respect positive attitude teamwork reliability … · 2014 respect positive attitude teamwork...

CORPORATE RISK MANAGEMENTAnnual Report

2014

RESPECT

POSITIVE ATTITUDE

TEAMWORK RELIABILITY

HONESTY FAIRNESS INTEGRITY

FREEDOM FROM BIAS

Toronto Police ServiceTo Serve and Protect

Professional StandardsSemper Vigilis

Statistical information included in the Corporate Risk Management Annual Report has been compiled from data contained in the Professional Standards Information System (PSIS), with additional data from the following units:

• Awards• Governance• Human Resources • Professional Standards• Legal Services• Prosecution Services• Special Investigations Unit Liaison• Toronto Police College

The data contained in this report includes records entered into PSIS between January 1 and December 31, 2014.

of 37

Corporate Risk Management Annual Report 2014 3

Table of Contents4 Executive Summary

Corporate Risk Management Unit InitiativesHighlightsPublic ContactMoving Forward

8 Professional Standards Information SystemData Collection and Statistical ReportingEarly Intervention

9 AwardsInternal AwardsExternal Awards

12 Civil LitigationTrend Analysis

13 Human RightsTrend Analysis

14 Public ComplaintsThe Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD)Trend Analysis

18 Police Services Act ChargesTrend Analysis

20 Use of ForceOntario Use of Force Model Training RequirementsReportingTrend Analysis

24 Special Investigations UnitTrend Analysis

26 Suspect Apprehension PursuitsOntario Regulation 266/10Pursuit Reduction InitiativesTrend Analysis

29 Supplementary DataPublic ComplaintsUse of ForceSuspect Apprehension Pursuits

36 Glossary of TermsCivil Litigation DefinitionsPolice Services Act DefinitionsUse of Force Definitions

of 37

Executive SummaryCorporate Risk Management (CRM) provides effective support to the Toronto Police Service (TPS), ensuring that prescribed TPS standards concerning the administration, promotion, and support of professionalism are advanced with the goal to strengthen public trust.

In January 2014, Professional Standards was renamed Corporate Risk Management (CRM) as part of the Chief’s Internal Organizational Review (CIOR). As a result there were changes made to the structure of CRM in 2014.

Under the direction of a Staff Superintendent, Corporate Risk Management is comprised of Professional Standards (PRS), Professional Standards Support (PSS), Legal Ser-vices (LSV), and the Toronto Police College (TPC).

Professional Standards investigates all forms of complaints (criminal and conduct) alleged against TPS members and is made up of the following sub-units: Complaints Adminis-tration, Conduct Investigations, Criminal Investigations, and the Investigative Support Unit.

Professional Standards Support consists of the following sub-units: Analysis & Assessment, Awards, Governance, Information Security, Prosecution Services, and Special In-vestigations Unit (SIU) Liaison.

Legal Services includes the following sections: the Counsel Advisory Group, Court Processing, Civil Litigation, Human Rights, and Legal Research.

The Toronto Police College (TPC) provides training to both Service members and members from other agencies and is made up of the following sections: Armament, Community Policing, In-Service Training, Investigative Training, Learn-ing Development and Standards, and Police Vehicle Opera-tions.

CRM also provides a liaison function to other TPS units and committees such as the Disciplinary Hearings Offi ce, the Business Intelligence Unit, the Use of Force Review Com-mittee, as well as to external agencies such as the Offi ce of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) and the SIU.

CRM Unit Initiatives

Judicial CommentsIn 2013, as a result of a Toronto Police Services Board (TPSB) minute (Min. No. P74/13), CRM began tracking and reporting judicial comments regarding officer conduct dur-ing judicial proceedings. In 2014, four (4) complaints were investigated in relation to judicial comments compared to five (5) in 2013. Of the four (4) incidents misconduct was substantiated in two (2) matters, one (1) matter was found

to be unsubstantiated, and one (1) matter is currently under investigation. Of the two (2) substantiated matters, one (1) is currently before the Tribunal and one (1) was disciplined at the unit level. Comparatively, in 2013 misconduct was substantiated in three (3) matters, one resulted in criminal charges, one is currently before the Tribunal, and one was disciplined at the unit level.

Professional StandardsIn 2014, Professional Standards (PRS) conducted an inter-nal audit to review the manner in which the newly imple-mented records database, Versadex, was being used by frontline officers to engage the public and issue provincial offences notices. The purpose of the audit was to ensure continued accuracy and to ensure supervisors have an ef-fective tool for evaluating the quality of an officer’s enforce-ment when engaging members of the public.

In 2014, PRS presented on a number of courses such as, Provincial Statutes, the Police Service Act, Organizational Development, Ethics and Professionalism in Policing, and Major Case Management. Members also presented to new recruit classes and during auxiliary officer training.

In addition to this training, in 2014, members of PRS deliv-ered presentations at the TPC on the Advanced Leadership course to leaders in the TPS.

Complaints AdministrationIn 2014, the Complaints Administration sub-unit continued to deliver ongoing support and guidance, including training at the TPC to Unit Complaint Coordinators across the TPS. In addition, members of Complaints Administration contin-ued to deliver training to front-line offi cers on current mis-conduct trends and risk management issues.

In 2012-2013 the OIPRD implemented the Customer Ser-vice Resolution (CSR) program. This program provides complainants and respondent offi cers an opportunity to re-solve complaints voluntarily prior to the complaint being for-mally screened under the PSA. In 2014, a total of 47 com-plaint fi les were referred by the OIPRD to the CSR program and, of those referrals, 28 were resolved.

In 2014, the TPS was involved in two mediations as part of the OIPRD informal resolution process. The OIPRD contin-ues to dedicate resources to maintain the mediation pro-gram and the TPS is committed to continued participation in this program.

4 Corporate Risk Management Annual Report 2014 of 37

Prosecution ServicesIn 2014, Prosecution Services continued to liaise with Pro-fessional Standards (PRS) and other CRM units regarding trends in conduct issues. These same units also met quar-terly to review the status of suspended and restricted offi -cers with a view to returning the offi cers to full duties where appropriate, while remaining mindful of the principles of specifi c and general deterrence. Prosecution Services also had discussions with PRS regarding standardizing internal reports of investigation with the goal of making them more streamlined and comprehensive.

Information SecurityIn 2014, Information Security completed the upgrade of the Professional Standards Information System database. The unit also completed several corporate risk management projects related to Automatic Vehicle Locator equipment, use of Service vehicles, privacy issues within the records management system, and the commencement of four Pri-vacy Impact Assessments. Members of the unit also com-pleted privacy training which assisted with their information privacy and security awareness campaign including on-line information and in-class sessions.

GovernanceGovernance is responsible for the development and man-agement of the Standards of Conduct, Service Governance Defi nitions, Policies and Procedures, Service forms, and Routine Orders. In 2014, Governance commenced 508 new projects and concluded a total 698 projects. Governance also assisted with the TPS’ response to jury recommenda-tions from various coroner’s inquests and the Use of Force Review conducted by the Honourable Justice Iacobucci. In 2014, a total of 443 procedure documents were published. In addition, two comprehensive administrative reviews were performed on various governance documents and a new digital Routine Orders software system was created and implemented.

AwardsThe Awards section administers the TPS Awards Program, recognizing outstanding achievements by TPS members and the public. The section also coordinates with agen-cies and organizations granting external awards to Service members.

SIU LiaisonThe SIU Liaison offi cers works with the SIU to facilitate SIU mandated investigations. In 2014, the SIU Liaison Unit pre-sented 43 lectures to members of the TPS including; the Emergency Task Force, coach offi cers, advance leader-ship programs, the Mobile Crisis Intervention Teams, recruit classes, new Sergeant/Supervisor classes, 43 Division, 54 Division, 22 Division, and 23 Division. These lectures emphasized the members’ roles and responsibilities when involved in incidents where the SIU mandate has been, or may be, invoked.


Analysis and AssessmentIn 2014, Analysis and Assessment provided trend analy-sis and statistical information relating to the evaluation of work performance, compliance with TPS procedures, pur-suit training, and use of force training. Enhancements were made to the Early Intervention (EI) program, including cre-ating and implementing a new threshold to provide a more comprehensive analysis to assist supervisors in developing risk reduction strategies when dealing with identifi ed trends. Legal ServicesThe Counsel Advisory Group continued to provide advice and support to the Chief of Police, command offi cers, and members of the TPS in relation to the law, policy initiatives, corporate governance, and corporate compliance with the law. LSV also manages all new and outstanding civil actions and external human rights applications, and represents the Chief in matters before administrative tribunals, appeal bod-ies, superior court, the Court of Justice, and at inquests.

Toronto Police CollegeRecognizing that education and training is an integral tool for effective risk management, the TPC became a part of CRM in 2014. This structural change has allowed the TPC, and other units within CRM, to work with increased effi -ciency and in a complementary manner. In 2014, the TPC provided a number of specialized courses and was involved in various TPS initiatives. Members from the TPC are repre-sented on the Police and Community Engagement Review Committee (PACER) and are developing training that will help to ensure the recommendations realized effectively. As a TPS initiative, the TPC is now delivering a Fair and Im-partial Policing (FIP) course which was designed to give all offi cers a greater perspective on fair and impartial policing services to the community.

In 2014, the TPC developed training specifi c to the Neigh-bourhood Offi cer Program. The new program is co-facilitat-ed by TPC instructors and an outside academic. The TPC also continued to utilize the Canadian Police Knowledge Network (CPKN) offering members a variety of courses and training on topics such as, Occupational Health and Safety, serving people with disabilities, supervisory training, and di-versity programs. In 2014, TPC provided training for 228 new recruits and also provided training for 60 new auxiliary offi cers.

of 37

HighlightsThe CRM Annual Report provides statistical comparisons and trend analysis on the following topics: awards, public complaints, civil litigation, external applications to the Hu-man Rights Tribunal of Ontario, PSA charges, use of force reporting, SIU investigations, and suspect apprehension pursuits.

AwardsIn 2014, 894 awards were presented to members of the TPS, the community, and other police services by the TPSB and the Chief of Police. This is an increase from 582 awards presented in 2013 and an increase from 610 awards presented in 2012. TPS members also received 211 awards from external agencies in 2014.

Public ComplaintsPublic complaints made against TPS offi cers are processed by the TPS Professional Standards Complaints Administra-tion. In 2014, a total of 598 public complaints were received concerning the conduct of uniform members and/or the poli-cies/services of the TPS, a decrease of 17.6 % from 2013. In an attempt to reduce the number of investigations and to improve customer service, the unit also provides informa-tion and training sessions to front-line supervisors on local resolution options. There were 22 successful local resolu-tions in 2014.

In cases where the complaint was investigated by police and found to be unsubstantiated, or designated as less serious, the complainant(s) can request that the OIPRD conduct a review of the investigation. In 2014, complainants request-ed the complaint fi le be reviewed by the OIPRD in relation to 14 cases, a decrease of 62.2% compared to 2013. With re-spect to the cases that have been reviewed by the OIPRD, the OIPRD have overturned two decisions in the last fi ve years, the most recent overturn occurred in 2011.

Police Services Act ChargesProsecution Services reviews conduct investigations to de-termine the appropriateness of holding hearings and pros-ecutes disciplinary charges against offi cers. In 2014, there was an increase in the number of new charges from 67 charges in 2013 to 69 charges, however there was a de-crease in the number of offi cers charged from 37 in 2013 to 36 offi cers in 2014.

Use of ForceOffi cers are required to submit the Ontario Ministry of Com-munity Safety and Correctional Services’ Use of Force Form 1 report (UFR) when they use force in the performance of their duties. In 2014, there was a decrease in the number of incidents during which offi cers reported force was used from 1150 incidents in 2013 to 1038 incidents. There was an increase in the number of incidents in which a conducted energy weapon (CEW) was used from 192 incidents in 2013 to 205 incidents in 2014.

In relation to fi rearm discharge incidents, there has been a 27.3% decrease in the number of incidents in 2014 com-pared to 2013. Further to those incidents, there has been an 81.8% decrease in the number of fi rearm discharge inci-dents involving armed persons from 11 incidents in 2013 to 2 incidents in 2014. These decreases correspond with the Service’s ongoing emphasis and training in relation to de-escalation techniques.

