Decision Regarding Findings Report INV-24-15 Concerning Policing Provided by the Peel Regional Police

Decision By: Ryan Teschner, Inspector General of Policing

Citation: 2026 ONIOP 10

Date: March 12, 2026

I. INTRODUCTION

1This decision addresses a complaint received by the Inspector General of Policing against the Peel Regional Police (“PRP”), alleging that the PRP failed to adequately investigate a theft of money from the complainant’s residence. An inspector with Ontario’s Inspectorate of Policing (“IoP”) investigated the complaint to determine whether the PRP or the Peel Regional Police Service Board (“PRPSB”) failed to provide adequate and effective policing in accordance with the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, SO 2019, c 1, Sch 1 (the “Act”) or its regulations.

2Following a review of the inspector’s Findings Report,¹ which is attached to this Decision as Appendix A, and for the reasons that follow, I conclude that the PRP and PRPSB provided adequate and effective policing as defined by the Act and the regulations.

II. BACKGROUND

3On March 19, 2024, the complainant contacted the PRP after discovering that money stored in boxes at his residence had gone missing. The complainant had not checked the contents of the boxes for a few months and, during that time, had visitors at his residence.

4The PRP did not immediately assign an investigator to this matter. Eventually, on June 26, 2024, the PRP assigned the matter to an investigator who was on leave. When the investigator returned, they contacted the complainant, who initially did not respond. The complainant responded on September 6, 2024, and the investigator then commenced the investigation.

5The investigation included a variety of steps. The investigator interviewed the complainant, attended and observed the scene, spoke with the manager of the complainant’s apartment to determine if any closed-circuit television (“CCTV”) footage was still available, and observed the boxes where the missing money was held to determine suitability for fingerprinting. Ultimately, no items were seized or deemed suitable for fingerprinting.

6On October 13, 2024, the investigator advised the complainant that the investigation was closed.

III. ISSUES

7The sole issue for consideration is whether PRP and PRPSB provided adequate and effective policing in the context of its investigation into the complaint’s matter.

IV. ANALYSIS

a) The requirement to provide “adequate and effective” policing.

8Section 11(1) of the Act defines “adequate and effective” policing as requiring policing functions, including law enforcement, to be delivered in accordance with standards set out in the Act’s regulations, among other requirements:

11. (1) Adequate and effective policing means all of the following functions provided in accordance with the standards set out in the regulations, including the standards with respect to the avoidance of conflicts of interest, and with the requirements of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code:

12. Crime prevention.

13. Law enforcement.

14. Maintaining the public peace.

15. Emergency response.

16. Assistance to victims of crime.

17. Any other prescribed policing functions.

b) The PRP assigned an investigator to investigate the alleged theft.

9The Investigations Regulation, O Reg 395/23 (the “Investigations Regulation”) contains standards related to investigations, including provisions about investigators being assigned to matters:

5. Every investigation shall be undertaken by an investigator or senior investigator, as determined by a supervisor.

6. (1) If a member of a police service, in the course of their duties, becomes aware of a matter mentioned in subsection (2) and believes that a supervisor has not yet been notified of the matter, the member shall as soon as possible notify a supervisor of the matter in accordance with the investigation procedures.

(2) The matters referred to in subsection (1) are the following:

2. A matter in relation to which there is a reasonable suspicion that an offence under the Criminal Code (Canada), the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Canada) or the Cannabis Act (Canada) has been or will be committed.

3. (1) On being notified of a matter under section 6, the supervisor shall determine whether the matter should be investigated.

(2) If the supervisor determines the matter should be investigated, the supervisor shall, based on the following factors, assign either an investigator or a senior investigator to undertake the investigation:

1. All information available at the time regarding the matter to be investigated.

2. The complexity of the investigation.

3. Public safety concerns and the impact on the community resulting from the matter to be investigated.

4. The resources required for the investigation and the anticipated length of the investigation.

5. Any applicable investigation procedures.

10It is apparent that this matter was assigned to a PRP investigator who conducted the investigation.

c) The PRP investigator collected evidence that was available.

11The Investigations Regulation also contains standards related to the conduct of investigations which require, depending on the circumstances, that an investigator conduct interviews, collect evidence and consider the use of forensic identification services:

11. Every investigating officer shall perform any individual interviews with a victim, suspect, witness or person of interest in accordance with the officer’s training, the investigation procedures, all relevant law, including this Regulation, and the reasonable exercise of the officer’s discretion.

12. (1) An investigating officer shall ensure that all items of potential evidentiary value that may lawfully be collected are collected, regardless of whether immediate relevance to the investigation is established.

13. (1) An investigating officer shall consider whether it is appropriate to make use of any specialized services provided by members of a police service who are dedicated to or specially trained for the provision of those services, and, if so, shall make use of them.

