Court File and Parties

CITATION: Carrique v. Leach, 2025 ONSC 5256

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-24-00000346-00JR

DATE: 2025-09-17

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

Sachs, Backhouse and Faieta, JJ.

BETWEEN:

THOMAS CARRIQUE, COMMISSIONER OF THE ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE Applicant

– and –

STEPHEN LEACH, COMPLAINTS DIRECTOR, LAW ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINTS AGENCY Respondent

Counsel:

Christopher Diana, for the Applicant

Moravarid Shojaei and Colin Bourrier, for the Respondent

Harry Black, Q.C., for the Intervenor, Inspector Kevin Veillieux.

James A. Girvin, for the Intervenor, Detective Sergeant Curtis Peckford

Gary A. Bennett and Sharon A. Yeboah, for the Intervenor, Constable Dawn Loker

HEARD at Toronto: January 8, 2025

Reasons for Decision

FAIETA J.

[1] This application for judicial review is brought by the Commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police (the “Commissioner”) for, amongst other things, an order to quash the direction of the Complaints Director of the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (“LECA”) dated April 26, 2024 to the Commissioner to impose a penalty or agree to a penalty in respect of a finding, made pursuant to section 71 of the Police Services Act, R.S.O 1990, c.P.15 (“the PSA”), that Detective Staff Sergeant Kevin Veillieux (“DSS Veillieux”) and Detective Sergeant Curtis Peckford (“DS Peckford”) had committed discreditable conduct in violation of section 2(1)(a)(xi) of the Code of Conduct, formerly the schedule to General, O. Reg. 268/10 (“O. Reg. 268/10” when referred to in its entirety), in its investigation of a police officer’s complaint that she had been sexually assaulted by another police officer.

[2] Complaints regarding the conduct of police officers are now governed by the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 1, Sched. 1 (“CSPA”) for matters arising after April 1, 2024. Upon the proclamation of the CSPA on April 1, 2024, the Independent Police Review Director (“IPRD”) is now referred to as the Complaints Director and the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (“OIPRD”) is the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency: See CSPA, s. 130. Because the events giving rise to this application arose before April 1, 2024, there is no dispute that the regulatory scheme under the PSA applies.

Background

[3] Police Constable Dawn Loker (“PC Loker”) is a member of the Nishnawbe-Aski Police Service (“NAPS”). NAPS provides policing services to First Nations communities in Northern Ontario.

[4] On January 9, 2020, PC Loker reported to the NAPS that she had been sexually assaulted on three occasions in 2019 by a fellow NAPS police officer. In turn, the Chief of NAPS referred Constable Loker’s complaint to the Criminal Investigation Branch of the Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP”). As these alleged sexual assaults occurred within the jurisdiction of the OPP’s Greenstone detachment, the criminal investigation was assigned to the OPP’s Thunder Bay Criminal Investigation Branch.

[5] The intervenor, DSS Veillieux of the OPP’s North West Region’s Criminal Investigation Branch, based in Thunder Bay, Ontario, was assigned to case manage this investigation. At the outset, and in an effort to ensure the integrity of this investigation, DSS Veillieux notified all team members that the sensitive information related to this investigation was to be kept within the team. He also requested that Greenstone OPP officers not be involved in the criminal investigation given their close working relationship with the Aroland NAPS detachment in Nakina where PC Loker and the alleged perpetrator were based.

[6] On January 15, 2020, at DSS Veillieux’s request, Detective Staff Sergeant Dayna Wellock (“DSS Wellock”) of the OPP’s North West Region’s Victim Response Unit reviewed PC Loker’s video statement regarding the three alleged sexual assaults. On January 15, 2020, DSS Wellock advised DSS Veillieux that she did not believe two of the allegations constituted sexual assault. DSS Wellock recommended that this matter be referred to the Crown Attorney for an opinion, and that he should explore the potential for Public Mischief charges against Constable Loker as she felt that the allegations were possibly vexatious.

[7] On April 14, 2020, DSS Veillieux and DS Peckford met with PC Loker in the boardroom of the OPP’s Thunder Bay detachment. He advised PC Loker that there were no grounds to believe that an offence had been committed. He also advised PC Loker that Crown Attorney Louise Tansey, who specializes in sexual violence cases, had reviewed the investigation brief and had come to the same conclusion. This opinion was peer reviewed and approved by another Crown Attorney. Ms. Tansey also told DSS Veillieux that it was clear that the investigation was “extremely thorough” and that the complaint was taken seriously given the number of collateral witnesses that were sought out and thoroughly interviewed.