SIU InvestigationsIn 2014, there was a decrease in the total number of inci-dents where the SIU invoked their mandate, 65 compared to 74 in 2013. The SIU invoked its mandate to investigate six (6) deaths in 2014 in which TPS offi cers were involved, a decrease from seven (7) deaths investigated in 2013. Fur-ther, there was an 80% decrease in the number of fi rearm related deaths, from fi ve (5) deaths in 2013 to one (1) death in 2014. The SIU Liaison also assisted with four (4) inquests in 2014 arising from SIU related matters.

Suspect Apprehension PursuitsThere was an increase in the number of pursuits initiated in 2014, from 111 in 2013 to 117 pursuits in 2014, however, this number is still below the fi ve-year average of 128.4 pursuits initiated. The Police Vehicle Operations section continues to educate TPS members about the risks involved in pursuing vehicles and to offer alternative strategies to engaging in pursuits. Offi cers and/or supervisors continue to call off the majority of pursuits in the interest of public safety.

In December 2013, the TPS purchased a driving simula-tor. As a result, a new driving course was developed and deployed to front-line offi cers beginning in January 2014. The simulator is being used to deliver driving and Suspect Apprehension Pursuit (SAP) training to front-line offi cers making the TPS a leader in Ontario in this type of training.

Public ContactCommunity-based policing is a priority for the TPS. The res-idential population of Toronto is estimated at 2.87 million, however, the daytime population increases to approximately 3.32 million. Service members have extensive contact with members of the community in order to ensure public safety. In 2014, there were over 1.9 million calls for service, ap-proximately 325,000 provincial offence tickets issued, over 11,000 Community Safety Notes (CSNs) completed, over 6,400 Mental Health Act apprehensions, and just under 35,000 arrests. In total, TPS offi cers had just under 2.3 mil-lion documented contacts with members of the public last year (this fi gure includes repeat contacts).

It is important to consider the amount of interaction TPS members have with members of the public when evaluating the statistics presented in this report. For example, the total number of public complaints fi led represents only a small fraction (less than 0.1%) of documented contacts. Further, when considering the total number of use of force incidents relative to arrests made, force was required in 3% of ar-rests. When comparing the number of SIU investigations


to the documented contact there was one incident investi-gated for every 35,231 contacts with members of the public.

Moving ForwardCRM will continue to proactively identify strategic issues, goals, and actions to build upon the initiatives underway in 2014.

To ensure continued alignment with the TPS mandate, CRM plans to conduct reviews of its procedures and processes, as well as continuing to participate on committees such as the Civil Litigation Review Committee, the Human Rights Case Review Committee, the Use of Force Review Commit-tee, and the Service Vehicle Collision and Pursuit Reduction Committee.

Following several race-based human rights complaints, the TPSB and the TPS, in partnership with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC), launched the Human Rights Project Charter (HRPC) in May 2007. Members of CRM participated in the HRPC with the goal of the project be-ing to identify and eliminate any discrimination that may ex-ist in the employment practices and in delivery of services that may be contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code. In 2014, the Evaluation of the HRPC, produced by the Di-versity Institute, was presented on March 13, 2014, to the TPSB. It is anticipated the closing report will be completed and presented in 2015.

The TPS has successfully engaged the community in ef-forts to reduce crime and develop collaborative partnerships as part of the Police and Community Engagement Review (PACER) project. In 2014, members from CRM continued to be involved in assisting and contributing towards the imple-mentation of the project’s recommendations.

In August 2013, the Chief of Police commissioned the Hon-ourable Justice Frank Iacobucci to conduct an independent review of the use of lethal force by the TPS, with a focus on encounters with people in crisis. In July 2014, Justice Iacobucci presented the fi nal report to the TPS which con-tained 84 recommendations aimed at ensuring encounters between offi cers and people in crisis are resolved in a safe and respectful manner for all involved.

Since receiving Justice Iacobucci’s report, a working group has been tasked with implementing the recommendations, as well as other recommendations made in recent coroner’s inquests. The working group is comprised of members from across the TPS, including members from CRM, who are col-laborating with both internal and external stakeholders to ensure the implementation of the recommendations. Fur-ther, the TPC is integrating the recommendations into vari-ous training programs as appropriate.

The initiatives cited above support the CRM commitment to promoting professional and ethical conduct.

Corporate Risk Management Annual Report 2014 7 of 37

Professional Standards Information SystemThe mandate of Professional Standards Support (PSS) is to act as an effective support unit and to contribute to the achievement of the Toronto Police Service’s (TPS) overall priorities. To assist in accomplishing this, the Professional Standards Information System (PSIS) was implemented in 2003 to collect salient data to proactively identify and analyze trends surrounding the practices, conduct, ethics, and integrity of TPS members. PSIS uti-lizes database software designed specifically for the law enforcement industry and contains data pertaining to complaints, civil litigation, human rights complaints, use of force reports, suspect apprehension pursuits, Service vehicle collisions, Special Investigations Unit investigations, and additional investigative files.

Data Collection and Statistical Reporting

Analysis and Assessment (A&A), within PSS, is responsible for maintaining the data integrity of PSIS and producing sta-tistical and trend analysis reports for TPS management. A&A also provides statistical information on the performance of members and the TPS as a whole.

In 2014, A&A utilized PSIS to provide trend analysis and statistical information to assist TPS units. The information given to these units is used for a variety of purposes, includ-ing the development of targeted training programs and to ensure compliance with Service procedures. Members of A&A participate in the Use of Force Review Committee and the Service Vehicle Collision and Pursuit Reduction Com-mittee in order to provide ongoing assistance in mitigating risk exposure to the Service.

8 Corporate Risk Management Annual Report 2014

Early Intervention

Early Intervention (EI) is a proactive process that seeks to identify TPS members with potential performance or con-duct issues. It provides the identifi ed members’ units with comprehensive reports to assist in the development of strategies to help members. An EI alert is triggered when a member exceeds a preset threshold for incidents monitored through PSIS. Once an alert is triggered, the member’s per-formance and conduct history is reviewed and a report may be generated to address potential performance or conduct issues.

In 2013, A&A conducted a review of the EI alert thresholds related to use of force. The review resulted in the imple-mentation of an additional threshold in relation to the type of force used in January 2014.

In 2014, there were 1024 alerts triggered and 89 EI reports generated, compared to 1382 alerts triggered and 44 EI re-ports generated in 2013. The EI process is dynamic and is continually reviewed and updated to refl ect current trends and TPS risk management concerns. This allows A&A to ensure that improvements made continue to strengthen the risk reduction capability of the EI program. The EI pro-cess is intended, in a non-disciplinary and holistic way, to assist management in guiding and supporting members who may be at risk of entering the disciplinary process. In 2014, members of A&A began lecturing supervisors through the Toronto Police College to further educate and promote awareness on the EI process.

of 37

AwardsThe Awards Program is coordinated by Corporate Risk Management (CRM) to recognize outstanding contribu-tions and achievements by Toronto Police Service (TPS) members and members of the public. Recipients are recognized individually or in groups for acts of excellence, bravery, altruism, innovative contributions to commu-nity policing, public safety, and professional excellence. TPS members are also recognized for their dedicated long service with milestone awards such as the 25 year watch, and 20, 30, and 40 year medals and commemora-tive pins. In 1998, the Toronto Police Services Board (TPSB) approved a formal Awards process that is admin-istered by PRS. In 2009, the Toronto Region Board of Trade, in partnership with the TPS, expanded the Police Officer of the Month/Year awards to include a Business Excellence Award. A Standing Awards Committee, com-prised of uniform and civilian members of various ranks and positions from across the TPS and representation from the TPSB, reviews eligibility for awards to ensure fairness and consistency. In 2014, there were five award ceremonies hosted by the TPSB in which 894 awards were presented to members of the TPS, the community, and other police services. In addition, TPS members received 211 awards from external agencies.

Internal AwardsIn 2014, 894 internal awards were presented to members of the TPS, the community, and other police services by the TPS and the TPSB. This is an increase from 582 awards given in 2013. In addition to these awards for outstanding performance, the TPSB presented 170 members with their retirement plaques. The internal awards presented in 2014 are listed below.

Chief of Police Excellence Award Granted by the Chief of Police to any person for acknowl-edgement of achievement through dedication, persistence, or assistance to the Service. 6 awards presented.

Chief of Police Letter of Recognition (For external police agencies)Granted by the Chief of Police to a police officer or a ci-vilian member for excellence in the performance of duty, community policing initiatives, innovations, or initiatives that enhance the image or operation of the TPS. 4 awards pre-sented.

Medal of HonourGranted by the TPSB to a police officer or a civilian member for distinguished acts of bravery or the highest level of per-formance of duty. 1 award presented.

Merit MarkGranted by the TPSB to a police officer or a civilian member for exemplary acts of bravery, performance of duty, com-munity policing initiatives, innovations, or initiatives that enhance the image or operation of the TPS. 3 awards pre-sented.

CommendationGranted by the TPSB to a police officer or a civilian member for exceptional performance of duty, community policing ini-tiatives, innovations, or initiatives that enhance the image or operation of the TPS. 13 awards presented.

Teamwork CommendationGranted by the TPSB to a group of police officers and/or civilian members for exceptional performance of duty, com-munity policing initiatives, innovations, or initiatives that enhance the image or operation of the TPS. 292 awards presented.

Community Member AwardGranted by the TPSB to citizens for grateful acknowledge-ment of unselfish assistance rendered to the TPS or for an initiative, or innovation that had a positive effect on the im-age or operation of the TPS. 78 awards presented.

Partnership AwardGranted by the TPSB to a citizen(s) or an organization(s) for unselfish assistance given to the TPS for an initiative or innovation that has a positive impact on the image or opera-tion of the TPS. 51 awards presented.

Civilian Long Service Recognition Pin (20, 30 & 40 years)Granted by the TPSB and presented to civilian members upon the completion of 20, 30, and 40 years of employment with the TPS. 125 pins presented.

25 Year Commemorative WatchGranted by the TPSB and presented to police officers, civil-ian members, and auxiliary officers upon completion of 25 years of full-time employment. 321 watches presented.


External AwardsThere were 211 awards presented to TPS members by external agencies or organizations in 2014, compared to 222 exter-nal awards given in 2013. The external awards presented in 2014 are listed below.

Black History Month Awards (British Methodist Episcopal Church)Presented for heroism where an officer has gone beyond the call of duty or for a job well done where an officer worked with team effort to resolve significant matters in the commu-nity. 24 awards presented

Canadian Peacekeeping Service MedalRecognizes the unique contributions to peace made by Ca-nadian Peacekeepers. The medal is awarded to all serv-ing and former members of the Canadian Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canadian police services, and civilians who have served outside of Canada with an inter-national peacekeeping or observer mission, or those who have served in direct support of such missions. 2 medals presented.

Chief of Police Award (York Regional Police)Presented for embodying the values of competence and teamwork demonstrated during an investigation resulting in the dismantling of an organized crime network. 5 awards presented.

Commissioner’s Citation for Lifesaving (Ontario Provincial Police)Presented for directly assisting in saving a life or attempting to save a life. 1 award presented.

Commissioner’s Commendation for Outstanding Investigation (Ontario Provincial Police)Presented for unique investigations consisting of unusual obstacles to overcome and/or extenuating circumstances. 4 awards presented.

Federal Medal of BraveryRecognizes acts of bravery in hazardous circumstances and is presented to people who risked their lives to try to save or protect another. 2 medals presented.

Governor General Caring Canadian AwardRecognizes living Canadians and permanent residents who have made a significant, sustained, unpaid contribution to their community, in Canada or abroad. 1 award presented.

Intercultural Dialogue Institute – Public Heroes AwardPresented for recognition of dedication and excellence of individual members of TPS, Toronto Fire Services, and Toronto Paramedic Services in delivering their services in an ethnically and culturally diverse environment. Three cri-

teria have been identified – altruism, diversity, and commu-nity service. 1 award presented.