(2) Examples of services to which subsection (1) applies include,

(a) forensic identification

12The investigator in this case interviewed the complainant but did not seize the boxes or make use of forensic identification services to take fingerprints. The investigator indicated that there was no specific suspect information, no signs of forced entry to warrant a concern for a break and enter, and no items that would be suitable for fingerprinting and further investigation. Therefore, the investigator turned their mind to the investigative techniques that were available, and made deliberate decisions, based on the information available, as to how to proceed in this investigation.

13In my view, the investigation unfolded in a manner entirely consistent with the requirements for adequate and effective policing. The PRP bears no responsibility for the reality that some evidence, like building CCTV footage or items suitable for fingerprinting, were unavailable.

V. CONCLUSION

14The PRP and PRPSB complied with the requirements for adequate and effective policing during its investigation of the alleged theft of money from the complainant’s residence.

Date: March 12, 2026 Original Signed By ____________________

Ryan Teschner

Inspector General of Policing

Findings Report

Peel Regional Police

Section 107(1)(a) Policing Complaint Investigation (INV-24-15)

Submitted to: Ryan Teschner, Inspector General of Policing of Ontario

Date: December 8, 2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABOUT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICING AND THE INSPECTORATE OF POLICING 5

INTRODUCTION.. 6

OVERVIEW OF INVESTIGATION.. 6

The Complaint 6

The Subject Police Service. 6

Applicable Legislative and Regulatory Provisions. 7

SUMMARY OF THE INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED.. 7

Complainant Interview.. 7

Prior Conduct Complaint and Withdrawal 8

Peel Regional Police Records. 8

Applicability of O.Reg 395/23: INVESTIGATIONS.. 9

INVESTIGATION FINDINGS.. 9

ABOUT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICING AND THE INSPECTORATE OF POLICING

The Inspector General of Policing drives improved performance and accountability in policing and police governance by overseeing the delivery of adequate and effective policing across Ontario. The Inspector General ensures compliance with the province’s policing legislation and standards, and has the authority to issue progressive, risk-based and binding directions and measures to protect public safety. Ontario's Community Safety and Policing Act embeds protections to ensure the Inspector General's statutory duty is delivered independently from government.

The Inspector General of Policing leads the Inspectorate of Policing (IoP). The IoP provides operational support to inspect, investigate, monitor, and advise Ontario’s police services, boards and special constable employers. By leveraging independent research and data intelligence, the IoP promotes leading practices and identifies areas for improvement, ensuring that high-quality policing and police governance is delivered to make everyone in Ontario safer.

In March 2023, Ryan Teschner was appointed as Ontario’s first Inspector General of Policing with duties and authorities under the Community Safety and Policing Act. Mr. Teschner is a recognized expert in public administration, policing and police governance.

For more information about the Inspector General of Policing or the IoP, please visit www.iopontario.ca.

INTRODUCTION

This is a report to the Inspector General of Policing by an inspector appointed by the Inspector General, who has completed an investigation under Part VII of the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 (CSPA).

OVERVIEW OF INVESTIGATION

The Complaint

The complainant indicates that sometime between November 15 and November 30, 2023, a quantity of monies, specifically $20,600 CAD and $1,400 USD, was stolen from his place of residence located in the City of Mississauga. The complainant did not realize the monies were taken until March 19, 2024, at which time he reported the matter to 11 Division, Peel Regional Police (PRP).

The complainant indicated that since reporting the matter, no investigation took place despite several follow up calls and two in person visits to the station. The complainant provided the police report number.

The complainant also indicated that a broken box, covers and other monies that have been touched are still at his residence and available for examination.

The Subject Police Service

Name of Police Service: Peel Regional Police

Service Headquarters: 7150 Mississauga Road, Mississauga, ON, L5N 8M5

Chief of Police: Nishan Duraiappah Chief of Police since October 2019

• Number of sworn members: Actual: 2516

• Number of permanent civilian members: Actual: 1049

• Number of temporary civilian members: Actual: 150

Geographic Service Area

• 558.63 Square Kilometers
• Community Population of approximately 1,594,114

Applicable Legislative and Regulatory Provisions

Section 11(1) of the CSPA provides that adequate and effective policing means all of the following functions provided in accordance with the standards set out in the regulations, including the standards with respect to the avoidance of conflicts of interest, and with the requirements of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code:

1. Crime prevention.

2. Law enforcement.

3. Maintaining the public peace.

4. Emergency response.

5. Assistance to victims of crime.

6. Any other prescribed policing functions.

Ontario Regulation 392/23: ADEQUATE AND EFFECTIVE POLICING (GENERAL) was reviewed having regard to the allegations made in the complaint.

Ontario Regulation 395/23: INVESTIGATIONS was reviewed having regard to the allegations made in the complaint.

SUMMARY OF THE INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED

Complainant Interview

The complainant indicated that he was disappointed with the fact that no fingerprints were taken. The complainant felt that fingerprints would have assisted in identifying a potential suspect.