[8] On May 11, 2020, DSS Veillieux received an email from PC Loker expressing concern that he had referred to the alleged perpetrator as “Kenny” during their meeting and insinuated that the investigation had been tainted by a perceived friendship with him. DSS Veillieux responded that he had no friendship or familiarity with the alleged perpetrator and had only met him once. DSS Veillieux offered to set up a meeting with one of the reviewing Crown Attorneys. However, Constable Loker never took him up on this offer.

First Complaint

[9] On September 11, 2020, PC Loker submitted a complaint to the OIPRD alleging misconduct by DSS Veillieux. Specifically, Constable Loker stated that DSS Veillieux had: 1) failed to property investigate the alleged sexual assault because he was familiar with the alleged perpetrator; and, 2) “spoke poorly to her” during their meeting on April 14, 2020.

[10] The OIPRD referred this complaint to the OPP for investigation.

[11] On March 30, 2021, M.L. Kearns, the Chief Superintendent of the OPP’s Office of Professionalism, Respect, Inclusion and Leadership, notified Constable Loker that there were no reasonable grounds to find misconduct. His letter states:

The investigation determined there is insufficient evidence to support that there are reasonable grounds to believe misconduct occurred. I am satisfied that Detective Staff Sergeant Veillieux conducted himself appropriately and within Ontario Provincial Police policies and generally accepted police practices. The investigative report provides details and conclusions supporting my decision.

On behalf of Commissioner Thomas Carrique, pursuant to Section 66(2) of the Police Services Act, it is my decision to take no further action in this matter

[12] A letter from Gary Bennett, counsel for Constable Loker, dated April 29, 2021, amongst other things, submitted that DSS Wellock tainted the integrity of the investigation by showing bias against Constable Loker. Mr. Bennett requested that the OIPRD:

(a) Launch a new independent criminal investigation, conducted by an independent, unbiased, outside of Northern Ontario Agency into the allegations of sexual assault;

(b) Conduct an independent investigation into the actions and negligence of DSS Veillieux and DSS Wellock; and

(c) Conclude that DSS Veillieux and DSS Wellock are guilty of neglect of duty and discreditable conduct pursuant to the Police Services Act.

[13] On August 4, 2021, the Respondent, IPRD, confirmed the OPP Commissioner’s decision. He stated:

… Overall, Acting Detective Inspector Veillieux took reasonable steps in investigating a serious allegation. He sought out independent review of his investigation and followed OPP policy. While some aspects of his investigation were not perfect, his actions were objectively defensive. Accordingly, I find that the Commissioner’s findings were supported by the available evidence.

[14] In addition, the IPRD noted that he had no authority to launch a criminal investigation as requested by PC Loker. He also declined to address the allegations made by PC Loker against DSS Wellock as they went beyond the original complaint.

Second Complaint

[15] On August 5, 2021, PC Loker filed a second complaint with the OIPRD alleging discreditable conduct by DSS Wellock.

[16] PC Loker alleged that DSS Wellock committed discreditable conduct because: (1) DSS Wellock ought to have recused herself from the investigation because she was in a conflict position with PC Loker; (2) DSS Wellock was biased against PC Loker and this bias directly prejudiced the criminal investigation.

[17] The OIPRD asked the OPP to investigate this complaint. This complaint was referred to the Ottawa Police Service (“OPS”) for investigation.

[18] On February 14, 2022, Sergeant Catherine Wood of the OPS concluded that the allegations of discreditable conduct against DSS Wellock were unsubstantiated. OPP Commissioner Carrique agreed with the OPS investigation report and concluded that DSS Wellock had not committed discreditable conduct.

[19] On July 11, 2023, the IPRD found that the OPS investigation had not adequately addressed the issues raised in the complaint and directed the OPS to take the following steps:

(a) Interview DSS Wellock about PC Loker’s allegations of racism/bias and, specifically, whether PC Loker’s race influenced DSS Wellock’s opinion.

(b) Interview DSS Wellock about whether she had formed her opinion regarding PC Loker’s allegations of sexual assault before DSS Veillieux told her about certain text messages that he was reviewing that he felt contradicted some of PC Loker’s evidence. PC Loker states that she never gave permission for these text messages to be reviewed and she was not given an opportunity to explain them.