Ontario Medal for Police BraveryPresented by the Lieutenant-Governor to police officers to recognize acts of courage and bravery performed in the line of duty without concern for personal safety. 2 medals pre-sented.

Ontario Auxiliary Police MedalPresented by the Chief of Police on behalf of the Ontario Government to auxiliary officers for dedicated service upon the completion of 20, 25, 30, and 40 years of service. 6 medals presented.

Ontario Women in Law Enforcement Award Presented in recognition of outstanding achievements made by women, uniform and civilian, in Ontario law en-forcement. Categories include: valour, community, mentor-ing, and leadership. 10 awards presented.

Order of Merit of the Police ForcesPresented by the Governor General on behalf of the Sover-eign to recognize conspicuous merit and exceptional service by members of Canadian police forces whose contributions extend beyond protection of the community. Three levels of membership, Commander (C.O.M.), Officer (O.O.M.), and Member (M.O.M.), reflect long-term outstanding service in varying degrees of responsibility. 1 award presented.

Outstanding Liquor Enforcement Award (Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police)Presented by the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police and sponsored by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario to police agencies who demonstrated excellence and innovation in liquor enforcement. 1 award presented.

Police Exemplary Service MedalsGranted by the Governor General of Canada to recognize long and meritorious service of police officers. The medal is presented to eligible police officers who have attained 20 years of service; a silver bar is presented upon completion of every additional 10-year period. 43 medals presented.

Police Officer of the Month 2013Presented since 1967 by the Toronto Region Board of Trade in partnership with the TPS to recognize officers who make significant contributions to the safety of the citizens of Toronto. 12 awards presented to 30 recipients.

Police Officer of the Year 2013Presented annually since 1967 by the Toronto Region Board of Trade in partnership with TPS to recognize the efforts of


outstanding police officers on behalf of the Toronto commu-nity. Recipients are selected from the list of Police Officer of the Month Awards. 1 award presented to 6 recipients.

Regional Directors General’s Team Award for Excellence in Partnership (Canada Border Services Agency)Recognizes internal and/or external individuals or teams who have worked to build and maintain strategic alliances and partnerships within CBSA, and with other federal de-partments, agencies, and other external or internal stake-holder’s that; enhance and promote CBSA agendas, and initiatives, as well as their image and visibility in the com-munity through outreach initiatives, and maximize efficien-cies in the delivery of programs and services. 2 awards presented.

St. John Ambulance Award Lifesaving Award/Certificate of Commendation/Automated External Defibrillator AwardPresented to an individual(s) who saves or attempts to save a life by means of their knowledge of first aid and where the application of first aid was involved. Recipients also receive a gold or silver lapel pin. 57 awards presented.

TPS Business Excellence Award 2013Presented by the Toronto Region Board of Trade in partner-ship with the TPS to members who have made significant contributions to the TPS and the City of Toronto based on innovation, community service, technical achievement, or customer service and reliability. 3 awards presented.

TPS Business Excellence Award of the Year 2013Presented by the Toronto Region Board of Trade in partner-ship with the TPS to recognize significant contributions to the TPS and the City of Toronto based on innovation, com-munity service, technical achievement, or customer service and reliability. The recipient is selected from the list of TPS Business Excellence Awards. 1 award presented to 2 re-cipients.

Toronto Chapter ASIS International Law Enforcement & Security Practitioners AwardRecognizes the commitment and service of a police officer to the public in outstanding circumstances that can exceed the ordinary line of duty and is awarded in various categories. This year’s award recognized significant accomplishments in the area of robbery investigation. 1 award presented.

Toronto Paramedic Services - Allied Service AwardPresented to members of the Allied Services who displayed outstanding assistance to Toronto Paramedic Services and the citizens of Toronto. 7 awards presented.


Civil LitigationThe Legal Services unit is responsible for overseeing all civil actions commenced against the Toronto Police Ser-vices Board (TPSB), the Chief of Police, and Toronto Police Service (TPS) members. For the most part, claims are made on the basis of allegations of false arrest, negligent investigation, malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, excessive use of force, Service vehicle collisions, and Charter violations contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Trend AnalysisIn 2014, Legal Services (LSV) received 145 civil actions and potential claims against the TPSB and TPS members. In order to produce an accurate year-to-year comparison, civil actions and potential claims in relation to the G20 Summit have been omitted from the following trend analysis. With the G20 Summit civil actions removed, LSV received 143 civil actions in 2014. There was a 14.4% increase in 2014 compared to 2013, where a total of 125 civil actions and potential claims were received (Figure 1.1). Of the 143 civil actions received in 2014, 106 Statements of Claim were served. This is an increase from the number of claims served in 2013 (98) and 2012 (89) (Figure 1.2).

In November 2010, the Civil Case Review Committee (CCRC) was formed to review civil actions and identify common trends for the purpose of creating proactive action plans to reduce potential liability in future actions. The CCRC meets monthly to review new claims received to manage risk and reduce exposure to liability. Further to the CCRC, members of Legal Services attend monthly Claims Review Group (CRG) meetings, chaired by the City of Toronto’s Insurance and Risk Management section, to discuss issues arising out of claims.


Figure 1.1Civil Actions Received

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

02010 2011 2012 2013 2014

G20 Summit Related

Other Documents

Statement of ClaimFurther to Letter of Intent

Statement of Claim

Letter of Intent

Figure 1.2Statements of Claim

120

100

80

60

40

20

02010 2011 2012 2013 2014

G20 SummitRelatedClaims

Statements ofClaimReceived

of 37

Human RightsHuman Rights applications filed at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) by a member of the public against the Toronto Police Services Board (TPSB), the Chief of Police, the Toronto Police Service (TPS), or one of its members, are managed by Legal Services. These applications relate to the provision of services and an alleged breach of the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code).

Trend Analysis

Human Rights Applications ReceivedIn 2014, there were 32 Human Rights applications in re-lation to 30 separate incidents fi led against the TPSB, the Chief of Police, the TPS, or TPS members by members of the public. This is an increase from 25 applications fi led in 2013 and 27 applications fi led in 2012.

In late 2009, the Human Rights Case Review Committee (HRCRC) was formed to review and assess TPS related hu-man rights matters. The HRCRC meets on a monthly basis at which time they review new complaints and identify com-mon trends with the intention of creating proactive action plans to avoid and reduce future potential complaints.

Classifi cation of ApplicationsAn applicant can allege discrimination on multiple grounds in a single Human Rights application. Figure 2.1 compares the grounds of discrimination alleged in Human Rights ap-plications for 2010 through to 2014. In 2014, the grounds of race and colour remained the most common categories of alleged discrimination, with 15 applicants alleging discrimi-nation based on race and 14 applicants alleging discrimina-tion based on colour. By way of comparison, in 2014, 46.9% of applicants alleged discrimination based on race com-pared to 88.9% of applicants in 2010, 65.6% of applicants in 2011, 66.7% of the applicants in 2012, and 60% of ap-plicants in 2013. When compared to the fi ve-year average of 65%, race based allegations have decreased by 18.1% in 2014. In 2014, 43.8% of applicants alleged discrimina-tion based on colour compared to 77.8% in 2010, 62.5% in 2011, 59.3% in 2012, and 52% in 2013. When compared to the fi ve-year average of 58.7%, colour based allegations have decreased by 14.9% in 2014.

Resolution of ApplicationsThere were 28 Human Rights applications resolved by the HRTO in 2014. Of those 28, two (2) were withdrawn by the applicant, 14 were dismissed by the HRTO, and 12 were settled. In 2014, the TPSB and TPS were not found liable in breach of the Code. To date, the HRTO has not ordered any public interest remedies from the TPSB or a TPS member. Figure 2.2 compares the resolutions of the applications for 2010 through to 2014.


Figure 2.1Grounds of Discrimination Alleged in

Human Rights ApplicationsGrounds of Discrimination*

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Race 24 21 18 15 15Colour 21 20 16 13 14Ancestry 11 11 5 7 9Place of Origin 10 8 8 7 7Citizenship 5 3 5 2 6Ethnic Origin 17 15 12 10 9Disability 5 13 8 7 6Creed 0 5 2 2 6Sex 2 4 4 5 2Sexual Solicitation 0 0 0 0 0Sexual Orientation 1 0 1 1 0Gender Identity** n/a n/a 1 2 1Gender Expression** n/a n/a 0 0 1Family Status 5 2 1 0 1Marital Status 4 1 1 1 0Age 8 4 3 4 3Associated with a Person Identified by a Prohibited 5 1 0 0 1Ground ***Reprisal*** 6 5 9 4 3Total applications filed 27 32 27 25 32*Applicants can select multiple grounds in each application.**As of June 19, 2012, the Code w as amended to include tw o new prohibited grounds of discrimination.***Not ground of discrimination, but also prohibited by the Code.

Figure 2.2 Resolution of Human Rights

Applications50

40

30

20

10

02010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Withdrawn Dismissed Settled Liable - Monetary

of 37

Public ComplaintsThe Ontario Police Services Act (PSA) governs all police services across the province. Section 80 of the PSA defines police misconduct, which includes any violation of the Code of Conduct described in Ontario Regulation 268/10. The Code of Conduct categorizes misconduct as discreditable conduct, insubordination, neglect of duty, deceit, breach of confidence, corrupt practices, unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority, damage to cloth-ing or equipment, and consuming drugs or alcohol in a manner prejudicial to duty.

Ontario Regulation 3/99 requires every Chief of Police to prepare an annual report for their Police Services Board reflecting information on public (external) complaints from the previous fiscal year. This section of the report is intended to address the annual reporting requirement.

The Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD)The Offi ce of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) is a civilian-staffed, independent agency that acts as an objective, impartial offi ce responsible for receiving, managing, and overseeing all public complaints against po-lice offi cers in Ontario. It ensures complaints are dealt with in a transparent, effective, and fair manner for both the pub-lic and the police. In addition to managing public complaints, the OIPRD is responsible for setting up and administering the public complaints system, including oversight, systemic reviews, audits, education, and outreach.

Investigation of complaints received by the OIPRD may be conducted by OIPRD investigators, an outside police ser-vice, or the police service in question. The OIPRD reviews all complaints to determine their classifi cation as either a conduct, policy, or service complaint. Section 60 of the PSA grants the OIPRD the discretion to screen out complaints, for example, if the complaint is found to be frivolous, vexa-tious, or made in bad faith. The complaints that are screened out by the OIPRD are captured as ‘not investigated’ in this report.

The OIPRD was established under the Independent Police Review Act, establishing new guidelines for public com-plaints. The OIPRD began operation on October 19, 2009. The legislative amendments to the PSA, and corresponding changes to the public complaint process, have impacted the TPS public complaint process and the criteria by which com-plaints are investigated. For example, prior to the inception of the OIPRD, complaints could be concluded without inves-tigation in instances where the complainant was not directly affected or the complaint was over six months old. Present-ly, the OIPRD permits the investigation of complaints made by third party complainants and those received beyond the six month limitation period.

Trend Analysis In 2014, a total of 598 public complaints were received con-cerning the conduct of uniform members, the policies, or the services of the Toronto Police Service (TPS). Of the 598 complaints, 275 were investigated and 323 were screened out by the OIPRD. The total number of complaints (both investigated and screened out) represents a decrease of 17.6% from 2013 and a decrease of 21.9% from 2012 (Fig-ure 3.1).

In order to produce a more accurate year to year compari-son, complaints directly related to the G20 Summit have been omitted from the above analysis. Comparatively, it should be noted that of the documented contacts that of-fi cers have with the community, less than 0.1% resulted in a complaint being fi led.


Figure 3.1 Number of Complaints Received

1200

1100

1000

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

02010 2011 2012 2013 2014

G20 Summit Related

Policy/Service

Conduct-Less Serious

Conduct-Serious

Not Investigated

of 37

Sub-Classification of Complaints based on Alleged MisconductThe PSA Code of Conduct is used by the TPS as a means of sub-classifying conduct complaints received by the OIPRD. A single complaint may involve one or more subject offi cers who, in turn, may be accused of multiple categories of misconduct. The most serious allegation in a single com-plaint is used to sub-classify the complaint as a whole. It should be noted that a public complaint is classifi ed on the initial allegations provided by the complainant and informa-tion gathered during the intake process. Complaint classi-fi cations and sub-classifi cations may be revised based on subsequent investigative fi ndings.

