Conduct Hearings

NOTICE OF HEARING

LPS Hearing No. 2026.001

Original hearing on April 9, 2026 at 9 a.m. was adjourned until May 14, 2026, commencing at 9 a.m.

Purpose of Hearing: First Appearance

Location: This hearing will be conducted in virtual/remote format via an electronic link. The link will be made available to interested parties and members of the public once it is established.

Misconduct Alleged against One (1) Cited Officer 

Count 1:

Discreditable conduct, contrary to s. 5(1)(e) of the Police Service Regulation, as defined in s. 5(2)(e)(viii) of the Police Service Regulation – doing anything prejudicial to discipline or likely to bring discredit on the reputation of the police service;

Count 2:

Discreditable conduct, contrary to s. 5(1)(e) of the Police Service Regulation, as defined in s. 5(2)(e)(viii) of the Police Service Regulation – doing anything prejudicial to discipline or likely to bring discredit on the reputation of the police service;

Count 3:

Discreditable conduct, contrary to s. 5(1)(e) of the Police Service Regulation, as defined in s. 5(2)(e)(viii) of the Police Service Regulation – doing anything prejudicial to discipline or likely to bring discredit on the reputation of the police service;

Count 4:

Insubordination, contrary to s. 5(1)(g) of the Police Service Regulation, as defined in s. 5(2)(g)(ii) of the Police Service Regulation – omitting or neglecting, without adequate reason, to carry out a lawful order, directive, rule or policy of the commission, the chief of police or other person who has the authority to issue or make that order, directive, rule or policy;

Count 5:

Discreditable conduct, contrary to s. 5(1)(e) of the Police Service Regulation, as defined in s. 5(2)(e)(iii) of the Police Service Regulation – using profane, abusive or insulting language to any member of a police service or to any member of the general public;

Count 6:

Discreditable conduct, contrary to s. 5(1)(e) of the Police Service Regulation, as defined in s. 5(2)(e)(viii) of the Police Service Regulation – doing anything prejudicial to discipline or likely to bring discredit on the reputation of the police service;

Count 7:

Insubordination, contrary to s. 5(1)(g) of the Police Service Regulation, as defined in s. 5(2)(g)(ii) of the Police Service Regulation – omitting or neglecting, without adequate reason, to carry out a lawful order, directive, rule or policy of the commission, the chief of police or other person who has the authority to issue or make that order, directive, rule or policy;

Count 8:

Neglect of duty, contrary to s. 5(1)(h) of the Police Service Regulation, as defined in s. 5(2)(h)(i) of the Police Service Regulation – neglecting, without lawful excuse, to promptly and diligently perform his duties as a police officer;

Count 9:

Discreditable conduct, contrary to s. 5(1)(e) of the Police Service Regulation, as defined in s. 5(2)(e)(viii) of the Police Service Regulation – doing anything prejudicial to discipline or likely to bring discredit on the reputation of the police service;

Count 10:

Insubordination, contrary to s. 5(1)(g) of the Police Service Regulation, as defined in s. 5(2)(g)(ii) of the Police Service Regulation – omitting or neglecting, without adequate reason, to carry out a lawful order, directive, rule or policy of the commission, the chief of police or other person who has the authority to issue or make that order, directive, rule or policy.

None

HEARING DECISION

Two Cited Officers (out of five originally charged) admitted and thereby were found Guilty by the Presiding Officer of the following charges of misconduct:

• Count 2:  That you engaged in discreditable conduct, contrary to s. 5(1)(e) of the Police Service Regulation, as defined by section 5(2)(e)(iii) of the Police Service Regulation, by using profane, abusive or insulting language to any member of a police service or to any member of the general public;
  
  
• Count 3:That you committed insubordination, contrary to s. 5(1)(g) of the Police Service Regulation, as defined by s. 5(2)(g)(i) of the Police Service Regulation, by being insubordinate to a superior officer by word or action;
  
  
• Count 5:That you committed neglect of duty, contrary to s. 5(1)(h) of the Police Service Regulation, as defined by s. 5(2)(h)(v) of the Police Service Regulation, by failing to report a matter that it was your duty to report.
  
  
• Count 6:That you engaged in discreditable conduct, contrary to s. 5(1)(e) of the Police Service Regulation, as defined by section 5(2)(e)(vi) of the Police Service Regulation, by abetting or knowingly being an accessory to a contravention of section 5 of the Police Service Regulation by another peace officer;
  
  
• (Original counts 1 and 4 were withdrawn)

and the following sanction imposed:

• For each officer, the Presiding Officer imposed a sanction of demotion of two grades, from Senior Constable, Level 2, to First Class Constable for a period of one year.

and accordingly, the hearing was concluded on that basis.

Appeal:

The Complainant appealed the Presiding Officer’s decision regarding the sanction imposed on the officers to the Law Enforcement Review Board (LERB). The Complainant had raised a number of grounds for his appeal, but most of them were dismissed by the Board as being frivolous. The LERB allowed the appeal to proceed but considered only the single question of whether the sanction imposed on the officers was reasonable.

The LERB issued its decision in this matter on November 17, 2025, and dismissed the Complainant’s appeal entirely – the original sanction imposed by the Presiding Officer stands unchanged, having been found by the Board to be reasonable.