[20] On July 23, 2023, Sergeant Catherine Wood issued a Supplementary Investigation Report. Upon being re-interviewed, DSS Wellock stated that she “absolutely does not believe she acted in any racist or biased manner” during the investigation. Further, she stated that she formed her opinion regarding PC Loker’s allegations based solely on her review of PC Loker’s video statement before she knew about her text messages.

[21] On July 28, 2023, Chief Superintendent C.J. Wesley, of the OPP’s Office of Professionalism, Respect, Inclusion and Leadership, notified PC Loker that:

The supplementary investigation determined there is insufficient evidence to support that there are reasonable grounds to believe misconduct occurred. I am satisfied that the officer conducted themselves appropriately and within Ontario Provincial Police policies and generally accepted police practices. The supplementary investigative report provides details and conclusions supporting my decision.

On behalf of Commissioner Thomas Carrique, pursuant to section 66(2) of the Police Services Act, it is my decision to take no further action in this matter.

[22] On August 17, 2023, the IPRD confirmed the Commissioner’s decision.

Third Complaint

[23] On March 14, 2022, PC Loker submitted a third complaint to OIPRD based on new information. PC Loker alleged that DSS Veillieux:

(a) Undermined the integrity of the criminal investigation by the following conflict of interest:

a. Despite stating that police officers with the Greenstone OPP would not be participating in the criminal investigation, DSS Veillieux permitted DS Gaston St. Onge of the Greenstone OPP to interview her neighbour, Rhonda Chaine.

b. DS St. Onge was obviously friendly with the alleged perpetrator because he referred to him as “Kenny” when interviewing Ms. Chaine.

(b) DSS Veillieux lied about the involvement of member of the Greenstone OPP in the criminal investigation to both PC Loker and to the OPP investigator who conducted the investigation into the First Complaint against DSS Veillieux.

[24] On June 1, 2022, the OIPRD referred the Third Complaint to the OPS for investigation.

[25] On December 5, 2022, the Investigative Report of the Ottawa Police Service’s Professional Standards Branch (the “OPS Report”) was released. It concluded that the allegations of discreditable conduct and deceit were unsubstantiated.

[26] The OPS Report, drafted by Sgt. Arbuthnot of the OPS, found that there was no discreditable conduct because of an alleged conflict of interest in the criminal investigation as a result of an alleged relationship between the alleged perpetrator and DSS Veilleux and DS St. Onge.

[27] In respect of the allegation of discreditable conduct arising from DSS Veillieux’s involvement in this investigation notwithstanding an alleged familiar relationship with alleged perpetrator, the OPS Report states at pp. 14-15:

The issue of [DSS Veillieux]’s familiarity with the suspect has already been referenced in the OPP PSB investigation but was revisited again for this matter. The complainant told the investigator that she had learned [DSS Veillieux] was a former detachment commander at Greenstone OPP, therefore, [DSS Veillieux] was asked to elaborate further about his role and any relationship he might have had with the suspect. [DSS Veillieux] indicated he was detachment commander at Greenstone OPP from April 2018-January2019. In this role, he met the suspect once, for a few minutes, at the beginning of his tenure during a tour of the Aroland First Nation. They met once more after the sexual assault investigation; at this time, [DSS Veillieux] was no longer at Greenstone but working in CIB. During this meeting [DSS Veillieux] relayed to the suspect the investigation outcome. Although the complainant provided first-hand observations of other close working relationships between some Greenstone OPP and Aroland NAPS officers, the familiarity she believes existed between the suspect and [DSS Veillieux] is based on assumptions. [DSS Veillieux] has maintained throughout the conduct investigations he was not familiar with the suspect. He explained his past meeting with the suspect was introductory in nature and clarified his previous role at Greenstone Detachment did not result in the development [of] any relationship with him. [DSS Veillieux] only knew the suspect’s name, face and position at Aroland NAPS. For this reason, he did not consider disclosing his former role at Greenstone Detachment to the complainant because there was no familiarity with the suspect. The evidence suggests [DSS Veillieux] was not in a conflict of interest with the suspect and was appropriately positioned, after leaving Greenstone Detachment, to become a CIB investigative supervisor in the Thunder Bay area to case manage the sexual assault investigation.