In 2014, discreditable conduct was cited more frequently than any other type of misconduct, comprising 58.5% of complaints investigated, similar to the fi ve-year trend of 60.0%. This broad sub-classifi cation captures conduct that may bring discredit to the TPS but does not fall within one of the more specifi c classifi cations.

Allegations of unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority accounted for 23.3% of investigated complaints in 2014, a decrease compared to the fi ve-year average of 26.6% of investigated complaints. Allegations of neglect of duty have increased from 6.6% in 2013 to 7.6% in 2014. Figure 3.2 details the sub-classifi cations of investigated complaints re-ceived in 2014.

Figure 3.3 shows investigated complaints received in 2014 that have been sub-classifi ed as discreditable conduct, fur-ther categorized by specifi c charges under the PSA Code of Conduct. A description of these charges is included in the Glossary of Terms section of this report.

In 2014, allegations of incivility accounted for 13.7% of dis-creditable conduct allegations, refl ecting a decrease from 19.2% in 2013 and a decrease when compared to the fi ve-year average of 16.5%. Allegations of disorderly conduct have remained the most common allegation under the cat-egory of discreditable conduct. In 2014, 80.1% of discredit-able conduct allegations were in relation to acting in a disor-derly manner, an increase when compared to the fi ve-year average of 74.3%.

Years of Service and Rank of Subject OfficerIn 2014, TPS offi cers with 6 to 10 years of service accounted for 31.3% of the subject offi cers named in public complaints. Offi cers with 1 to 5 years of service represented the second highest category at 20.4%. This can, in part, be attributed to the fact that offi cers with 1 to 10 years of service are more likely to be in contact with the public on a daily basis (Figure 3.4).

Police constables continue to account for the majority (85.1%) of subject offi cers named in public complaints. This can be explained by the fact that the majority of the TPS uniform strength (75.6%) are police constables and that, by the nature of their roles and responsibilities, they are usually


Figure 3.2Classification of Alleged Misconduct

Policy/Service9.8%

Unlawful or Unnecessary Exercise of Authority Discreditable 23.3% Conduct

58.5%

Neglect of Duty7.6%

Breach of Confidence

0.4% Insubordination0.4%

Figure 3.3Discreditable Conduct Allegations

Discrimination5.6%

Acts in a Incivilitydisorderly 13.7%manner80.1%

Contravene PSA0.6%

Figure 3.4 Years of Service of Subject Officer

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%<1 yr 1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 16 to 21 to >25 yrs

15 20 25Subject OfficerPercentage within TPS workforce

of 37

the fi rst line of police interaction with the public. Figure 3.5 shows a comparison of the percentage of offi cers named in public complaints to the percentage of offi cers by rank Service-wide.

Investigated Complaints by CommandIn January 2014, a new Organizational Chart was imple-mented as part of the Chief’s Internal Organizational Re-view. The new Organizational Chart resulted in changes to Command titles and a restructuring of the units within the Commands. For example, Divisional Policing Command was renamed Community Safety Command.

Investigated complaints in relation to offi cers attached to Community Safety Command accounted for 71.6% of pub-lic complaints received in 2014. Divisional primary response offi cers fall under this command and these offi cers are re-sponsible for responding to calls for service and general patrols that afford them frequent daily interactions with the public.

Subject offi cers and/or commands that have not yet been identifi ed, or are not applicable, account for 13.8% of com-plaints received in 2014. This number is expected to de-crease as more investigations are concluded. Figure 3.6 displays the breakdown of complaints received by com-mand in 2014.

An expanded chart comparing the number and percentage of complaints for all divisions and units is contained in the Supplementary Data section of the report.

Disposition of Investigated ComplaintsTo date, 43.3 % of the investigated complaints received in 2014 have been concluded with the disposition that the alle-gations were found to be unsubstantiated, a decrease from 51.9% in 2013. It should be noted that 8.0% of investigated 2014 complaint fi les remain open and that as these fi les are concluded the disposition numbers will be affected.

Complaint withdrawals represent 17.8% of concluded 2014 complaints, compared to 18.4% in 2013. Informal resolu-tions made up 23.3% of complaints concluded last year, an increase from 2013 where 21.0% were resolved in this man-ner and similar to the fi ve-year average of 20.9%.

The number of complaints where misconduct is identifi ed continues to represent a small proportion of all investigated complaints. Misconduct has been identifi ed in just 3.6% of concluded 2014 complaints thus far, a decrease from 4.3% in 2013 (Figure 3.7).

Complaint Review BodiesPublic complaints against police officers can be reviewed by an independent civilian agency on the basis of the com-plaint classification and/or disposition.

In cases where the complaint was investigated by police and found to be unsubstantiated, or designated as less


Figure 3.5Rank of Subject Officer

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%P.C. Sgt/Det S/Sgt D/Sgt Senior

Officers

Subject Officer Percentage within TPS workforce

Figure 3.6Investigated Complaints by Command

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Community Safety Command Divisional Policing CommandSpecialized Operations Command Operational Support CommandAdministrative Command Corporate CommandExecutive Command Human Resources CommandNot Applicable/Not Identified

Figure 3.7Disposition of Investigated Complaints

Investigation not Concluded

8.0%

Informal Resolution

Misconduct 23.3%Withdrawn Identified17.8% 3.6%

No Jurisdiction

0.4%

Unsubstantiated Policy/service-43.3% No Action

Taken3.6%

of 37

serious, the complainant(s) can request that the OIPRD conduct a review of the investigation. When a complaint is investigated by the OIPRD the decision is final and no re-view will be conducted. During a review, the OIPRD may determine that the classification or disposition of the com-plaint requires more action; they then can refer the decision back to the originating police service for further investigation or retain the complaint and conduct their own investigation.

If the complainant is dissatisfied with the results of a dis-ciplinary hearing, he or she can appeal to the Ontario Ci-vilian Police Commission (OCPC), an independent agency under the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Of the complaints received in 2014, there have been 14 cases to date where the complainant has requested that the file be reviewed by the OIPRD, a decrease of 62.2% compared to 37 cases from 2013. With respect to the 14 reviews conducted, the OIPRD has upheld 9 decisions and 5 reviews are ongoing.

If a complainant requests a review of a policy or service complaint he or she can appeal to the police services board.

Time Taken to Conclude Investigated ComplaintsTPS procedures stipulate that complaint investigations shall be completed within 90 days. However, there are provisions for investigations that may take additional time. For all in-vestigated complaints received in 2014, 92% have been concluded to date. Of the concluded investigations, 44.7% were completed within 90 days, an increase from 38.1% in 2013 and comparable to the fi ve-year average of 46.1%. Figure 3.8 compares the time taken to conclude complaints that were received between 2010 and 2014.

Comparison to Other Police ServicesThe OIPRD releases an annual report on the number of external complaints they receive in relation to all Ontario police services. The OIPRD reporting period is April 1 to March 31. Figure 3.9, depicts the information contained in the 2013-2014 OIPRD annual report comparing the TPS to other police services.

Figure 3.8Days to Conclude Investigated Complaints

2010 2011 2012 2013 20140 to 30 days 34 28 38 42 3831 to 60 days 102 98 75 45 3861 to 90 days 92 106 92 44 37

91 to 120 days 94 96 69 74 49121 to 150 days 58 72 44 57 40151 to 180 days 39 48 29 33 18Over 180 days 59 36 48 49 33

Figure 3.9OIPRD Statistics* - Comparison to other Police Services

Number Type of Complaint Total Investigated Total Screened Police Service of Investigated Complaints per Complaints per Conduct Policy Service Complaints OutOfficers 100 Officers 100 OfficersDurham Regional 880 97 0 2 99 43 56 11.3 6.4Hamilton 812 95 3 1 99 47 52 12.2 6.4Niagara Regional 702 95 2 2 99 55 44 14.1 6.3Ottawa 1,311 236 4 9 249 110 139 19.0 10.6Peel Regional 1,918 163 0 2 165 75 90 8.6 4.7Toronto 5,443 687 7 22 716 409 307 13.2 5.6York Regional 1,509 117 1 2 120 62 58 8.0 3.8Total Complaints** 24,308 2,715 30 80 2,825 1,528 1,297 11.6 5.3*Statistics from OIPRD Annual Report April 1, 2013, to March 31, 2014**This number includes all Police Services in Ontario, not just the ones detailed above.


Police Services Act ChargesPart V of the Police Services Act (PSA) outlines the complaints process and defines misconduct. Part V als

annaltor

ious te

ueter

o d . y

r o d s s

defines the responsibilities of the Chief of Police, or designate, with respect to alleged officer misconduct outlines the penalties and resolution options in the event that serious misconduct is proven in a police tribuThe Toronto Police Service (TPS) discipline tribunal is an administrative tribunal that is governed by the StatuPowers Procedures Act of Ontario.

The objectives of police discipline are to correct unacceptable behaviour, deter others from similar behavand, most importantly, maintain public trust. Corporate Risk Management utilizes a case conferencing procesdetermine the appropriate course of discipline for matters. In keeping with the legislation, those matters deemmost serious are made the subject of a public disciplinary hearing in the Service’s tribunal. Conduct issdeemed to be of a less-serious nature may be managed at the unit level. The following data relates to matthat were handled at the tribunal.

Trend Analysis

Officers Charged in 2013In 2014, 36 offi cers were charged by Prosecution Services, a decrease from 37 offi cers charged in 2013 and below the fi ve-year average of 51.2 offi cers. There were also fewer charges laid in 2014 compared to the fi ve-year average. The charge-to-offi cer ratio is comparable to 2013 at 1.9 charges per offi cer in 2014. The charge-to-offi cer ratio continues to remain below the fi ve-year average of 2.0 charges per of-fi cer. Figure 4.1 shows both the number of offi cers charged and the number of charges per offi cer.

Number of Charges Laid per OfficerOf the offi cers charged in 2014, 22 (61.1%) faced a single charge, nine (9) offi cers (25.0%) had two (2) charges laid against them, three (3) offi cers (8.3%) had three (3) charg-es laid against them, one (1) offi cer (2.8%) faced four (4) charges, and one (1) offi cer (2.8%) had fi ve (5) or more charges (Fig. 4.2).

Category of Charges Laid in New CasesIn 2014, a total of 69 PSA charges were laid. Of the charges laid, 40.6% were for discreditable conduct, a decrease from 59.7% in 2013. The percentage of charges of insubordina-tion has increased from 22.4% in 2013 to 30.4% in 2014. Charges in relation to unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority increased from 6.0% in 2013 to 7.2% in 2014.


2010 2011 2012 2013 20145 Year

AverageNumber of Officers 60 64 59 37 36 51.2Total Charges 119 153 105 67 69 102.6Charge/officer ratio 2.0 2.4 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.0

Figure 4.1Officers Charged

Figure 4.2Number of Charges Laid per Officer

Two Charges25.0%

Three One Charge Charges

61.1% 8.3%

Four Charges2.8%

Five or more Charges

2.8%

of 37

Duty Status in New Cases and Precipitating FactorsThe 36 offi cers charged in 2014, resulted in 39 new cases; 28 (71.8%) cases were a result of on-duty incidents, while 11 (28.2%) cases were a result of off-duty incidents. The duty status and precipitating factors of cases initiated in 2014 are detailed in Figure 4.3.

Cases Concluded There were 59 cases concluded in the tribunal in 2014. Of these, eight (8) were commenced in 2014, 24 in 2013, 21 in 2012, and six (6) in 2011.

Disposition In 2014, 54 offi cers had cases concluded in the tribunal. Five (5) offi cers were found guilty (9.3%), 22 offi cers sub-mitted guilty pleas (40.7%), three (3) offi cers had their charges stayed (5.6%), eight (8) offi cers had their charges withdrawn (14.8%), 15 offi cers had their charges dismissed (27.8%), and one (1) offi cer was acquitted (1.9%).