Prior Conduct Complaint and Withdrawal

PRP Professional Standards Bureau reported that the complainant had previously made this same complaint to LECA. The complainant subsequently withdrew that complaint on September 11, 2024, with the following narrative:

“On March 19, 2024, I filed a report in person at 11 Division in response to a theft of money from my home. As of May 27, 2024, there was no follow up with my criminal complaint and it was the reason why I filed a public complaint. After speaking with a Detective, a criminal investigation was commenced. Subsequently I am satisfied that my criminal complaint will be investigated and therefore I wish my public complaint withdrawn. In case of any delays I still am able to contact back to complaint for further support”.

Peel Regional Police Records

IoP investigators were provided with a copy of the complainant’s original theft occurrence. In the report, the complainant indicated that on November 23, 2024, the lock to the front door of his apartment unit was stuck and would not lock properly. After reporting the matter to building management, the lock was replaced.

A thorough review of all documents and information provided by PRP including PRP directives concerning criminal investigations was completed. In addition, PRP provided a detailed chronology of events prepared by the officer assigned to investigate the theft of monies. The chronology detailed the following:

• PRP investigator was assigned occurrence on June 26, 2024, however, was assigned to a project until July 25, 2024
• PRP investigator left message for complainant on August 5, 2024, with no response
• PRP investigator spoke with complainant on September 6, 2024, and attended his address in person. PRP investigator was advised by the complainant and his wife that the monies were stolen sometime between November 19, 2023, and March 19, 2024. Complainant also advised that there were parties held at their residence on November 19, 23, and 26, and on December 31, 2023.Complainant advised that the monies were kept in boxes in the bedroom closet and that the boxes had been handled several times. Complainant advised that no one should have known that the monies were there and that they do not suspect their children.
• PRP investigator noted that the complainant’s apartment was beside a stairwell and that there was no video surveillance in the hallways, only on the elevator.
• PRP investigator spoke with the property manager, who advised that video is only retained for 30 days. Any potential video from November or December would have been deleted prior to complainant reporting the theft.
• PRP investigator spoke with the complainant on October 13, 2024, and advised that all investigative leads have been exhausted and that the report would be closed. PRP investigator re-advised of additional safety measures that the complainant could undertake to assist in preventing future occurrences.
• The boxes were deemed unsuitable for fingerprints as they were handled by family members several times and continuity could not be established.

Applicability of [O.Reg 395/23](https://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/regu/o-reg-395-23/latest/o-reg-395-23.html): INVESTIGATIONS

Section 7(2) of the O.Reg. states that if a supervisor determines the matter should be investigated they shall assign an investigator to undertake the investigation. In this case an investigator was assigned and conducted an investigation.

Section 11 of the O.Reg. indicates that the investigating officer shall conduct interviews with respect to the investigation at their discretion. In this case multiple individuals were interviewed.

With respect to the collection, of evidence pursuant to Section 13 of the O.Reg., the investigator confirmed that there was no viable video surveillance footage and in addition determined that the money boxes were deemed unsuitable for fingerprinting.

INVESTIGATION FINDINGS

I make the following findings, relying on the information collected during the investigation and summarized in part above:

1. On March 19, 2024, the complainant filed a theft report with the Peel Regional Police.

a. The report was taken at the front desk of PRP 11 Division by a Police Constable.

b. An occurrence number was assigned to the report.

c. The report history indicates that the occurrence was assigned to a Detective Constable on June 26, 2024.

2. A Peel Regional Police Detective completed a follow up investigation in relation to the complainant’s theft report.

a. The PRP Detective was assigned to investigate the occurrence on June 26, 2024, however she was off duty until July 25, 2024 and was assigned to a project upon her return to work on this date. On August 5,2024 the Detective attempted to contact the complainant. The Detective did not have a response from the complainant until September 6, 2024, at which time the Detective attended the complainant’s address and spoke in person with the complainant.

b. The PRP Detective determined that the complainant hosted a number of functions in November and December, 2023 at his apartment. The Detective was also advised that the complainant kept the monies in shoeboxes located within his closet. The PRP Detective learned that the complainant did not check the contents of the boxes at any time between November 2023 and March 2024.

c. The PRP investigator indicated that there was no suspect information, no signs of forced entry, no available video, and no items suitable for fingerprints.

d. On October 13, 2024, the PRP Detective advised the complainant that the investigation was now closed. The PRP Detective indicated that the complainant had a concern in relation to his apartment building security. The Detective re-iterated a number of safety recommendations, such as putting additional locks on the door, audible alerts for door openings and installing cameras near the front door.

3. Items were not seized and/or fingerprinted by the Peel Regional Police.

a. The PRP investigator examined the items and found that they had been handled numerous times and deemed the items not suitable for prints.

Footnotes

1. 1Section 123 of the Act requires an IoP inspector who completes an investigation of a complaint to report their findings to the Inspector General. This report is redacted to comply with the Publication of Findings Reports and Directions under Sections 123 and 125 of the Act Regulation, O Reg 317/24.