In this issue:
1. Police endorsements in elections
2. Police and missing people
3. The Zameer case
Toronto Police Accountability Bulletin No. 156, May 12, 2025.
This Bulletin is published by the Toronto Police Accountability Coalition (TPAC), a group of individuals and organizations in Toronto interested in police policies and procedures, and in making police more accountable to the community they are committed to serving. Our website is http://www.tpac.ca .
***
In this issue:
1. Police endorsements in elections
2. Police and missing people
3. The Zameer case
4. Subscribe to the Bulletin
**
1. Police endorsements in elections
In February, during the provincial election, the Executive of the Toronto Police Association endorsed Doug Ford during the recent provincial election. Paragraph 6 of Regulation 402/23 under the Community Safety and Policing Act states police officers cannot endorse candidates.
On January 22, 2004, the Toronto Police Service Board decided "the endorsement, or opposition, of candidates by the Toronto Police Association is prohibited by the Police Services Act and the Regulations made thereunder. The policy adopted by the Board – as amended in 2010, states:
“The Board has adopted the proposition that Members of the Toronto Police Association and/or its Executive are subject to the Police Services Act and its Regulations and are, therefore, like every municipal police officer, prohibited from endorsing or opposing candidates in an election. While members of the Executive of the Toronto Police Association are on leaves of absence from the Toronto Police Service, they remain subject to the Code of Conduct under the Police Services Act and are subject to the lawful direction of the Chief of Police. It would be contrary to the purpose and spirit of the legislation to allow police associations greater latitude to participate in political activities than that provided to individuals, the Chief or the Board.
It is the policy of the Toronto Police Services Board that:
1. The endorsement or opposition of political candidates by municipal police officers is prohibited by the Police Services Act and its Regulations;
2. Members of the Toronto Police Association or its Executive are subject to the Police Services Act and its Regulations;
3. The Chief of Police will communicate with the Toronto Police Service each time an election campaign commences to reiterate that police officers are prohibited from using their status as police officers to endorse or oppose candidates during an election; and
4. The Chief of Police will discipline any police officer who contravenes this policy.
Our letter to the Board asked what action had been taken by the Board and the chief concerning this endorsement. The response of Board chair Shelley Carroll was a hand’s off approach: “The Board is aware of the endorsement made by the Toronto Police Association. The Board does not have the authority to discipline to police officers. The Board’s policy on political activity was created under the Police Services Act. In light of the enactment of the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, the Board is currently reviewing the policy.”
We were also made aware that Chief Myron Demwik has taken no disciplinary action.
Then, during the federal election campaign in April, The Toronto Police Association endorsed Pierre Poilievre. We again wrote the Board chair, and again we learned there is no response to this serious breach of a Regulation and Board policy. Her response: “As you know, Ontario recently replaced the Police Services Act with the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019. While many of the same principles remain in place, the new law has created some uncertainty around how these rules apply—particularly when it comes to union representatives and associations, who are often speaking on behalf of their members, not as individuals. To avoid confusion or uneven enforcement across the province, the Board has taken the step of formally asking the Inspector General of Policing for clear guidance on this matter.”
But there is no confusion. The Regulation is perfectly clear, and so is the Board policy. The Board is in charge of the Toronto Police Department and it has a responsibility to ensure that the law is being enforced. Allowing the police force to be aligned with one political party is a serious threat to many people who rightly fear they may be not be fairly served by police because of their political views. It becomes a serious problem when the Board simply throws up its hands as though it is powerless.
It is imperative that the Board make it clear that the chief must enforce Regulation 402/23 and begin disciplinary action against the leadership of the Toronto Police Association.
As for the Inspector General of Policing, Ryan Teschner: we wrote to him in early April and while our letter has been acknowledged, there is no clarity about what he is doing. And it is not simply the Toronto Police Association who have contravened the regulation: endorsements at the provincial and federal level have also been made by half a dozen other police associations.
Police seem to see no reason why they need to be politically non-partisan and that’s big problem for a society which wants to remain democratic.
2. Police and missing people
As the Globe and Mail reported on April 12 reported Jennifer Johnson was reported missing July 28, 2023. She was found dead in Nordheimer Ravine August 18, 2023, and identified by police. There was information on police files about violent crimes against her.
But the Toronto police service did no investigation into her death for more than a year. In October 2024 – 14 months after finding her body - police finally looked at what was on the phone found with her body. Apparently
the only reason police began an investigation was because of pressure from her friends.
This inaction by the police service occurred in spite of Judge Gloria Epstein’s report to the Toronto Police Service Board, `Missing and Missed’, which was released in April 2021 – four years ago. Judge Epstein notes ten previous reports on this matter.
The first recommendation in the Epstein report is that the Board implement a more `robust oversight’ of the service, citing Judge Morden’s similar recommendation in 2012. In fact the first 11 recommendations further emphasize the need for better oversight by the Board. Many recommendations concern the need for the service to substantially improve major case management; several recommendations deal with the need to expand the Missing Persons Unit.
The service claims that just over half of the 151 recommendations of the report have been implemented, but it is not clear which those are or how they have been put in place. What is clear is that there is a very very serious problem, as the case of Jennifer Johnson makes clear.
We have asked the following questions of the Toronto Police Service Board:
Why did the investigation take so long?
Is the investigation continuing?
Are disciplinary actions being taken, and if so what and when?
What priority does the Epstein report have for the Board and staff?
Which recommendations of the Epstein report have been put into practise?
We have also asked that this item be scheduled on the agenda of a public meeting of the Police Board in June.
We await a response.
3. The Zameer case
In April 2022, Umar Zameer was acquitted of charges surrounding the death of Det.-Const. Jeffrey Northrup. Ontario Superior Court Justice Anne Molloy wondered publicly whether Constables Lisa Forbes, Antonio Correa, and Scharnil Pais, the three officers who witnessed the incident, colluded in their evidence, considering all three had the same incorrect memory of what happened.
Chief Demkiw said the issues in the case, including the remarks of the judge about possible officer collusion, would be referred to the Ontario Provincial Police and the Toronto Police Professional Standards branch.
It has been more than a year since these investigations were ordered and the investigation apparently continues, according to the Board chair.
The three officers who the judge thought had colluded in their evidence cannot be expected to perform any role in the investigation of cases since their evidence will surely be contested by astute lawyers. Further, the fairness of policing itself in Toronto is in jeopardy: if these officers are permitted to exercise policing functions even though a judge thinks they may not have told the truth under oath, members of the public can assume that other officers can behave in a similar manner.
We have asked the Inspector General to intervene, but have had only an acknowledgement, not a substantive response.
4. Subscribe to the Bulletin
To subscribe or unsubscribe to this Bulletin, please send a note to info@tpac.ca with the instructions in the subject line or in the text of the message. Our e-mail list is confidential and will not be made available to others. There is no charge for the Bulletin. Our website is http://www.tpac.ca .
end