Charges may be withdrawn or stayed by the prosecutor due to the resignation or retirement of the offi cer, as part of a plea agreement, or because the matter was resolved at the unit level. In addition, matters may be withdrawn when there is no reasonable prospect of conviction. Figure 4.4 depicts the disposition of the cases concluded in 2013 and 2014.

Penalties Imposed for PSA ConvictionsOf the 27 offi cers who were found guilty or pled guilty in 2014, there were a total of 29 penalties imposed. In 2014, there were 16 penalties for discreditable conduct, fi ve (5) for insubordination, four (4) for neglect of duty, one (1) for cor-rupt practice, two (2) for unlawful or unnecessary exercise of authority, and one (1) for consuming drugs or alcohol in a manner prejudicial to duty (Figure 4.5).


Figure 4.3Duty Status and Precipitating Factors 2014Other Factors On-duty Off-duty

Affecting Charges # % # %Alcohol/Drugs 0 0.0 6 15.4Assault 1 2.6 3 7.7CPIC Abuse 4 10.3 0 0.0OIPRD Ordered 4 10.3 0 0.0Other PSA Violation 19 48.7 2 5.1Total 28 71.8 11 28.2

Disposition of Officers Charged

2013 2014Disposition

# % # %Acquitted 1 3.1 1 1.9Dismissed 0 0.0 15 27.8Found Guilty 2 6.3 5 9.3Guilty Plea 21 65.6 22 40.7Stayed 4 12.5 3 5.6Withdrawn 4 12.5 8 14.8Total # of Officers 32 100.0 54 100.0

Figure 4.4

Figure 4.5Penalties Imposed for PSA Convictions

Discreditable Conduct1 Officer: Forfeiture of 3 days or 24 hours2 Officers: Forfeiture of 5 days or 40 hours1 Officer: Forfeiture of 7 days or 56 hours1 Officer: Forfeiture of 10 days or 80 hours1 Officer: Forfeiture of 15 days or 120 hours1 Officer: Forfeiture of 18 days or 144 hours4 Officers: Forfeiture of 20 days or 160 hours1 Officer: Forfeiture of 20 days or 160 hours and attend

Supervisor Course 3 Officers: Gradation from 1st to 2nd class PC for 1 year1 Officer: Gradation from 1st to 4th class PC 1 year per class

consecutively until 1st class PC

Insubordination2 Officers: Reprimand1 Officer: Forfeiture of 3 days or 24 hours 1 Officer: Forfeiture of 8 days or 64 hours 1 Officer: Forfeiture of 18 days or 144 hours

Neglect of Duty2 Officers: Reprimand1 Officer: Forfeiture of 10 days or 80 hours1 Officer: Forfeiture of 10 days or 80 hours

Corrupt Practice1 Officer: Dismissal

Unlawful or Unnecessary Exercise of Authority1 Officer: Reprimand1 Officer: Suspended without pay for no less than one day

Consuming Drugs or Alcohol in a Manner Prejudicial to Duty1 Officer: Forfeiture of 10 days or 80 hours

of 37

Use of ForcePolice officers may be required to use force to protect the public and themselves and, as such, are granted au-thority by the Criminal Code to use as much force as is necessary to carry out their duties. Regulations issued by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services specifically address the use of force in the per-formance of policing duties with a focus on ensuring sufficient and appropriate training for all officers. Reporting requirements are aimed at identifying and evaluating training requirements in general or specific to an individual.

The Ontario Use of Force Model The Ontario Use of Force Model depicts the process by which an offi cer assesses, plans, and responds to situa-tions that threaten offi cer and public safety. A copy of this model is appended to Toronto Police Service (TPS) Proce-dure 15-01. The provincial model was developed to assist in the training of offi cers and act as a reference when making decisions about the use of force. It outlines the incident as-sessment process and notes the situation, subject behav-iours, tactical considerations, and offi cer’s perception to be dynamic factors that contribute to the determination of use of force. Assessment of these factors assists in understand-ing why, for example, two offi cers may respond differently in similar situations. Situational factors for consideration may include the envi-ronment, the number of subjects involved, the perceived abilities of the subject, knowledge of the subject, time and distance, and potential attack signs. Subject behaviour may be characterized as co-operative, passively resistant, ac-tively resistant, assaultive, and/or exhibiting actions that may cause serious bodily harm or death. Tactical consider-ations may include the availability of equipment, additional offi cers, cover, communications, and special units, as well as offi cer presence, geographic considerations, practicality of containment, agency policies, and agency guidelines.

Offi cers’ perceptions interact with situational, behavioural, and tactical factors and impact offi cers’ beliefs regarding their ability to respond to the situation. Factors including, but not limited to, strength, overall fi tness, personal experience, skills, fears, gender, fatigue, injuries, critical incident stress symptoms, sight and/or vision, and training are unique to individual offi cers and may impact perceptions of the situ-ation.

These impact factors are integral to situations where force may be required as they shape offi cers’ determinations on force necessity and type. As offi cer safety is an essential factor in the overall goal of public safety, it is intertwined as a signifi cant component of the assessment process de-scribed in the Ontario Use of Force Model. As a result of the close relationship between offi cer and public safety, when reporting uses of force it is common for offi cers to note ‘pro-tect self’ as the primary reason for using force. It should be

noted that members have the responsibility to use only that force which is necessary to bring an incident under control effectively and safely.

Training RequirementsThe Equipment and Use of Force Regulation (Ontario Reg-ulation 926/90) prohibits a member of a police service from using force on another person unless the member has suc-cessfully completed the prescribed training course on the use of force. Use of Force re-qualifi cation is mandatory for every member who uses, or may be required to use, force or carries a weapon. The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services has approved the use of force training courses provided by the TPS. Each member is required to pass a requalifi cation course every 12 months.

ReportingOntario Regulation 926/90 and TPS Procedure 15-01 (Use of Force and Equipment) compel members to submit a Use of Force Report (UFR) to the Chief of Police whenever a member:

• Uses physical force on another person that results in an injury that requires medical attention

• Draws a handgun in the presence of a member of the public, excluding a member of the police force while on duty

• Discharges a fi rearm• Points a fi rearm regardless if the fi rearm is a handgun

or a long gun• Uses a weapon other than a fi rearm on another person

Note: For the purpose of reporting a use of force incident, the defi nition of a weapon includes a police dog or police horse that comes into direct physical contact with a per-son.

Additionally, members are required to submit a UFR and a Conducted Energy Weapon Use report (TPS Form 584) to the Chief of Police when a Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW) is used by the member:

• As a demonstrated force presence• In drive stun mode or full deployment, whether inten-

tionally or otherwise


A Team UFR is restricted to members of the Emergency Task Force (ETF) and the Public Safety Unit (PSU). An inci-dent in which force was actually used, including the demon-strated force presence of a CEW, requires a separate UFR from each individual member involved.

Reports are forwarded to the Toronto Police College and reviewed by the Use of Force analyst to assist in identifying possible equipment or training issues and to further develop the annual use of force requalifi cation program. The reports are then sent to Professional Standards Support and the information is captured in the Professional Standards Infor-mation System for further statistical analysis.

Trend AnalysisThe use of force incidents detailed in this report pertain to TPS members only and includes only those incidents that require the submission of a UFR. This group includes both offi cers and certain civilian members who have received Use of Force training (such as court offi cers). Additional sta-tistical data is located in the Supplementary Data section of this report.

Use of Force Incidents and ReportsIn 2014, 1517 UFRs were submitted, representing 1038 use of force incidents. The number of incidents has decreased 9.7% compared to 2013 and is a decrease of 17.2% when compared to the fi ve-year average. The number of incidents in 2014 is the lowest number of incidents over the last fi ve years. Figure 5.1 compares the number of reports submit-ted and the number of incidents annually from 2010-2014. Further, when considering the total number of use of force incidents relative to arrests made, force was required in 3% of arrests.

Use of Force OptionsThe most frequent use of force option indicated on UFRs in 2014 was pointing a fi rearm, similar to 2013. Physical con-trol tactics remain the second most frequent option, used in 33.6% of incidents compared to 33.5% in 2013. Offi cers are not required to complete a UFR when physical control options (including handcuffi ng a suspect) are the only use of force option used and there are no injuries requiring medical attention. Use of force options employed by offi cers in 2014 are outlined in Figure 5.2, further comparative data is in the Supplementary Data section of this report.

Firearm DischargesIn 2014, 25 offi cers discharged fi rearms in relation to 24 incidents, a decrease compared to 2013, where 41 offi cers discharged fi rearms in relation to 33 incidents.

Firearm discharges in 2014 (Figure 5.3):• 19 incidents of injured/suffering animals• 1 incident of an aggressive animal• 2 incidents involving armed persons (1 in relation to an

edged weapon, 1 in relation to a fi rearm)• 1 incident involving a suspect vehicle• 1 accidental discharge


Figure 5.2Type of Force Used

Type of Force Used 2013 2014Conducted Energy Weapons

Demonstrated Presence 107 118Drive Stun 20 19

Full Deployment 65 68Physical Control

Hard only 99 76Soft only 395 387

Both Hard & Soft 77 47Firearm Discharge - Intentional 41 24Firearm Pointed at Person 1037 917Handgun - Draw n only 211 186Impact Weapons Used

Hard only 36 19Soft only 7 17

Both Hard & Soft 3 1Oleoresin Capsicum Spray 57 32Other Type of Force 7 13Police Dog 7 9

5 Year2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Av.Use of Force 1355 1317 1407 1150 1038 1253Incidents

Figure 5.1 Use of Force Incidents and Reports

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Use of Force 2127 2030 2021 1710 1517 1881Reports

Figure 5.3Incidents of Firearm Discharge

Armed Suspect Vehicle AccidentalPerson 4.2% 4.2%(Firearm)4.2%

Armed Person (Edged

Weapon)4.2%

Aggressive Animal4.2%

Injured/Suffering Animal79.2%

of 37

Conducted Energy WeaponsUniform frontline supervisors, members of the ETF, and su-pervisors in high-risk units such as the Hold-Up Squad, In-telligence, Drug Squad, Organized Crime Enforcement, and the Fugitive Squad carry CEWs.

CEW training continues to be delivered by an instructor certifi ed on the specifi c device approved by the TPS. Ini-tial training for approved members involves a minimum of 12 hours of instruction including theory, practical scenarios, and a practical and written examination. All training is con-ducted in accordance with the guidelines established by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Recertifi cation training takes place at least once every 12 months, in accordance with Ministry guidelines and Ontario Regulation 926 of the Police Services Act.

CEWs were used in 205 use of force incidents in 2014, an increase from 192 incidents in 2013. In more than half (57.6%) of incidents involving CEWs in 2014, the device was used as a ‘demonstrated force presence’ only. Front-line supervisors made up 71.4% of offi cers who used CEWs in 2014.

Reason Force was UsedThe UFR issued by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services permits the selection of multiple rea-sons for the use of force. The Ontario Use of Force Model indicates that offi cer safety is essential to ensuring the pri-mary objective of using force: public safety. However, the Professional Standards Information System in which the UFR statistics are entered, permits the selection of only one reason for the use of force. The data entry process is to enter the fi rst reason selected on the UFR. The order for reasons on the report is as follows: protect self, protect pub-lic, effect arrest, prevent commission of offence, prevent es-cape, accidental, destroy animal, and other. For this reason, ‘protect self’ was selected as the reason for using force in 50.2% and ‘effect arrest’ was selected in a further 36.2% of UFRs submitted in 2014. Figure 5.4 illustrates the reasons for using force in incidents occurring in 2014.

Use of Force by Sub-CommandMembers of Central Field Command submitted 37.8% of UFRs in 2014, comparable to 37.6% in 2013. Members of Area Field Command submitted 28.3% of UFRs in 2014, compared to 30.0% in 2013. Members of Public Safety Op-erations (primarily members of the ETF) submitted 27.8% of UFRs in 2014, compared to 24.3% in 2013 (Figure 5.4).

