Police-Encounters-With-People-In-Crisis

(h)
Damage to Clothing or Equipment; and
(i) Consuming Drugs or Alcohol in a Manner Prejudicial to Duty. 43
51. The Review received samples of internal reports of use of force-related
misconduct investigations. Without commenting on the specific circumstances relating
to any particular incident, it can be stated that the primary focus of the reports appeared
to be whether the force employed met the minimum standards for legal justification.
There was little emphasis on whether de-escalation techniques had been attempted, or
whether the force used was as minimal as possible under the circumstances. The reports
considered whether some applicable procedures were followed, but not all.
52. This focus on justifying the use of force employed by the officer can negatively
affect both the Service culture and the efficacy of oversight bodies. The failure to focus
on de-escalation can reinforce the idea within the TPS that the primary consideration
for officers is what level of force can be justified after the fact, rather than whether force
can be avoided by employing different tactics. It may well be that some officers need to
see disciplinary measures taken for failing to attempt the use of de-escalation
techniques in order for TPS members to appreciate more broadly the importance the
Service places on avoiding death and injury, especially when called to assist people in
crisis.
53. If internal investigative reports do not address these issues, TPS senior
management and, in some cases, the TPSB, may not be able to assess whether the
policies and procedures in place are adequate, and whether members are sufficiently
held to account for breaches of those policies and procedures. Such reports could be
more useful to both the TPS and the Board if they considered all procedures applicable
to the incident (including, for example, the de-escalation requirements under the
procedure relating to “Emotionally Disturbed Persons”), whether the officers involved
met the standards of each of those procedures, and whether the Service’s procedures
should be amended or supplemented to encourage officers to perform to the high
standard expected of them. Further, misconduct investigation reports should review
operational considerations such as whether an appropriate chain of command was
established at the incident, whether the scene and subject were contained as much as
possible, whether each officer present knew what role he or she was to play in resolving
the situation, whether the appropriate supervisors were dispatched to the incident, and
whether those supervisors arrived promptly.
(b) Penalties
54. If found guilty of misconduct, an officer may be: dismissed; offered the
opportunity to resign instead of being dismissed; demoted for a specific period and in a
specific manner; suspended without pay for up to 30 days; directed to forfeit up to three
days’ pay; or directed to forfeit up to 20 days off. 44 Alternatively, the officer may be
given a reprimand or directed to participate in particular training or a specific activity.
43
Ibid.
44
PSA, supra note 29, s. 85(1).
Police Encounters With People in Crisis |170