Examining Corruption in Toronto Police: Is the Cure Effective?

Sometimes, the cure can be worse than the disease.

A case in point is the handling by the Toronto Police Services Board, the Toronto Police Service and the Ontario Inspector General of Police of the recent reports of corruption and other wrongdoing by members of the Toronto Police Service. The story, which broke on February 4, is potentially a big one to hit Canada’s largest municipal police service. It is arguably comparable to the allegations of widespread corruption in the Drug Squad in the late 1990s-early 2000s, use of excessive force and illegal conduct during the policing of the G20 summit in 2010, and the serial murders of members of Toronto LGBTQ community by Bruce McArthur between 2010 and 2017.

All three had resulted in independent examinations to identify wrongdoers, lapses in timely response and effective investigation, and systemic failures related to policies, procedures, training, supervision, monitoring and accountability.

The situation today arises from criminal charges being laid against seven police officers, one civilian member and one retired officer of the Toronto Police Service who are alleged to have been involved in corrupt practices by the city’s towing truck industry, conspiracy to kill a unit commander of the Toronto South Detention Centre, leaking confidential information, and illegal use of police database. To make matters worse, organized crime is said to have been involved as well.

In fact, in June last year, Toronto police chief, Myron Demkiw, had set up a task force to investigate the rise in gun violence in the towing truck industry due to its nexus with organized crime. York Region Police Service had been brought in to investigate the allegations of criminal conduct of Toronto Police Service’s present and former members suspected of complicity.

News of the charges being laid became public on February 5. On the same day, the Toronto Police Services Board jointly with the police chief approached the province’s Inspector General of Police, Ryan Teschner, to undertake “an independent and comprehensive inspection” of policing in Toronto. The board and the chief identified “supervision and span of control; recruitment screening and ongoing vetting; access to police databases and information systems; evidence and property management practices; and substance use and fitness for duty” as the areas for inspection.

In calling so promptly for the Inspector General’s intervention, the board and the chief had acted with impressive alacrity to control damage to reputation and loss of public faith. However, I am concerned whether the criminal investigation by York Region Police Service and a systemic inspection by the Inspector General will satisfy the public.

The Toronto police is actively participating in the criminal investigation by York Region police. Chief Demkiw appeared at a recent press conference jointly with the York Region brass. Chief Demkiw’s presence at the press conference and the police service’s presence in the York Region police criminal investigation compromise the perception of independence fundamentally. It is not sufficient for him to say that his role is only to support the investigation. That can be done without being directly involved in the day-to-day tasks or decision-making. Toronto police have to stay completely out of the criminal investigation.

Further, I have concerns with both the fact that the Inspector General was approached jointly by the board and the police chief, and the scope of the inspection announced by the Inspector General. They make me sceptical that this will be truly “independent and comprehensive.”

First, the scope of the inspection as requested includes matters that are largely operational, involving the day-to-day management of the police service. This is strictly the responsibility of the police chief, who answers to the board for effective performance. By making the request to the Inspector General with the chief, the board appears to be giving Chief Demkiw a clean chit too quickly, implicitly absolving him of responsibility for any deficiencies in his handling and direction of the operational areas included in the request for inspection.

I have been asked if Chief Demkiw should resign or be dismissed. My answer has been to say that the board must first satisfy itself that the chief’s day-to-day management of the organization has been effective and no responsibility for any failure rests with him. Only then the board – or he – can make an informed decision. By approaching the Inspector General jointly with Chief Demkiw, the board has pre-judged the performance of its key employee charged with running the police service.

Second, the decision to rush to Ryan Teschner is a cause for concern. I have known Teschner for a long time; he is bright, he knows police governance very well, and his professional progress, which has been impressive, testifies to his political acumen.

However, there is an appearance of conflict from the fact that Teschner served as the Executive Director of the Toronto Police Services Board for several years before assuming his current job and enjoyed a warm relationship with Chief Demkiw. He is the only police board executive director I know in Canada to be saluted by the police chief when stepping down from his position.

How will this history affect Ryan Teschner’s judgement as the Inspector General in setting up and overseeing a comprehensive inspection of his former employer? Further, given this past connection with the board and the chief, what might be the public perception of the credibility of what he decides to do?

This brings me to my third issue. And it pertains to the decision Teschner has made on how he proposes to deal with the request from Toronto.

On February 9, Teschner announced a wide-ranging province-wide inspection related to corruption and integrity in all of Ontario’s 45 municipal police services, invoking the Inspector General’s legislative authority. His statement boasts that his inspection will “confront the most important challenges facing Ontario’s policing system and impacting public trust.” It goes on to say:

After considering a request from the Toronto Police Service and the Toronto Police Service Board, Inspector General Teschner has determined that a sector-wide inspection will focus on five defined areas, with the ability to examine additional areas should they arise during the inspection:

• Supervision and span of control, including how officers are supervised and how effective that supervision is;
• Screening and vetting of police officers both at recruitment and on an ongoing basis;
• Access to police databases and information systems, including permissions, controls and clearances;
• Evidence and property management practices; and
• Substance abuse and fitness for duty.

The scope as stated here is virtually a reiteration of the issues identified by the Toronto Police Services Board and the chief. Yet Teschner offer no clear rationale or justification for his decision to bury the very specific concerns from Toronto in such a broad project.

He boasts that he wishes to “confront the most important challenges facing Ontario’s policing system,” and all power to him. But he does not say what information he has from all of Ontario’s municipal police services that led him to this decision within days of being contacted by Toronto. Nor does he tell us how this overly broad-brush approach will address the specific issues raised by the situation in Toronto affecting Torontonians’ confidence in the integrity of their police service or, for that matter, how it will help the police board in determining the performance of its top employee.

Finally, how long will this undertaking take or how much will it cost, given its massive scope? My own experience tells me that a thorough and deep systemic review or investigation or examination of just one police organization takes a considerable amount of time. It took the late Justice John Morden two years to conduct his independent civilian review of the governance of the 2010 G20 Summit policing in Toronto. Mr Teschner knows since, as legal counsel to Justice Morden, he was directly involved in the review. He knows how expensive it was, how much work was involved for the work to be credible, and how time consuming that was.

A few years ago, I chaired an independent panel to examine governance issues facing the Thunder Bay Police Services Board and Police Service, a much smaller organization than Toronto. But the issues were complex and ran deep. It took the panel considerably over two years to complete its work, and it cost the local police board a substantial amount of money.

So, I go back to my questions: how long will an inspection of so many complex areas in all of Ontario’s 45 municipal police services take? How much will it cost Ontario’s public who have not asked for this in their communities? And, most importantly, how long must the people of Toronto wait before they have answers and before the answers go stale and irrelevant due to delay?

Ontario’s Inspector General of Policing and the Toronto Police Services Board owe some clear and convincing answers to Torontonians. Or else, there is a smell surrounding their response to suspected criminality, lack of integrity and failures of systems of supervision, monitoring and accountability in the Toronto Police Service.

Teschner’s cure does appear to be worse than Toronto’s disease of possible large scale police criminality and corruption!