Officer AssignmentsIn 2014, general patrol was the most common assignment of an offi cer at the time of a use of force incident (52.9%), comparable to the previous year. The second most com-mon duty of an offi cer was classifi ed as tactical (26.1%), the majority of which involve the ETF. Investigations, drug re-lated and other, represented 10.3% of offi cer assignments. Figure 5.6 further illustrates the type of assignments at the time of incident.

Figure 5.4Reason for Use of Force

AccidentalProtect Self 1.2%

50.2%Destroy An

AnimalProtect 1.8%Public5.5% Effect Arrest

36.2%Prevent Escape2.5%

Prevent Commission OtherOf Offence 1.4%

1.2%

Figure 5.5Use of Force by Sub-Command

Central Field

37.8%Area Field

28.3%

Corporate Detective Risk Public Operations

Management Safety 3.2%0.1% Operations Divisional

27.8%Operational Policing Support Support Services Unit

0.7% 2.0%


Figure 5.6Officer Assignment at Time of Incident

2014 # %Directed Patrol 25 1.6

Foot Patrol 34 2.2

General Patrol 802 52.9

Investigation - Drugs 38 2.5

Investigation - Other 119 7.8

Other Type Of Assignment 53 3.5

Paid Duty 9 0.6

PDS/Mounted 9 0.6

Special OPS (eg. G&G,ROPE) 7 0.5

Tactical 396 26.1Traff ic Patrol 25 1.6Total # of Reports 1517 100.0

of 37

Category of IncidentsWarrant-related calls accounted for the largest proportion of use of force incidents in 2014 (25.1%). Weapons calls accounted for the second largest category at 20.3%, com-parable to the previous year (19.6%). Use of force incidents categorized as ‘other’ accounted for 12.3% of those that oc-curred in 2014. This category includes: homicide calls, ad-dress checks, and other types of calls for service.

Number of Subjects Involved per IncidentOf the 1038 incidents that occurred in 2014, 58.2% involved a single subject, while 39.5% involved two or more subjects. Animals are noted as being involved in 2.3% of use of force incidents in 2014 (Figure 5.7).

Perceived Weapons Carried by SubjectOffi cers are trained to complete UFRs identifying what weapons they perceived at the time force was used. In 2014, weapons were perceived to be carried by subjects in 87.6% of incidents, an increased compared to 86.2% in 2013. In 2014, 20.9% of subjects were perceived to be carrying edged weapons, a decrease from 23.4% in 2013. Subjects perceived to be armed with a fi rearm represented 66.2% of subjects in 2014, an increase compared to 60.3% of subjects in 2013. Subjects may be perceived to be car-rying multiple weapons in a single incident. Statistical data concerning categories of incidents and weapons carried by subjects is further detailed in the Supplementary Data sec-tion of this report.

Summary of Injuries Offi cers are required to record any injuries sustained by any party in a use of force incident and whether medical atten-tion was required as a result. Reports submitted for 2014 indicate that citizens were injured in 17.2% of incidents (179 of 1038). Of the 179 incidents where citizens were injured, 83.2% led to medical attention being required.

In 2014, two (2) deaths occurred in relation to incidents that involved force being used, compared to four (4) incidents in 2013. In relation to the two (2) deaths, offi cers were exoner-ated by the SIU in one (1) incident, and one (1) incident is under investigation by the SIU.

Offi cers were injured in 6.9% of use of force incidents in 2014 (72 of 1038), compared to 7.2% of incidents (83 of 1150) in 2013. Offi cers required medical attention in 42 in-cidents in 2014, compared with 44 incidents in 2013, which represents a decrease of 4.5%. Figure 5.8 further illustrates injuries in relation to use of force.

Figure 5.7Number of Subjects per Incident

Animal2.3%

Three Subjects or

more23.0%

One SubjectTwo Subjects 58.2%

16.5%

Figure 5.8Use of Force Injuries

Subject Injuries2013 2014

No Injuries 912 859Injuries 238 179Total Incidents 1150 1038Medical Attention Required 2013 2014No 32 30Yes 206 149Total Injuries 238 179

Officer Injuries2013 2014

No Injuries 1067 966Injuries 83 72Total Incidents 1150 1038Medical Attention Required 2013 2014No 39 30Yes 44 42Total 83 72


Special Investigations UnitThe Ontario Special Investigations Unit (SIU) is a civilian law enforcement agency, independent of the police, with a mandate to maintain confidence in Ontario’s police services by assuring the public that police actions re-sulting in serious injury, death, or allegations of sexual assault are subjected to rigorous, independent investiga-tions. Any incident which may reasonably fall within the mandate of the SIU must be reported to the SIU by the police service involved.

Trend AnalysisIn 2014, the SIU invoked its mandate to investigate 65 inci-dents, compared with 74 incidents in 2013. Of the incidents occurring in 2014, 17 cases were concluded with the subject offi cer(s) being exonerated, the SIU withdrew its mandate in 18 cases, two (2) cases resulted in offi cers being charged criminally, and investigations are ongoing in 28 cases (Fig-ure 6.1). The SIU withdraws its mandate in cases that do not meet the threshold for SIU intervention, such as where the injury was not serious or the actions of the offi cer did not contribute to the injury.

It should be noted that a low proportion of encounters po-lice have with the public result in the SIU mandate being invoked. When comparing the number of SIU investigations to the documented number of community contacts offi cers had in 2014, there was one incident investigated for every 35,231 contacts with members of the public.

The number of custody-related injuries decreased to 34 in 2014, from 50 in 2013. The number of fi rearm related inci-dents has decreased 83.3%, from 12 incidents in 2013 to two (2) in 2014. Further, there was an 80% decrease in the number of fi rearm related deaths, from fi ve (5) deaths in 2013 to one (1) death in 2014. Figure 6.2 below provides a fi ve-year perspective on SIU investigations of TPS offi cers.

The SIU invoked its mandate to investigate six (6) deaths in 2014, compared to seven (7) deaths in 2013. Offi cers were exonerated in relation to three (3) deaths, the SIU withdrew its mandate in relation to one (1) death, and two (2) investi-gations are still ongoing in 2014.

In 2014, only 3.1% of incidents investigated by the SIU re-sulted in offi cers being charged criminally, below the fi ve-year average of 4.3%.


Figure 6.1Number of SIU Investigations

90

802

370

62

60

50 2856 47

4340 46

2

3017

20

2410 21 2016 18

02010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Ongoing

Officer Charged

Officer Exonerated

MandateWithdrawn

Figure 6.2Reasons for SIU Investigations

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014Death Injury Death Injury Death Injury Death Injury Death Injury

Firearm incident 4 2 2 6 3 1 5 7 1 1Vehicle incident 0 2 0 3 1 4 0 4 1 8Custody incident 4 50 7 35 6 51 2 50 4 34Allegation of sexual assault n/a 8 n/a 11 n/a 12 n/a 6 n/a 16Total 8 62 9 55 10 68 7 67 6 59

of 37


Section 11 InvestigationsPursuant to Section 11 of Ontario Regulation 267/10, the Chief of Police conducts an administrative investigation into any incident in which the SIU is involved. The administrative investigation is intended to examine the policies of, and/or services provided, by the police service along with the con-duct of its police offi cers. These reviews are commonly re-ferred to as Section 11 investigations. To carry out these in-vestigations subject matter experts are drawn from various units within the Toronto Police Service, including Homicide, Sex Crimes, Traffi c Services, and Professional Standards.

Comparison to Other Police ServicesThe SIU releases an annual report on the number of inves-tigations where they invoked their mandate in relation to all Ontario police services. The SIU reporting period is April 1 to March 31. Figure 6.3 depicts the information contained in the 2013-2014 SIU Annual Report comparing the TPS to other police services.

Figure 6.3SIU Statistics* - Comparison to other Police Services

Number Firearm Custody Vehicle Sexual Total Cases per Police Service of Assault OtherInjury Death Injury Death Injury Death Investigated 100 OfficersOfficers Complaint

Durham Regional 880 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.1Hamilton 812 0 1 5 2 3 0 1 0 12 1.5Niagara Regional 702 0 0 14 1 1 0 0 0 16 2.3Ottawa 1,311 1 0 5 2 2 2 2 0 14 1.1Peel Regional 1,918 0 1 16 2 3 1 0 0 23 1.2Toronto 5,443 5 4 53 3 4 1 7 0 77 1.4York Regional 1,509 0 0 6 0 1 2 0 0 9 0.6Total Investigated by SIU** 24,308 8 9 200 20 33 11 34 3 318 1.3*Statistics from SIU Annual Report April 1, 2013, to March 31, 2014**This number includes all Police Services in Ontario, not just the ones detailed above.

of 37

Suspect Apprehension PursuitsThe Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services has established detailed guidelines regard-ing police pursuits, including when and how pursuits are to be commenced or continued, supervisory obligations during the pursuit process, and reporting requirements.

Recognizing the inherent risk to both officers and members of the public when pursuits are initiated, the Toronto Police Service (TPS) has undertaken a number of strategies to both reduce the number of pursuits initiated and develop targeted training to enhance safe driving practices.

Ontario Regulation 266/10Legislation governing police pursuits in Ontario is found in Ontario Regulation 266/10, entitled Suspect Apprehension Pursuits. According to the Regulation a suspect apprehen-sion pursuit occurs when a police offi cer attempts to direct the driver of a motor vehicle to stop, the driver refuses to obey the offi cer, and the offi cer pursues in a motor vehicle for the purpose of stopping the fl eeing motor vehicle, or identifying the feeling motor vehicle, or an individual in the fl eeing motor vehicle.

The Regulation allows an offi cer to pursue, or continue to pursue, a fl eeing vehicle that fails to stop if the offi cer has reason to believe that a criminal offence has been commit-ted, or is about to be committed, or for the purposes of mo-tor vehicle identifi cation, or the identifi cation of an individual in the vehicle.

The Regulation further requires that each police service es-tablish written procedures on the management and control of suspect apprehension pursuits. TPS Procedure 15-10 (Suspect Apprehension Pursuits) was specifically amended to address this requirement. The Regulation also directs ev-ery officer who initiates a pursuit to complete a provincial Fail to Stop Report. The report provides a comprehensive description of the pursuit, including the reasons for and the results of the pursuit, charge information, and the environ-mental conditions prevailing at the time of the pursuit.

Pursuit Reduction Initiatives

Driving Simulator TrainingIn December 2013, the TPS purchased a driving simulator. A new police driving course was also developed combining Suspect Apprehension Pursuits (SAP) with a cooperative driving system, customized simulation exercises and practi-cal in-vehicle training to specifi cally meet the needs of the TPS. The result is a safe driving program designed to rein-force appropriate driving behaviours consistent with legisla-tive requirements and TPS procedures.

In 2014, the new course, Safe Skills and Emergency Driv-ing, was delivered to 468 front-line offi cers and to all new recruits prior to their deployment. The TPS uses the driv-ing simulator to enhance the delivery of driving and SAP training to front-line offi cers, making the TPS a leader within Ontario in this type of training.

Suspect Apprehension Pursuit (SAP) TrainingSAP training is a mandatory requirement for any offi cer who may engage in a pursuit. Police Vehicle Operations (PVO) provides training accredited by the Ministry of Communi-ty Safety and Correctional Services for front line offi cers, supervisors, and civilian communications personnel. The training ensures members are knowledgeable with provin-cial legislation and TPS procedure, identifying risks associ-ated with pursuits, and instruction on alternative strategies. SAP training is incorporated into all emergency vehicle driv-ing instructions.


Trend Analysis

Number of PursuitsIn 2014, 125 Fail to Stop Reports were submitted, repre-senting an 8.7% increase from 2013 and a 9.3% decrease from the fi ve-year average. Of the reports submitted in 2014, 93.6% (117) resulted in the initiation of a pursuit, which is comparable to the fi ve-year average of 93.2% (Figure 7.1).

