loss of liberty was serious misconduct, and the incidental search may have been embarrassing and was moderately serious misconduct. He further held that the member did not offer any explanation as to why the misconduct occurred or what they would need to do to prevent a recurrence. 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. The member requested a Review on the Record pursuant to section 136(1) of the Police Act. The Commissioner reviewed the request and the disciplinary decision and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. For further information on this decision, go to: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1189,"file":"2023-23544","agency":"Surrey Police Service","year":2024,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"provided an individual, who the member knew to be involved in criminal activity, with information regarding counter surveillance techniques to defeat police surveillance methods","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Surrey Police Service (SPS), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of an SPS member. According to SPS, the member provided guidance and advice regarding police investigative techniques to an individual who was actively being investigated by the police in another jurisdiction.The member resigned from the SPS before the conclusion of the investigation. The member provided an individual, who the member knew to be involved in criminal activity, with information regarding counter surveillance techniques to defeat police surveillance methods. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. No prehearing conference was offered to the member and, as a result, the matter proceeded directly to a discipline proceeding where the former member did not participate. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority determined that the member’s actions were “extremely serious” and at conflict with the department’s core values. The Discipline Authority further noted that the member’s actions were “particularly egregious” as the member provided information to an individual who was actively under surveillance for serious criminal offences involving the exploitation of vulnerable and marginalized persons, and such information was provided to “thwart an active criminal investigation.” The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. Even though the member resigned before the conclusion of this matter, their Service Record of Discipline will reflect the discipline imposed.","measures":["dismissal"]},{"id":1190,"file":"2023-23655","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.55,"thin":false,"quote":"The member wore an unauthorized patch on their uniform in contravention of policy.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received three complaints describing concerns with a member of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) wearing a patch depicting the “thin blue line” symbol on their uniform while on duty. The OPCC reviewed the complaints and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The member wore an unauthorized patch on their uniform in contravention of policy. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member did not commit misconduct. The Commissioner disagreed on the basis that the Discipline Authority incorrectly applied the test for Neglect of Duty by determining that there needed to be an element of willfulness on the member’s part for there to be a finding of misconduct.The Commissioner appointed the Honourable Wallace T. Oppal, K.C., retired BC Court of Appeal Judge, to act as an adjudicator and review the matter and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence.In his decision, Adjudicator Oppal noted that intention is not a necessary ingredient of Neglect of Duty. He found that the VPD had policy that prohibited members from wearing unauthorized patches on their uniforms, and that the member had a duty to be aware of and follow the policy. Accordingly, Adjudicator Oppal found that the member appeared to have committed a minor instance of neglect of duty. Disciplinary ProcessA prehearing conference was offered and accepted. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that Adjudicator Oppal had placed the level of seriousness of the misconduct at the lower end of the scale. The Prehearing Conference Authority also noted the member had no other substantiated misconduct on their service record of discipline, immediately removed the patch when asked to do so by their supervisor, and took full responsibility for their actions.The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.For further information on this decision, go to https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":1191,"file":"2023-23724","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2025,"heading":"Discourtesy","sublabel":"Discourteous - Behavioural","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"the member laughed while standing over the handcuffed and prone affected person immediately after her arrest","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns regarding members of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD). The complainant viewed a video clip online that depicted several members in the downtown eastside laughing over an Indigenous female who was on the ground in handcuffs crying out in pain after being hit by police with a less lethal beanbag shotgun round.The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required into the matter. Along with other members, the member laughed while standing over the handcuffed and prone affected person immediately after her arrest. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the members did not commit misconduct. The Commissioner reviewed this decision and determined that there was a reasonable basis to disagree with the Discipline Authority’s decision. The Commissioner noted that the Discipline Authority’s analysis was limited to an assessment of the specific reason for the members’ laughter and failed to assess the impact of their laughter in the circumstances and how it could be perceived. As a result, the Commissioner appointed Mr. Brian Neal, K.C., retired Provincial Court Judge, to act as an adjudicator and arrive at his own decision based on the evidence. Adjudicator Neal determined that the allegation of Discourtesy appeared to be substantiated against all three members, noting that regardless of the reason for the members’ laughter, their actions would appear to have been inappropriate and potentially seen as demeaning and dismissive of the affected person from the perspective of an objective observer. Discipline ProceedingA prehearing conference was offered and the members declined the offer. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding with Adjudicator Neal as the Discipline Authority.Adjudicator Neal found that the members’ laughter arose from a shared private joke and was not focused on or related to the circumstances of the affected person. Despite this, he found that their behaviour was reckless and did not meet the expected standard of professionalism given the affected person and members of the public could reasonably assume they were treating the affected person with disrespect.When arriving at the disciplinary or corrective measures, Adjudicator Neal noted the actions of the members raised a risk of reducing respect for policing, particularly in relation to vulnerable people, and that they bear responsibility for having created those negative perceptions.Adjudicator Neal further noted that while Member B and Member C had genuinely accepted responsibility and demonstrated insight into their misconduct, Member A failed to demonstrate full acceptance of responsibility and insight and therefore required additional education and training.The members did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.For further information on this decision go to: https://opcc.bc.ca/adjudications/section-117-reviews/","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1192,"file":"2023-23866","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"Member A neglected their duty to fully investigate a criminal offence.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns regarding a member of the Saanich Police Department (SPD) and the adequacy of a criminal investigation. The complainant reported being assaulted and was not satisfied with the investigation conducted by Member A.During the investigation it was determined that Member B, who was in a supervisory position, closed the file prior to ensuring the investigation was completed according to police policy. Member A neglected their duty to fully investigate a criminal offence.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":1193,"file":"2023-23866","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Investigation","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"closed the file prior to ensuring the investigation was completed according to police policy","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns regarding a member of the Saanich Police Department (SPD) and the adequacy of a criminal investigation. The complainant reported being assaulted and was not satisfied with the investigation conducted by Member A.During the investigation it was determined that Member B, who was in a supervisory position, closed the file prior to ensuring the investigation was completed according to police policy. Member B neglected their duty to properly supervise the investigation into the assault on the complainant. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the members appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted the members accepted responsibility for the misconduct and the proposed discipline has had a strong corrective impact on the members. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":1194,"file":"2023-23906","agency":"Surrey Police Service","year":2024,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the member applied an unnecessary level of force to the complainant by taking them to the ground","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns regarding a member of the Surrey Police Service who grabbed, tripped, and pushed the teenaged complainant to the ground while escorting the complainant and other youths out of an event.The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. Specifically, the member applied an unnecessary level of force to the complainant by taking them to the ground. At the conclusion of the investigation the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct by using a degree of force that was not objectively necessary, reasonable, or proportional to the circumstances. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. The Prehearing Conference Authority found that the member acknowledged their mistake and took responsibility. In addition, the member forwarded a written apology to the complainant on their own volition. The member self-initiated steps to prevent a recurrence by reviewing related departmental policies and making efforts to self-educate and make themselves a better police officer without having to be ordered or directed. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":1195,"file":"2023-23974","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unlawful Detention","cat":"unlawful_arrest_detention_or_search","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"detaining the complainant at the Vancouver jail without sufficient justification for doing so","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns regarding members of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) in relation to the arrest of the complainant following traffic stop for suspected impaired driving. Among other things, the complainant alleged that excessive force was used, their property was taken and not returned, and they were treated differently because of their race (self-identified as South Asian). The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. During the Police Act investigation, it was reported that one of the members detained the complainant and transported him to the VPD jail where he was held for approximately two hours before being released with an Appearance Notice for court. The member transported and detained the complainant at the Vancouver Jail without sufficient justification. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that only one of the members appeared to have committed misconduct, by detaining the complainant at the Vancouver jail without sufficient justification for doing so. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measure, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member had no prior substantiated misconduct on their Service Record of Discipline and had taken responsibility for their actions. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":1196,"file":"2023-24017","agency":"Abbotsford Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Unauthorized Use of Police Databases","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"The member improperly utilized police databases to query an individual for a purpose unrelated to the performance of their duties.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Abbotsford Police Department (APD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a member. It was reported that the member had used police databases to query a university convocation guest speaker who had made remarks about a police incident that the speaker had been involved in.The member subsequently used the information they gained from the database query to contact a police member who was involved in the incident and advise them of the speaker’s remarks. The member improperly utilized police databases to query an individual for a purpose unrelated to the performance of their duties. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered to the retired member, which the member declined. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding which the member did not participate in. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measure, the Discipline Authority noted that the scope of the member’s database query was limited, that the member had no previous substantiated misconduct on their service record of discipline, and that while the member did not participate in the discipline proceeding, they were fully cooperative during the investigation and took responsibility for their actions.The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.Even though the member retired before the conclusion of this matter, their Service Record of Discipline will record the discipline imposed.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":1197,"file":"2023-24035","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"the member lifted the affected person into a standing position by the hood of their jacket","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into a use of force incident during the arrest of a suspect in a break and enter in progress. During the Police Act investigation, it was reported that while the affected person was seated on the ground in handcuffs, the member lifted the affected person into a standing position by the hood of their jacket. The member lifted the affected person off the ground by the hood of their jacket. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. In arriving at the decision on disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member took responsibility and recognized that they could have taken different actions to assist the affected person to their feet/into the police wagon. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1198,"file":"2023-24063","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Immediate Roadside Prohibition/Impaired Operation of a Motor Vehicle","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"the off-duty member was the subject of a traffic stop and was administered a sobriety check using an approved screen device (ASD) which resulted in a “warn” reading twice","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of an off-duty VPD member. According to the VPD, the off-duty member was the subject of a traffic stop and was administered a sobriety check using an approved screen device (ASD) which resulted in a “warn” reading twice. During the stop, the off-duty member presented their VPD identification card to police. Subsequently, the member was served a three-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP). The member drove their personal vehicle off-duty while impaired by alcohol.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1199,"file":"2023-24063","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Using or Attempting to Use Police Authority for Personal Gain (e.g., Preferential Treatment)","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The member identified themselves as a police officer while off-duty to gain preferential treatment.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of an off-duty VPD member. According to the VPD, the off-duty member was the subject of a traffic stop and was administered a sobriety check using an approved screen device (ASD) which resulted in a “warn” reading twice. During the stop, the off-duty member presented their VPD identification card to police. Subsequently, the member was served a three-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP). The member identified themselves as a police officer while off-duty to gain preferential treatment. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted the while that the off-duty member took responsibility and expressed sincere regret and embarrassment for their actions, the operation of a motor vehicle while impaired is a serious offence with potentially devastating consequences. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1200,"file":"2023-24097","agency":"Port Moody Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"The member intentionally and unnecessarily kicked a member of the public.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns with the force used by a member of the Port Moody Police Department (PMPD) on the complainant’s teenaged child. The complainant reported that when the youth took a selfie-style photograph with a parked unattended police vehicle, the member shouted at the youth to leave the area and subsequently kicked him in the lower back.The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required into the matter. The member intentionally and unnecessarily kicked a member of the public. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member was apologetic and forthright in their acceptance of responsibility, had demonstrated their understanding that they should have used other means to move the youth along, and that the member had used this incident as an opportunity to teach others. In reviewing the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures, the OPCC noted that the complainant had made submissions seeking additional restorative actions that did not appear to have been addressed. Accordingly, the OPCC conducted follow-up and encouraged the department to undertake the actions suggested by the complainant. The department and the member subsequently agreed to voluntarily engage in the additional restorative efforts that the complainant had requested. Upon confirmation that the additional measures had been completed, the OPCC determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1201,"file":"2023-24136","agency":"Delta Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Negligent Discharge","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"unintentionally inserted a loaded magazine into their firearm while conducting a function test and activated the trigger, resulting in the negligent discharge of their firearm","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The department initiated an internal discipline investigation into the conduct of a Delta Police Department (DPD) member. It was alleged that the member negligently discharged one round from their duty firearm into a table while conducting a function test of the firearm in the North Delta Public Safety Building firearm cleaning room. There were no injuries or significant property damage resulting from the discharge. The member unintentionally inserted a loaded magazine into their firearm while conducting a function test and activated the trigger, resulting in the negligent discharge of their firearm.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":1202,"file":"2023-24145","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Physical Altercation","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"removed their duty vest while challenging the individual to a fight","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns regarding the conduct of a member of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD). The complainant reported that the member engaged in a verbal altercation with member of the public and removed their duty vest while challenging the individual to a fight. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. Removing their duty vest and challenging the affected person to a fight. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. In arriving at the decision on disciplinary or correctives measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the behaviour exhibited by the member was unprofessional and the seriousness of the misconduct was moderate. Additionally, it was noted that the member accepted responsibility for their actions and had no previous substantiated misconduct allegations. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1203,"file":"2023-24196","agency":"Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police Service","year":2025,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"attended drinking establishments outside of jurisdiction while off-duty but still in uniform and carrying a loaded firearm","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Stl’atl’imx Tribal Police Service (STPS), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of an STPS member. It was reported that the member conducted unaccompanied foot patrols by attending several local drinking establishments within the jurisdiction of another police agency, while off-duty but still in uniform. It was also reported that these activities were not within the member’s regular work assignments, nor did they notify the police of jurisdiction or their supervisor of this activity.The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct the investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP) to conduct the investigation and a senior officer of the MVTP was designated as Discipline Authority. The member attended drinking establishments outside of jurisdiction while off-duty but still in uniform and carrying a loaded firearm.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1204,"file":"2023-24196","agency":"Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police Service","year":2025,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The member failed to take any or adequate notes.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Stl’atl’imx Tribal Police Service (STPS), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of an STPS member. It was reported that the member conducted unaccompanied foot patrols by attending several local drinking establishments within the jurisdiction of another police agency, while off-duty but still in uniform. It was also reported that these activities were not within the member’s regular work assignments, nor did they notify the police of jurisdiction or their supervisor of this activity.The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct the investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP) to conduct the investigation and a senior officer of the MVTP was designated as Discipline Authority. The member failed to take any or adequate notes.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":1205,"file":"2023-24196","agency":"Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police Service","year":2025,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"The Member failed and/or refused to provide witness information relevant to the Police Act investigation to the Investigator or Discipline Authority.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Stl’atl’imx Tribal Police Service (STPS), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of an STPS member. It was reported that the member conducted unaccompanied foot patrols by attending several local drinking establishments within the jurisdiction of another police agency, while off-duty but still in uniform. It was also reported that these activities were not within the member’s regular work assignments, nor did they notify the police of jurisdiction or their supervisor of this activity.The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct the investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP) to conduct the investigation and a senior officer of the MVTP was designated as Discipline Authority. The Member failed and/or refused to provide witness information relevant to the Police Act investigation to the Investigator or Discipline Authority. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. No prehearing conference was offered to the member and as a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding where the member denied having committed misconduct.In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority determined that the member’s actions had the potential to put both themselves as well as other police members at risk, specifically appearing in full uniform in a licensed establishment while off-duty and carrying a loaded firearm. While the Discipline Authority noted the member did admit to some of the details surrounding the incident, they did not admit to any of the allegations, did not accept responsibility, and was not fully cooperative when the investigator attempted to corroborate evidence the member was asked to provide. The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.Even though the member left the STPS before the conclusion of this matter, their Service Record of Discipline will reflect the discipline imposed.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1206,"file":"2023-24249","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2025,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"The member violated the department's respectful workplace policy by creating a potential intimidating workplace for others. Further, the member did not immediately follow the direction of their supervisor.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Vancouver Police Department (VPD) initiated an internal discipline investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. It was alleged that the member installed a non-functioning camera in an equipment room without authorization after items went missing and did not immediately remove the camera after being directed to do so by a supervisor. The member violated the department's respectful workplace policy by creating a potential intimidating workplace for others. Further, the member did not immediately follow the direction of their supervisor.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":1207,"file":"2023-24380","agency":"Surrey Police Service","year":2024,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"was intoxicated in a public place and behaved in a belligerent, verbally aggressive and confrontational manner towards BCEHS and RCMP members.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Surrey Police Service (SPS), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the off-duty conduct of an SPS member. It was reported that BC Emergency Health Services (BCEHS) members were called to assess a person who was intoxicated in a public place. BCEHS crew in turn called the RCMP after the off-duty member became verbally abusive and aggressive. It was further reported that the RCMP detained the member after he continued to be verbally aggressive toward the attending RCMP members. The member, while off-duty, was intoxicated in a public place and behaved in a belligerent, verbally aggressive and confrontational manner towards BCEHS and RCMP members. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. The Prehearing Conference Authority (PHCA) noted that the seriousness of the misconduct was moderate in nature. The PHCA further commented that while the member expressed sincere remorse and acknowledged their mistake, they appeared to deny the contributing role that alcohol had played in this incident. In addition, the member expressed a desire to apologize to the impacted personnel. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":1208,"file":"2023-24402","agency":"Surrey Police Service","year":2024,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"gendered_and_sexualized_violence","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"“It must feel really nice to take your bra off after a shift.”","gbv":true,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":true,"basis":"The member himself told a female recruit \"It must feel really nice to take your bra off after a shift,\" plus comments on her physical appearance and dating — sexualized harassment by the officer.","text":"Upon request from the Surrey Police Service (SPS), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of an SPS member. It was reported that while in the role of field trainer, the member made inappropriate comments to a female recruit constable, including about her physical appearance, interracial dating, and her thoughts about the propriety of field trainers dating recruits. The member, while in the position of field training officer, made an inappropriate and unwelcome comment to the complainant. 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.” A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that while the member took responsibility for their actions, behavior that breaches the maintenance of a respectful and safe work environment is a serious violation. The Prehearing Conference Authority further considered that the member’s position of authority as a field trainer included an onus to take extra care to set boundaries for appropriate workplace commentary and be a role model in promoting a respectful work environment.The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1209,"file":"2023-24579","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"The member failed to take sufficient steps to ensure the complainant received an alternative meal to accommodate the complainant’s allergies.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns with a member of the Victoria Police Department (VicPD) providing the complainant with a food item at the jail to which the complainant had a severe allergy. The complainant reported that they subsequently consumed the food item and suffered an allergic reaction that required medical intervention.The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The member failed to take sufficient steps to ensure the complainant received an alternative meal to accommodate the complainant’s allergies. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct by failing to ensure the delivery of an appropriate alternate meal, despite knowing of the complainant’s allergy. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member had accepted full responsibility, had used the incident as a learning opportunity, and had no prior record of discipline. The Prehearing Conference Authority also considered the submissions of the complainant wherein they wished to prioritize awareness and education over discipline for the member. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":1210,"file":"2023-24687","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The Member did not complete any notes or reports for this incident.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns that members of the Victoria Police Department (VicPD) had used excessive force in dealing with an individual believed to be committing a crime. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required.During the investigation, it was discovered that one of the members did not complete any notes or a report as required. The Member did not complete any notes or reports for this incident. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that none of the members had committed misconduct in their interactions with the individual in relation to the force used. However, the Discipline Authority found one member appeared to have committed misconduct by failing to properly document their actions. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the seriousness of the misconduct was low as no person was physically harmed and the failure to take notes did not result in the justice system being circumvented in any way. They also noted that the member took full responsibility for this incident, considered it a valuable learning experience, and was unlikely to repeat the behaviour.The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1211,"file":"2023-24710","agency":"West Vancouver Police Department","year":2025,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Badging/Identifying as a Police Officer","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"The video depicted the member using profanity, making inappropriate gestures, and displaying their police badge to the civilian.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Commissioner ordered an investigation after receiving information from the West Vancouver Police Department (WVPD) regarding the off-duty conduct of a WVPD member. The WVPD became aware of a video on social media depicting a member engaging in a confrontation with a civilian motorist regarding their driving behaviour. The video depicted the member using profanity, making inappropriate gestures, and displaying their police badge to the civilian. The member acted in a disorderly manner while off-duty that was prejudicial to the maintenance of discipline in the municipal police department. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. The Prehearing Conference Authority (PHCA) noted the misconduct was not serious in nature and the member had no previous substantiated misconduct on their service record of discipline.The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1212,"file":"2023-24718","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Immediate Roadside Prohibition/Impaired Operation of a Motor Vehicle","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"provided a breath sample that resulted in a “Fail” reading twice. The RCMP issued a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) and a 30-day vehicle impoundment","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of an off-duty VicPD member. According to VicPD, the off-duty member was involved in a traffic incident and was subsequently pulled over by the RCMP. When asked, the off-duty member reportedly told the RCMP member that they had had “nothing” to drink then provided a breath sample that resulted in a “Fail” reading twice. The RCMP issued a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) and a 30-day vehicle impoundment to the member. The member operated a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1213,"file":"2023-24718","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"told the RCMP member that they had had \"nothing\" to drink then provided a breath sample that resulted in a \"Fail\" reading twice","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of an off-duty VicPD member. According to VicPD, the off-duty member was involved in a traffic incident and was subsequently pulled over by the RCMP. When asked, the off-duty member reportedly told the RCMP member that they had had “nothing” to drink then provided a breath sample that resulted in a “Fail” reading twice. The RCMP issued a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) and a 30-day vehicle impoundment to the member. The member provided false or misleading information to an on-duty RCMP member. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member readily accepted responsibility early on, was cooperative, and did not waver in accepting responsibility. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1214,"file":"2023-24719","agency":"Surrey Police Service","year":2024,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"both were driving at high rates of speed, passing vehicles in heavy traffic, and failed to sufficiently slow to properly clear a red light","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Surrey Police Service (SPS), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of two SPS members. It was reported that while the members were responding to a high priority call in separate police vehicles, both were driving at high rates of speed, passing vehicles in heavy traffic, and failed to sufficiently slow to properly clear a red light. It was further reported that Member A was following too closely to Member B and collided with Member B’s police vehicle. The member drove their police vehicle contrary to the Motor Vehicle Act, the Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulations, and departmental policy.","measures":["verbal reprimand","training"]},{"id":1215,"file":"2023-24719","agency":"Surrey Police Service","year":2024,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Vehicle Pursuit/Emergency Driving","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"The member followed another vehicle more closely than was reasonable and prudent in the circumstances.