Reasons for Initiating PursuitsOf the 117 pursuits initiated in 2014, 55.6% resulted from the commission of Criminal Code offences. Within the Crim-inal Code category, the majority of pursuits were initiated as a result of the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle or stolen vehicles. Pursuing a stolen vehicle has remained a top reason for initiating a pursuit under the Criminal Code. In 2014, there were 22 pursuits for stolen vehicles, compa-rable to the fi ve-year average of 20.6 pursuits. This high-lights why the TPS continues to deliver SAP training on an ongoing basis to reinforce, at every opportunity, the poten-tial risks and unique challenges associated with engaging in pursuits of stolen vehicles.

Of the pursuits initiated in 2014, 42.7% resulted from the commission of offences under the Highway Traffi c Act (HTA). This represents an increase from 2013 (40.5%) and is be-low the fi ve-year average (44.5%). Within the HTA category, the most common reason for initiating a pursuit was in rela-tion to moving violations, representing 29.9% of all pursuits initiated in 2014. Moving violations have consistently been the most common reason for initiating a non-criminal pursuit over the last fi ve years, representing 28.9% of all pursuits.

Miscellaneous circumstances, including reports from the public and suspicious vehicles, accounted for 1.7% of pur-suits initiated, as indicated in Figure 7.2.

Years of Service In 2014, TPS offi cers with 6 to 10 years of service initiated the majority of pursuits (37.6%). Offi cers with 1 to 5 years of service represented the second highest category for pur-suits initiated (23.9%). This is in part due to the fact that offi cers with 1 to 10 years of service are primarily deployed to uniform policing duties. Figure 7.3 illustrates the years of service of subject offi cers involved in pursuits.

Results of Initiated PursuitsThere was an increase in the percentage of pursuits discon-tinued by the initiating offi cer in 2014, from 43.2% of pur-suits initiated in 2013 to 52.1% in 2014. When compared to the fi ve-year average, pursuits discontinued by the initiating offi cer increased by 11.2% in 2014. This increase is in keep-ing with the technological and training enhancements the TPS has made to assist offi cers in this regard. The desig-nated pursuit supervisor terminated 11.1% of pursuits initi-ated in 2014, compared to the fi ve-year average of 17.4% of pursuits.

Professional Standards Annual Report 2011 27

Figure 7.1Fail to Stop Reports and Pursuits

Initiated180160140120100

80604020

02010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Fail to Stop Report Pursuit Initiated

Figure 7.2Pursuit Initiation Reasons

100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%

0%2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Criminal Code Highway Traffic Act Miscellaneous

Figure 7.3Years of Service of Initiating Officer

40%35%30%25%20%15%10%

5%0%

<1 year 1 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 20 21 to 25 >25years years years years years years

Initiating Officer Percentage within TPS workforce

of 37

In 2.6% of pursuits in 2014, offi cers were able to stop sus-pect vehicles using specifi c techniques (e.g. rolling block, intentional contact, etc.), which is below the fi ve-year aver-age of 4.8%. In 23.1% of pursuits initiated in 2014, the ve-hicle was stopped by the driver, comparable to the fi ve-year average of 23.9% of pursuits. Pursuit results are indicated in Figure 7.4.

Collisions and Pursuit Related InjuriesIn 2014, 13 pursuits resulted in collisions, representing 11.1% of all pursuits initiated. Of the 117 pursuits last year, nine (7.7%) resulted in injuries with a total of 10 individu-als injured: six (6) individuals in the pursued vehicle, three (3) individuals in police vehicles, and one (1) individual in a third party vehicle. The 10 injuries in 2014 is a decrease from 12 injuries in 2013 and is below the fi ve-year average of 12.2 injuries per year (Figure 7.5).

Charges Laid in Initiated PursuitsIn 2014, 43 pursuits resulted in charges being laid in relation to offences under the Criminal Code, the HTA, and/or other statutes compared to 44 pursuits in 2013.

The 43 pursuits in 2014 resulted in 45 people being charged with Criminal Code offences and 21 people with HTA of-fences, compared to 46 and 24 respectively in 2013.

In total, 198 combined Criminal Code and HTA charges were laid in 2014, representing a decrease from 247 charg-es in 2013. Criminal Code charges constituted the majority of those laid in 2014 (69.2%).


Figure 7.4Pursuit Results

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Vehicle Stopped byDriver

Vehicle Stopped byPolice

Vehicle in CollisionSubsequent to Pursuit

Vehicle in CollisionDuring Pursuit

Pursuit Discontinuedby Supervisor

Pursuit Discontinuedby Officer

Figure 7.5Pursuit Related Injuries

10

8

6

4

2

02010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Pursued Vehicle Police Vehicle

Third Party Vehicle Pedestrian

Fatality

of 37

Supplementary Data


Public ComplaintsClassification of Complaints

Complaints - Investigated 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014G20 Related 262 13 0 0 0Conduct-Less Serious 394 388 225 222 185Conduct-Serious 67 80 158 102 63Policy 3 6 4 2 2Service 15 11 9 21 25Number and Percentage of Complaints (Investigated)

479 485 396 347 27555.1% 58.4% 51.7% 47.8% 46.0%

Complaints - Not Investigated 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014G20 Related 14 6 1 0 0Complaint Over Six Months 67 39 40 51 19Frivolous 243 132 69 65 42Made In Bad Faith 0 0 1 0 0No Jurisdiction 35 131 177 81 53Not Directly Affected 34 6 22 10 2Not in the Public Interest 1 30 60 163 198Not Signed 1 0 0 0 0Vexatious 7 5 0 4 2Withdrawn 3 3 1 5 7Number and Percentage of Complaints (Not Investigated)

391 346 370 379 32344.9% 41.6% 48.3% 52.2% 54.0%

Total Number of Public Complaints 870 831 766 726 5985 Year Average 758

Alleged Misconduct - Investigated Complaints2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

# % # % # % # % # %Breach of Confidence 0 0.0 1 0.2 1 0.3 1 0.3 1 0.4Corrupt Practice 1 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0Deceit 0 0.0 3 0.6 0 0.0 2 0.6 0 0.0Discreditable Conduct 281 58.7 282 58.1 261 65.9 203 58.5 161 58.5Insubordination 4 0.8 6 1.2 2 0.5 4 1.2 1 0.4Neglect of Duty 20 4.2 42 8.7 24 6.1 23 6.6 21 7.6Unlawful or Unnecessary 155 32.4 133 27.4 94 23.7 91 26.2 64 23.3Policy/Service 18 3.8 17 3.5 13 3.3 23 6.6 27 9.8Total 479 100 485 100 396 100 347 100.0 275 100

Number of Days to Conclude Investigated Complaint Investigations2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

# % # % # % # % # %0 to 30 days 34 7.1 28 5.8 38 9.6 42 12.2 38 15.031 to 60 days 102 21.3 98 20.2 75 19.0 45 13.1 38 15.061 to 90 days 92 19.2 106 21.9 92 23.3 44 12.8 37 14.6

91 to 120 days 94 19.7 96 19.8 69 17.5 74 21.5 49 19.4121 to 150 days 58 12.1 72 14.9 44 11.1 57 16.6 40 15.8151 to 180 days 39 8.2 48 9.9 29 7.3 33 9.6 18 7.1Over 180 days 59 12.3 36 7.4 48 12.2 49 14.2 33 13.0

Total 478 100 484 100 395 100 344 100 253 100 of 37


Top Three Sub-Classifications of Alleged Misconduct2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

# % # % # % # % # %Discreditable ConductDiscrimination 23 8.2 4 1.4 4 1.5 5 2.5 9 5.6Profane language re: individuality 4 1.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 1.5 0 0.0Profane language re: another Service member 1 0.4 1 0.4 0 0.0 1 0.5 0 0.0Incivility 50 17.8 34 12.1 52 19.9 39 19.2 22 13.7Makes false statement against Service member 4 1.4 1 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Assault Service member 3 1.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Contravene PSA 1 0.4 0 0.0 39 14.9 8 3.9 1 0.6Acts in a disorderly manner 195 69.4 242 85.8 166 63.6 147 72.4 129 80.1

Total 281 100.0 282 100.0 261 100.0 203 100.0 161 100.0Neglect of DutyNeglects to perform a duty 12 60.0 41 97.6 22 91.7 22 95.7 20 95.2Fails to comply with provisions (SIU) 2 10.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 4.8Fails to report offender 3 15.0 1 2.4 1 4.2 0 0.0 0 0.0Fails to report matter 1 5.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Omits to make entry in a record 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 4.3 0 0.0Absent without leave or late for duty 2 10.0 0 0.0 1 4.2 0 0.0 0 0.0

Total 20 100.0 42 100.0 24 100.0 23 100.0 21 100.0Unlawful/Unnecessary Exercise of AuthorityUnlawful/unnecessay arrest 43 27.7 35 26.3 40 42.6 11 12.1 19 29.7Unnecessary force 112 72.3 98 73.7 54 57.4 80 87.9 45 70.3

Total 155 100.0 133 100.0 94 100.0 91 100.0 64 100.0

Disposition - Investigated Complaints2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

# % # % # % # % # %Frivolous 1 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Informal Resolution 98 20.5 84 17.3 88 22.2 73 21.0 64 23.3Misconduct Identified 15 3.1 14 2.9 12 3.0 15 4.3 10 3.6No Further Action Required 9 1.9 9 1.9 2 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.0No Jurisdiction 1 0.2 3 0.6 2 0.5 1 0.3 1 0.4Policy/service - Action Taken 1 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.3 3 0.9 0 0.0Policy/service-No Action Taken 12 2.5 3 0.6 0 0.0 8 2.3 10 3.6Unsubstantiated 276 57.6 290 59.8 215 54.3 180 51.9 119 43.3Withdrawn 65 13.6 80 16.5 75 18.9 64 18.4 49 17.8Investigation not Concluded* 1 0.2 1 0.2 1 0.3 3 0.9 22 8.0Total 479 100.0 485 100.0 396 100.0 347 100.0 275 100.0*Number is anticipated to decrease as complaints are concluded, this w ill effect the f inal dispositions.

of 37


Investigated Complaints by Unit2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

# % # % # % # % # %11 Division 17 3.5 18 3.7 14 3.5 13 3.7 13 4.712 Division 14 2.9 22 4.5 17 4.3 16 4.6 10 3.613 Division 15 3.1 17 3.5 12 3.0 7 2.0 9 3.314 Division 39 8.1 41 8.5 29 7.3 33 9.5 12 4.422 Division 30 6.3 20 4.1 28 7.1 15 4.3 14 5.123 Division 19 4.0 23 4.7 12 3.0 13 3.7 16 5.831 Division 31 6.5 33 6.8 27 6.8 20 5.8 5 1.832 Division 12 2.5 17 3.5 15 3.8 13 3.7 10 3.633 Division 15 3.1 16 3.3 10 2.5 12 3.5 4 1.541 Division 21 4.4 19 3.9 13 3.3 7 2.0 9 3.342 Division 17 3.5 22 4.5 13 3.3 13 3.7 7 2.543 Division 36 7.5 18 3.7 16 4.0 15 4.3 9 3.351 Division 33 6.9 41 8.5 32 8.1 30 8.6 19 6.952 Division 41 8.6 36 7.4 30 7.6 21 6.1 19 6.953 Division 12 2.5 17 3.5 9 2.3 13 3.7 15 5.554 Division 17 3.5 15 3.1 13 3.3 4 1.2 7 2.555 Division 18 3.8 13 2.7 19 4.8 14 4.0 8 2.9Communications Services 2 0.4 3 0.6 3 0.8 2 0.6 3 1.1Community Mobilzation 0 0.0 1 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Corporate Risk Management 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0DPSU - Transit Patrol N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4 1.5DPSU - TAVIS 21 4.4 22 4.5 10 2.5 6 1.7 6 2.2Drug Squad 9 1.9 8 1.6 2 0.5 3 0.9 2 0.7Emergency Task Force 3 0.6 5 1.0 2 0.5 0 0.0 3 1.1Employment Unit 1 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 0 0.0Financial Crimes Unit 1 0.2 2 0.4 3 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0Governance 1 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Hold Up 1 0.2 1 0.2 0 0.0 2 0.6 3 1.1Homicide 0 0.0 2 0.4 1 0.3 2 0.6 1 0.4Human Resources 1 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Integrated Gun & Gang Task Force 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 1.5Intelligence Services 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.6 0 0.0Marine 2 0.4 0 0.0 2 0.5 2 0.6 0 0.0Mounted 0 0.0 1 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.7Not Applicable/Not Identified 15 3.1 15 3.1 35 8.8 39 11.2 38 13.8Organized Crime Enforcement 7 1.5 4 0.8 6 1.5 4 1.2 0 0.0Parking Enforcement 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 0 0.0 1 0.4Police Dog Services 1 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.7Professional Standards 0 0.0 1 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.4Provincial ROPE, Bail & Parole, and Fugitive Squad 0 0.0 2 0.4 0 0.0 1 0.3 1 0.4

Public Safety 1 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Records Management Services 3 0.6 0 0.0 1 0.3 3 0.9 2 0.7Risk Management Unit 0 0.0 1 0.2 2 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.0Sex Crimes Unit 1 0.2 6 1.2 1 0.3 0 0.0 1 0.4Toronto Police Operations Centre N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 0.4Toronto Police College 1 0.2 1 0.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Traffic Services 21 4.4 22 4.5 17 4.3 21 6.1 14 5.1

Total 479 100 485 100 396 100 347 100 275 100 of 37


Use of ForceUse of Force Options Employed

Type of Force Used2013 2014

# % # %Conducted Energy Weapons

Demonstrated Presence 107 6.3 118 7.8Drive Stun 20 1.2 19 1.3

Full Deployment 65 3.8 68 4.5Physical Control

Hard only 99 5.8 76 5.0Soft only 395 23.2 387 25.5

Both Hard & Soft 77 4.5 47 3.1Firearm Discharge - Intentional 41 2.4 24 1.6Firearm Pointed at Person 1037 60.8 917 60.4Handgun - Drawn only 211 12.4 186 12.3Impact Weapons Used

Hard only 36 2.1 19 1.3Soft only 7 0.4 17 1.1

Both Hard & Soft 3 0.2 1 0.1Oleoresin Capsicum Spray 57 3.3 32 2.1Other Type of Force 7 0.4 13 0.9Police Dog 7 0.4 9 0.6

Total Use of Force Reports 2013 20141706 1517

Note: An officer may employ multiple force options in a single use of force incident. As such, the total number of force options used may exceed the total number of use of force incidents in a year. This chart reflects the percentage of time a force option is used in total annual use of force reports. For example, in 2014, Conducted Energy Weapons were used 118 times as a demonstrated presence within the 1517 use of force reports (7.8% of reports).

Initial Reason for Use of Force

Initial Reason for Use of Force2013 2014

# % # %Accidental 4 0.3% 12 1.2%Destroy An Animal 20 1.7% 19 1.8%Effect Arrest 417 36.3% 376 36.2%Other 18 1.6% 15 1.4%Prevent Commission Of Offence 15 1.3% 12 1.2%Prevent Escape 20 1.7% 26 2.5%Protect Public 64 5.6% 57 5.5%Protect Self 592 51.5% 521 50.2%Total # of Incidents 1150 100.0% 1038 100.0%

of 37


Officer Duties at Time of Incident2013 2014

# % # %Directed Patrol 29 1.7% 25 1.6%Foot Patrol 60 3.5% 34 2.2%Crowd Control 4 0.2% 0 0.0%General Patrol 906 53.1% 802 52.9%Investigation - Drugs 61 3.6% 38 2.5%Investigation - Other 135 7.9% 119 7.8%Off-Duty 0 0.0% 0 0.0%Other Type Of Assignment 66 3.9% 53 3.5%Paid Duty 8 0.5% 9 0.6%PDS/Mounted 7 0.4% 9 0.6%Special OPS (eg. G&G,ROPE) 16 0.9% 7 0.5%Tactical 375 22.0% 396 26.1%Traffic Patrol 39 2.3% 25 1.6%Total # of Reports 1706 100.0% 1517 100.0%

Category of Incidents Where Force Used

Type of Incident 2013 2014# % # %

Animal Related 18 1.6 21 2.0Arrest/Prisoner Related 11 1.0 23 2.2Assault/Serious Injury 59 5.1 36 3.5Break And Enter 35 3.0 27 2.6Domestic Disturbance 40 3.5 39 3.8Drug Related 29 2.5 22 2.1EDP 84 7.3 86 8.3Pursuit 16 1.4 7 0.7Robbery Call 46 4.0 69 6.6Search Warrant/Warrant Related 306 26.6 261 25.1Stolen Vehicle 23 2.0 21 2.0Suspicious Person Call 15 1.3 19 1.8Traffic Stop 26 2.3 35 3.4Unknown Trouble Call 29 2.5 18 1.7Wanted Person 30 2.6 15 1.4Weapons Call 225 19.6 211 20.3Other 158 13.7 128 12.3Total # of Incidents 1150 100.0 1038 100.0

of 37


Perceived Weapons Carried by Subject

Type of Weapon2013 2014

# % # %Animal - No Weapon 8 0.7 2 0.2Baseball Bat/Club 42 3.7 18 1.7Bottle 5 0.4 5 0.5Knife/Edged Weapon 269 23.4 217 20.9Firearms

Handgun 103 9.0 170 16.4Rifle 23 2.0 24 2.3Semi-Automatic 497 43.2 449 43.3Shotgun 30 2.6 18 1.7Other-Firearm 41 3.6 26 2.5

None 158 13.7 129 12.4Other 49 4.3 38 3.7Unknown 572 49.7 603 58.1

Total Use of Force Incidents 2013 20141150 1038

Note: A single use of force incident may involve multiple subjects with multiple weap-ons. As such, the total number of perceived weapons carried by subjects may ex-ceed the total number of use of force incidents in a year. This chart reflects the percentage of time a perceived weapon is involved in total annual use of force inci-dents. For example, in 2014, a bottle was involved five times in the 1038 incidents (0.5% of incidents).

of 37


Suspect Apprehension Pursuits

Pursuit Initiation Reason2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

# % # % # % # % # %Criminal Code

Break and Enter 5 3.3 3 2.3 5 3.9 2 1.8 2 1.7Dangerous Operation 23 15.0 16 12.1 21 16.3 22 19.8 21 17.9Impaired Operation 10 6.5 2 1.5 4 3.1 8 7.2 6 5.1Other 17 11.1 10 7.6 9 7.0 14 12.6 13 11.1Prohibited Operation 1 0.7 1 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Robbery 5 3.3 3 2.3 5 3.9 2 1.8 1 0.9Stolen Vehicle 24 15.7 20 15.2 23 17.8 14 12.6 22 18.8

Sub-total 85 55.6 55 41.7 67 51.9 62 55.9 65 55.6Highway Traffic Act

Equipment Violation 13 8.5 6 4.5 10 7.8 11 9.9 6 5.1Moving Violation 38 24.8 53 40.2 42 32.6 19 17.1 35 29.9Other 7 4.6 8 6.1 5 3.9 14 12.6 5 4.3R.I.D.E. 1 0.7 1 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0Suspended Driver 5 3.3 2 1.5 0 0.0 1 0.9 4 3.4

Sub-total 64 41.8 70 53.0 57 44.2 45 40.5 50 42.7MiscellaneousOther 2 1.3 5 3.8 3 2.3 1 0.9 0 0.0Report from Public 1 0.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.9 0 0.0Suspicious Vehicle 1 0.7 2 1.5 2 1.6 2 1.8 2 1.7

Sub-total 4 2.6 7 5.3 5 3.9 4 3.6 2 1.7Total 153 100.0 132 100.0 129 100.0 111 100.0 117 100.0

of 37

Glossary of TermsCivil Litigation DefinitionsCharter of Rights Violations: The breach of a right that is afforded under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

False arrest:An arrest made without proper legal authority.

Malicious Prosecution:To succeed in a claim for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must establish: 1) That the defendant initiated the proceedings 2) That the proceedings terminated in favor of the plaintiff 3) The absence of reasonable and probable cause, and 4) Malice, or a primary purpose other than that of carrying the law into effect. Misfeasance in Public Offi ce:The elements that must be established include: 1) Deliberate and unlawful conduct in the exercise of public functions, and 2) Awareness that the conduct is unlawful and likely to injure the plaintiff. A plaintiff must also prove that the conduct was the legal cause of his or her injuries, and that the injuries suffered are compensable in tort law.

Negligent Investigations:To succeed in a claim for negligent investigation, a plaintiff must establish that: 1) The investigating offi cers owed the plaintiff a duty of care 2) The investigating offi cers failed to meet the standard of care 3) the plaintiff suffered compensable damage, and 4) The damage was caused by the investigating offi cers’ negligent act or omission.

Excessive Use of Force:A police offi cer has the right to use as much force as reasonably necessary to carry out his or her law enforcement duties. Excessive use of force would be any use of force that is more than reasonably necessary in the circumstances.

Police Services Act DefinitionsDiscreditable Conduct 2(1)(a)(i) Fails to treat or protect a person equally without discrimination. 2(1)(a)(ii) Uses profane, abusive or insulting language that relates to a person’s individuality. 2(1)(a)(iii) Is guilty of oppressive or tyrannical conduct towards an inferior in rank. 2(1)(a)(iv) Uses profane, abusive or insulting language to any other member of the Service. 2(1)(a)(v) Uses profane, abusive or insulting language or is otherwise uncivil to a member of the public. 2(1)(a)(vi) Wilfully or negligently makes any false complaint or statement against any member of the Service. 2(1)(a)(vii) Assaults any other member of the Service. 2(1)(a)(viii) Withholds or suppresses a complaint or report against a member of the Service or about the poli cies of, or services provided by, the Service. 2(1)(a)(ix) Accused, charged or found guilty of an indictable criminal offence or criminal offence punishable upon summary conviction. 2(1)(a)(x) Contravenes any provision of the Act or the regulations. 2(1)(a)(xi) Acts in a disorderly manner or in a manner prejudicial to discipline or likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the Service.Neglect of Duty 2(1)(c)(i) Without lawful excuse, neglects or omits promptly and diligently to perform a duty as a member of the Police Service. 2(1)(c)(ii) Fails to comply with any provision of Ontario Regulation 267/10 (Conduct and Duties of Police Offi cers Investigations by the Special Investigations Unit). 2(1)(c)(iii) Fails to work in accordance with orders, or leaves an area, detachment, detail or other place of duty, without due permission or suffi cient cause. 2(1)(c)(iv) By carelessness or neglect permits a prisoner to escape. 2(1)(c)(v) Fails, when knowing where an offender is to be found, to report him or her or to make due exertions for bringing the offender to justice.36 Corporate Risk Management Annual Report 2014

of 37

2(1)(c)(vi) Fails to report a matter that is his or her duty to report. 2(1)(c)(vii) Fails to report anything that he or she knows concerning a criminal or other charge, or fails to disclose any evidence that he or she, or any person within his or her knowledge, can give for or against any prisoner or defendant. 2(1)(c)(viii) Omits to make any necessary entry in a record. 2(1)(c)(ix) Feigns or exaggerates sickness or injury to evade duty. 2(1)(c)(x) Is absent without leave from or late for any duty, without reasonable excuse. 2(1)(c)(xi) Is improperly dressed, dirty or untidy in person, clothing or equipment while on duty.

Unlawful or Unnecessary Exercise of Authority 2(1)(g)(i) Without good and suffi cient cause makes an unlawful or unnecessary arrest. 2(1)(g)(ii) Uses any unnecessary force against a prisoner or other person contacted in the execution of duty.

Use of Force DefinitionsDemonstrated Force Presence (Conducted Energy Weapon [CEW]):The CEW is utilized as a demonstration only and does not make contact with the subject. The CEW may be un-holstered, pointed in the presence of the subject, sparked as a demonstration, and/or have its laser sighting system activated.

Drive Stun Mode (CEW):The CEW is utilized by direct contact with the subject and the current applied; the probes are not fi red.

Full Deployment (CEW):The CEW is utilized by discharging the probes at a subject and the electrical pulse applied.