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Surrey Police Service (SPS), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of two SPS members. It was reported that while the members were responding to a high priority call in separate police vehicles, both were driving at high rates of speed, passing vehicles in heavy traffic, and failed to sufficiently slow to properly clear a red light. It was further reported that Member A was following too closely to Member B and collided with Member B’s police vehicle. The member followed another vehicle more closely than was reasonable and prudent in the circumstances. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the members appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. The Prehearing Conference Authority (PHCA) noted that both members acknowledged their mistake, took early responsibility for their actions, and had no other record of misconduct on their Service Records of Discipline. The PHCA also noted it was important to consider the circumstances and context in which this incident occurred, as the members were responding to a high priority call that involved a significant public safety threat.The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1216,"file":"2023-24808","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Improper Use or Care of Firearms","sublabel":"Unsafe Storage of Firearm","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The member left their department issued firearm with its holster in the washroom at a coffeeshop while on duty.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. It was reported that a civilian located a VPD member’s firearm unattended in a washroom of a coffee shop. The firearm was recovered by the VPD shortly after the civilian reported it to police. The member left their department issued firearm with its holster in the washroom at a coffeeshop while on duty. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member had taken responsibility for their actions and that the firearm was returned to the member without any negative consequences. The Prehearing Conference Authority remarked they were satisfied that the impact this incident had on the member would be a significant incentive to not repeat this behaviour in the future.The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1217,"file":"2023-24881","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"driving an unmarked police vehicle at 96 km/hour in a 50 km/hour zone when they collided with a motorist","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner initiated an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. It was reported that while driving an unmarked police vehicle at high speed, the member collided with another vehicle being operated by a member of the public. The member was driving an unmarked police vehicle at 96 km/hour in a 50 km/hour zone when they collided with a motorist. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. In arriving at the decision on disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted the member took responsibility for their actions, had learned from this incident, and found that they will not repeat the behaviour. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1218,"file":"2023-24928","agency":"Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police Service","year":2025,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"The member communicated with a colleague regarding the details of an internal discipline investigation and solicited that colleague to write a statement on the member’s behalf.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Commissioner initiated an investigation after receiving information that a member of the Stl’atl’imx Tribal Police Service (STPS) had breached confidentiality regarding an internal discipline matter and inappropriately made a request to a STPS civilian employee for police dispatch phone recordings. It was reported that the member had discussed an internal complaint made against them with two work colleagues and had requested telephone recordings that related to the internal discipline matter.The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct the investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) to conduct the investigation and designated a senior VPD officer as the Discipline Authority.The member resigned from STPS before the conclusion of the investigation. The member communicated with a colleague regarding the details of an internal discipline investigation and solicited that colleague to write a statement on the member’s behalf.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1219,"file":"2023-24928","agency":"Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police Service","year":2025,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.55,"thin":false,"quote":"The member communicated with a colleague in relation to an internal discipline investigation and attempted to elicit details after that colleague was interviewed.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Commissioner initiated an investigation after receiving information that a member of the Stl’atl’imx Tribal Police Service (STPS) had breached confidentiality regarding an internal discipline matter and inappropriately made a request to a STPS civilian employee for police dispatch phone recordings. It was reported that the member had discussed an internal complaint made against them with two work colleagues and had requested telephone recordings that related to the internal discipline matter.The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct the investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) to conduct the investigation and designated a senior VPD officer as the Discipline Authority.The member resigned from STPS before the conclusion of the investigation. The member communicated with a colleague in relation to an internal discipline investigation and attempted to elicit details after that colleague was interviewed.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1220,"file":"2023-24928","agency":"Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police Service","year":2025,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"The member neglected to maintain confidentiality contrary to STPS Respectful Workplace Policy and internal discipline investigation confidentiality expectations that were outlined in a letter to the member.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Commissioner initiated an investigation after receiving information that a member of the Stl’atl’imx Tribal Police Service (STPS) had breached confidentiality regarding an internal discipline matter and inappropriately made a request to a STPS civilian employee for police dispatch phone recordings. It was reported that the member had discussed an internal complaint made against them with two work colleagues and had requested telephone recordings that related to the internal discipline matter.The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct the investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) to conduct the investigation and designated a senior VPD officer as the Discipline Authority.The member resigned from STPS before the conclusion of the investigation. The member neglected to maintain confidentiality contrary to STPS Respectful Workplace Policy and internal discipline investigation confidentiality expectations that were outlined in a letter to the member.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1221,"file":"2023-24928","agency":"Stl'atl'imx Tribal Police Service","year":2025,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Using or Attempting to Use Police Authority for Personal Gain (e.g., Preferential Treatment)","cat":"improper_access_or_disclosure_of_information","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"contacted a STPS civilian employee to request telephone recordings between a police dispatcher and the complainant in the internal discipline investigation, which was unrelated to the member’s duties as a police officer","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Commissioner initiated an investigation after receiving information that a member of the Stl’atl’imx Tribal Police Service (STPS) had breached confidentiality regarding an internal discipline matter and inappropriately made a request to a STPS civilian employee for police dispatch phone recordings. It was reported that the member had discussed an internal complaint made against them with two work colleagues and had requested telephone recordings that related to the internal discipline matter.The Commissioner determined it was in the public interest that an external police agency conduct the investigation and designated an external Discipline Authority. The Commissioner directed the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) to conduct the investigation and designated a senior VPD officer as the Discipline Authority.The member resigned from STPS before the conclusion of the investigation. The member contacted a STPS civilian employee to request telephone recordings between a police dispatcher and the complainant in the internal discipline investigation, which was unrelated to the member’s duties as a police officer. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered to the member which the member declined. As a result, the matter proceeded to a discipline proceeding. The Discipline Authority found on a balance of probabilities that the alleged misconduct was substantiated. In arriving at the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, the Discipline Authority noted that the member’s actions were a “significant breach” of the Police Act and “posed a risk of bringing the administration of police discipline into disrepute.” The member did not request a review of the disciplinary decision. The OPCC reviewed these findings and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. Even though the member resigned before the conclusion of this matter, their Service Record of Discipline will reflect the discipline imposed.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1222,"file":"2023-24967","agency":"Central Saanich Police Service","year":2025,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"used profanity in making demeaning comments toward a constable during a verbal exchange that occurred in the workplace","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The department initiated an internal discipline investigation into the conduct of a senior Central Saanich Police Service (CSPS) member. It was alleged that the member used profanity in making demeaning comments toward a constable during a verbal exchange that occurred in the workplace. The member violated the CSPS respectful workplace policy.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1223,"file":"2023-24992","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Immediate Roadside Prohibition/Impaired Operation of a Motor Vehicle","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"The member drove off-duty while impaired by alcohol.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a VPD member. According to the VPD, the off-duty member was driving their personal vehicle when they were stopped at an RCMP roadblock. Upon request, the member provided two breath samples that resulted in “warn” readings on an Approved Screening Device (ASD), leading to a three-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) and the impounding of their vehicle. The member drove off-duty while impaired by alcohol. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. In arriving at the decision on disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that although the misconduct was serious, the member was cooperative throughout the interaction with the RCMP, took responsibility for their actions, and had no previous record of discipline.The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1224,"file":"2023-25006","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2025,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"failing to properly document their actions in arresting, Chartering, and transporting one of the complainants to VicPD jail cells","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns regarding an interaction with members of the Victoria Police Department (VicPD). The complainants alleged the members had barged into their home and arrested them both without explanation. The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. During the Police Act investigation, it was reported that one of the members had neglected their duty by failing to document actions taken during the interactions with the complainants. The member failed to document actions taken during the course of duty in an investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that none of the members committed misconduct by entering the dwelling or arresting the complainants. However, the Discipline Authority found that one member appeared to have committed misconduct by failing to properly document their actions in arresting, Chartering, and transporting one of the complainants to VicPD jail cells. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. In arriving at the decision on disciplinary or correctives measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member proactively took responsibility for their actions at the start of the Police Act investigation, had undertaken a thorough review of policy and law in relation to proper note taking and documentation, and had no prior substantiated misconduct on their Service Record of Discipline. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":1225,"file":"2023-25136","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Physical Altercation","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"attended a licensed establishment while off-duty and engaged in a confrontation that escalated to a physical altercation","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Nelson Police Department (NPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of an NPD Special Municipal Constable (SMC). It was reported that the SMC attended a licensed establishment while off-duty and engaged in a confrontation that escalated to a physical altercation. After the SMC was removed from the establishment, they returned. When reminded they could not re-enter, the SMC displayed their police department identification to staff in an attempt to gain re-entry. The SMC engaged in a physical altercation with another patron in a licensed premise.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1226,"file":"2023-25136","agency":"Nelson Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Badging/Identifying as a Police Officer","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"displayed their police department identification to staff in an attempt to gain re-entry","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Nelson Police Department (NPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of an NPD Special Municipal Constable (SMC). It was reported that the SMC attended a licensed establishment while off-duty and engaged in a confrontation that escalated to a physical altercation. After the SMC was removed from the establishment, they returned. When reminded they could not re-enter, the SMC displayed their police department identification to staff in an attempt to gain re-entry. The SMC displayed their police department identification and SMC badge to staff. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. The Prehearing Conference Authority (PHCA) noted that the SMC openly acknowledged the impact of their actions and expressed sincere regret while committing to learning and growing from the experience.While the SMC is no longer employed by the NPD, the PHCA also noted they continued to actively pursue roles in public safety, which demonstrates their dedication to serving the community.The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1227,"file":"2024-24549","agency":"Saanich Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"The member was speeding while transporting the complainant in a police vehicle.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The OPCC received a complaint describing concerns regarding a member of the Saanich Police Department (SPD) who was speeding while providing the complainant a ride in a police vehicle. The complainant argued that the member engaged in the same behaviour which caused his vehicle to be towed. .The OPCC reviewed the complaint and determined that an investigation into the incident was required. The member was speeding while transporting the complainant in a police vehicle. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. In arriving at the decision on discipline or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member had no substantiated misconduct on their Service Record of Discipline and that the member accepted responsibility.The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":1228,"file":"2024-25173","agency":"Surrey Police Service","year":2024,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"drove through a red light without stopping and while exceeding the speed limit","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Surrey Police Service (SPS), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of an SPS member. According to the SPS, the member, while following a stolen vehicle and without the vehicle’s emergency equipment activated, drove through a red light without stopping and while exceeding the speed limit. The member violated the Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulation (EVDR) and SPS pursuit policy by exceeding the speed limit and disobeying the red light. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. In arriving at the decision on disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member is experienced and must set an example in EVDR and SPS policy compliance. In addition, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member admitted their error, accepted the Discipline Authority’s findings, and that no members of the public or other police officers were put at risk during this incident. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":1229,"file":"2024-25233","agency":"Victoria Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Abuse of Authority","sublabel":"Unnecessary Force - Physical Control - Hard","cat":"excessive_or_unnecessary_force","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"the member used force and struck the affected person’s head against the ground","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Victoria Police Department (VicPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VicPD member. It was reported that after an affected person had been arrested and placed in handcuffs on the ground, the member used force and struck the affected person’s head against the ground. The member intentionally or recklessly used unnecessary force on the affected person in the performance of their duties. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. The Discipline Authority determined that that force used was unreasonable and disproportionate in the circumstances. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. The Prehearing Conference Authority classified the misconduct as moderate, but noted the member expressed remorse and regret for their inappropriate actions. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":1230,"file":"2024-25240","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Corrupt Practice","sublabel":"Using or Attempting to Use Police Authority for Personal Gain (e.g., Preferential Treatment)","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"identified themselves to the RCMP as a VPD member and attempted to use their position as a member for personal gain","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the off-duty conduct of a VPD member. It was reported that the RCMP stopped the member and notified them that their vehicle would be impounded and they would be receiving a violation ticket for excessive speeding. It was further reported that during the traffic stop, the member identified themselves to the RCMP as a VPD member and attempted to use their position as a member for personal gain. The member requested discretion during their interaction with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) member who was issuing an impound notice and violation ticket. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member accepted responsibility for the misconduct and was remorseful. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1231,"file":"2024-25300","agency":"Surrey Police Service","year":2024,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Operating a Police Vehicle in an Unsafe Manner","cat":"vehicle_operation","conf":0.9,"thin":false,"quote":"drove in excess of the posted speed limit without activating emergency equipment","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Surrey Police Service (SPS), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of an SPS member. It was reported that while following a suspect vehicle for failing to stop, the member drove in excess of the posted speed limit without activating emergency equipment. Additionally, it was reported the member had been instructed to cease following the vehicle by a supervisor twice before stopping. The member did not comply with the Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulations (EVDR), SPS policy, and the direction of a supervisor. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that this was a matter of low seriousness and that the highway section the member was driving on was divided by a median, the member did not pass through any intersections or cross traffic, and there were no other reported traffic or pedestrians, making risk to the public, the suspect, and other officers minimal. Additionally, the member had no other disciplinary misconduct on their service record, had reviewed relevant legislation and policy prior to the prehearing conference, and took responsibility for their actions.The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":1232,"file":"2024-25323","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Badging/Identifying as a Police Officer","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"The member, while referencing themselves as a police officer, used social media as a platform to counter and defend claims made against them.There was no justification to do so.The member identified themselves as a police officer, requested to speak with the RCMP Watch Commander, and requested that the RCMP take action to have the post removed.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. It was reported that the member referenced their status as a police officer in a social media post that they had made to counter a defaming post about them that related to alleged fraudulent activity. During the subsequent investigation it was determined that the member had utilized the 911 emergency system to report the initial post as a threat to the RCMP when there was no justification to do so. Additionally, the member identified themselves as a police officer, requested to speak with the RCMP Watch Commander, and requested that the RCMP take action to have the post removed. The member, while referencing themselves as a police officer, used social media as a platform to counter and defend claims made against them.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1233,"file":"2024-25323","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Badging/Identifying as a Police Officer","cat":"corruption_and_misuse_of_position","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"identified themselves as a police officer, requested to speak with the RCMP Watch Commander, and requested that the RCMP take action to have the post removed","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. It was reported that the member referenced their status as a police officer in a social media post that they had made to counter a defaming post about them that related to alleged fraudulent activity. During the subsequent investigation it was determined that the member had utilized the 911 emergency system to report the initial post as a threat to the RCMP when there was no justification to do so. Additionally, the member identified themselves as a police officer, requested to speak with the RCMP Watch Commander, and requested that the RCMP take action to have the post removed. The member used 911 to report a social media post as a threat, requesting to speak with the RCMP Watch Commander, and using their position to request the RCMP to have the post removed when unjustified. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. 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. However, the Prehearing Conference also noted that the member had taken responsibility for their actions and that their actions were motivated by safety concerns. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1234,"file":"2024-25405","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Negligent Discharge of Firearm/Weapon","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"had negligently discharged one round from their duty firearm into a locker while loading it","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Commissioner ordered an investigation after receiving information that a member of the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), while preparing for their shift in the VPD locker room, had negligently discharged one round from their duty firearm into a locker while loading it. VPD policy on firearms storage requires that members must load their firearms at a designated loading and unloading station. The member failed to use a designated loading/unloading station as mandated by VPD policy. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member had no previous substantiated misconduct on their service record of discipline, took immediate responsibility for their actions, and attended training that reviewed VPD’s firearm loading/unloading policy. Additionally, the member voluntarily attended off-duty firearms training. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":1235,"file":"2024-25495","agency":"Surrey Police Service","year":2025,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.85,"thin":false,"quote":"notified their employer that they were too sick to attend work after taking medication. A few hours later, the member was seen in an airport lounge","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Surrey Police Service (SPS) initiated an internal discipline investigation into the conduct of an SPS member. It was alleged that the member had requested to book sick leave for the day prior to their pre-planned vacation, due to a medical appointment, but was denied approval. The member attended the medical appointment and subsequently notified their employer that they were too sick to attend work after taking medication. A few hours later, the member was seen in an airport lounge prior to boarding a flight at a time that they were scheduled to be working. The member booked off sick and was seen at an airport lounge and later boarded a flight at a time the member was scheduled to be working.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1236,"file":"2024-25501","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2024,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Negligent Discharge of Firearm/Weapon","cat":"firearms_handling","conf":0.95,"thin":false,"quote":"discharged their department-issued firearm while practicing their “firearm draw” inside a department sub-office","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The Commissioner ordered an investigation after receiving information that a member of the Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP) had discharged their department-issued firearm while practicing their “firearm draw” inside a department sub-office. It was reported that two other members were present at the time of the discharge and that minor damage to a concrete wall resulted from the incident. The member neglecting their duties regarding the safe handling of their service pistol and adherence to the Provincial and MVTP Firearms Safety Rules. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. In arriving at the decision on discipline, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted that the member accepted responsibility for their actions and was proactive in reporting the incident to their supervisor. The Prehearing Conference Authority further noted that the member had taken steps to mitigate any future recurrence by reverting to a more familiar firearm setup. The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]},{"id":1237,"file":"2024-25556","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Inadequate Documentation/Notes/Records","cat":"investigative_neglect","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"improperly disposed of evidence that was collected during a criminal investigation","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. Among other things, it was reported that the member, while assigned as a Field Training Officer, had improperly disposed of evidence that should have been seized and documented to conclude a file, utilized a “fine collection system” as a method of coaching that encouraged a recruit to buy beer for the squad to make amends for perceived mistakes, and used language when referring to South Asian people that could be interpreted as derogatory. The member improperly disposed of evidence that was collected during a criminal investigation.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1238,"file":"2024-25556","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"workplace_harassment_non_sexualized","conf":0.7,"thin":false,"quote":"utilized a “fine collection system” as a method of coaching that encouraged a recruit to buy beer for the squad to make amends for perceived mistakes","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. Among other things, it was reported that the member, while assigned as a Field Training Officer, had improperly disposed of evidence that should have been seized and documented to conclude a file, utilized a “fine collection system” as a method of coaching that encouraged a recruit to buy beer for the squad to make amends for perceived mistakes, and used language when referring to South Asian people that could be interpreted as derogatory. The member used a “fine collection system” as a coaching method.","measures":["advice future conduct"]},{"id":1239,"file":"2024-25556","agency":"Vancouver Police Department","year":2024,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"used language when referring to South Asian people that could be interpreted as derogatory","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Vancouver Police Department (VPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a VPD member. Among other things, it was reported that the member, while assigned as a Field Training Officer, had improperly disposed of evidence that should have been seized and documented to conclude a file, utilized a “fine collection system” as a method of coaching that encouraged a recruit to buy beer for the squad to make amends for perceived mistakes, and used language when referring to South Asian people that could be interpreted as derogatory. The member used language when referring to South Asian people that could be interpreted as derogatory. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. In arriving at the decision on disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority noted the member took full responsibility for their actions, had no previous substantiated misconduct on their Service Record of Discipline, and had been suspended from their duties for six months during the Police Act investigation.The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1240,"file":"2024-25688","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2025,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Conduct That Discredits the Department","cat":"off_duty_criminal_or_discreditable_conduct","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"the member, while off-duty and driving their personal vehicle, became involved in a driving incident with another driver. It was alleged that the member made inappropriate gestures towards the driver, yelled obscenities, and displayed their police badge.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a MVTP member. According to the MVTP, it was reported that the member, while off-duty and driving their personal vehicle, became involved in a driving incident with another driver. It was alleged that the member made inappropriate gestures towards the driver, yelled obscenities, and displayed their police badge. It was identified during the Police Act investigation that the member made a false and misleading statement to their supervisors. The member’s conduct and actions in relation to the off-duty driving incident.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1241,"file":"2024-25688","agency":"Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP)","year":2025,"heading":"Deceit","sublabel":"False or Misleading Oral or Written Statement","cat":"deceit_and_falsification","conf":0.97,"thin":false,"quote":"The Member knowingly made a false and misleading statement regarding their conduct and actions during the off-duty driving incident.","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the Metro Vancouver Transit Police (MVTP), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of a MVTP member. According to the MVTP, it was reported that the member, while off-duty and driving their personal vehicle, became involved in a driving incident with another driver. It was alleged that the member made inappropriate gestures towards the driver, yelled obscenities, and displayed their police badge. It was identified during the Police Act investigation that the member made a false and misleading statement to their supervisors. The Member knowingly made a false and misleading statement regarding their conduct and actions during the off-duty driving incident. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. The Prehearing Conference Authority noted that a police officer knowingly giving a false or misleading statement is one of the most serious types of misconduct. However, the Prehearing Conference Authority also took into consideration that the member admitted making a false statement and accepted responsibility for the misconduct. Additionally, the member had taken a course on ethical decision making. The OPCC reviewed the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["suspension"]},{"id":1242,"file":"2024-25705","agency":"New Westminster Police Department","year":2025,"heading":"Discreditable Conduct","sublabel":"Workplace Harassment/Bullying/Violation Respectful Workplace Policy","cat":"discourtesy","conf":0.75,"thin":false,"quote":"made disparaging comments, including profanity, towards civilian employees at the department","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"Upon request from the New Westminster Police Department (NWPD), the Commissioner ordered an investigation into the conduct of an NWPD member. It was reported that the member made multiple disparaging comments toward civilian employees who had tasked the member with correcting records in the police database, as required by department policies. The member made disparaging comments, including profanity, towards civilian employees at the department. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Discipline Authority found that the member appeared to have committed misconduct. A prehearing conference was offered and accepted. In arriving at the decision on disciplinary or corrective measures, the Prehearing Conference Authority assessed the seriousness of the misconduct to be “on the low end” of the scale and noted that the member had accepted responsibility and had no previous substantiated misconduct on their service record of discipline.The OPCC reviewed and approved the proposed disciplinary/corrective measures and determined that further review was not required and that the discipline imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.","measures":["written reprimand"]},{"id":1243,"file":"2024-25824","agency":"Surrey Police Service","year":2025,"heading":"Neglect of Duty","sublabel":"Failure to Comply With Departmental Policy/Regulations","cat":"property_and_equipment_misuse","conf":0.8,"thin":false,"quote":"signed out a Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) and took the MDT home to complete their police reports without authorization","gbv":false,"gbv_def":false,"verdict":null,"basis":"","text":"The department initiated an internal discipline investigation into the conduct of a Surrey Police Service (SPS) member. It was alleged that the member signed out a Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) and took the MDT home to complete their police reports without authorization to do so, which contravened SPS policy. The member breached SPS policy when they removed SPS information technology resources from the workplace without receiving prior authorization from their supervisor.","measures":["verbal reprimand"]}]