[27] In respect of the allegation of discreditable conduct arising from DSS Veillieux permitting DS St. Onge to interview Ms. Chaine despite DS St. Onge being in an apparent conflict of interest, the OPS Report states, at pp 15-16:

The complainant became aware of [DS St. Onge]’s involvement after speaking with [Ms. Chaine] after the interview and learned that [DS St. Onge] had referred to the suspect as “Kenny”. This tone of familiarity alarmed the complainant because [DSS Veillieux] had similarly referred to the suspect as “Kenny” in her presence during their final meeting.

[DS St. Onge] leads the Greenstone OPP Area Crime Unit. On January 15, 2022, he was tasked by [DS Peckford] [Primary Investigator] with interviewing a peripheral witness for the sexual assault investigation. [DS St. Onge] was informed by the officer originally tasked with obtaining the statement that the witness would not be in Thunder Bay any time soon. Rather than arranging for an investigator to drive to Nakina, Ontario [approximately 3 hours away] DS St. Onge was given the task. [DS Peckford] had consulted with [DSS Veillieux] about this and the latter agreed to it. [DSS Veillieux] and [DS Peckford] had no concerns about [DS St. Onge] being biased. Each stated he is an experienced investigator and a person of integrity who would have precluded himself from involvement had there been a conflict. [DS St. Onge] acknowledged in his duty report having worked alongside both the complainant and the suspect in the Greenstone area however he did not feel his previous interactions with them would influence his demeanor in the investigation. He had no concerns with the assignment and stated he conducted the interview in a professional and unbiased manner. [DS St. Onge] stated his intention was to conduct an unbiased interview and ensure he capture all the information the witness was aware of concerning the sexual assault investigation. The evidence suggests this was done: [DSS Veillieux], [DS Peckford] and the Crown Attorney reviewed the interview and had no concerns with how it was conducted. The Ottawa PSB investigator reviewed the interview transcripts and concludes no preferential treatment was accorded by [DS St. Onge] to the suspect or anyone else. The questions were open-ended, and the witness did most of the talking.

Although there is anecdotal evidence provided by the complainant of familiarity between the suspect and [DS St. Onge] (Facebook, proximity), and the fact the suspect called him about the investigation, it is not sufficient to conclude the former received preferential treatment during the investigation. The suspect asked [DS St. Onge] whether he had heard about the investigation; he replied he had heard of it but confirmed it was being conducted by officers from Thunder Bay. He did not discuss his own involvement or any details about the case. When the suspect called [DS St. Onge] three days after the interview, he informed [DS Peckford] about it the same afternoon. Similarly, [DS Peckford] recorded this information as well. The matter was handled professionally and ethically.

Investigators are regularly tasked with interviewing other police officers for criminal investigations, and familiarity between parties is sometimes inevitable. Were there any evidence of bias, it would have appeared in the statement however upon review, none is apparent. This forecloses any notion of preferential treatment or that [DS St. Onge] was obligated to the suspect in any way. There is insufficient evidence to form reasonable grounds to believe a conflict of interest existed between [DSS Veillieux] and the suspect. Similarly, the evidence does not support the assertion [DSS Veillieux] created a conflict of interest when he agreed with the Primary Investigator’s [DS Peckford] decision to have [DS St. Onge] interview a peripheral witness for the sexual assault investigation, nor that doing so resulted in a biased sexual assault investigation.

[28] The OPS Report also found that DSS Veillieux had not committed deceit within the meaning of cl. 2(1)(d)(i) of the Code of Conduct in that he had not knowingly made or signed a false statement or record. In a duty report that he provided to the OPP in respect of the investigation of the first complaint, DSS Vellieux wrote:

In efforts to ensure the integrity of the investigation I relayed to all team members at the onset that the sensitive information in this investigation was to be kept with the team. I communicated to regional crime management immediately that I did not want Greenstone crime members participating in the investigation due to familiarity and conflicts due to work relationships and proximity.

[29] PC Loker submitted that the above statement is deceitful because DSS Veillieux permitted DS St. Onge, who leads the Greenstone Area Crime Unit, to participate in the investigation. DSS Veillieux explained that his above quoted statement was specifically in reference to the formation of the core investigation team and the onset of the investigation. The six OPP officers selected for the core team were not from Greenstone Detachment for the reason of familiarity and conflicts with the suspect. Instead, five officers were chosen from the Thunder Bay area and one from Nipigon. His preference was not to use Greenstone Detachment members in the investigation however he did not state in blanket terms or in his first duty report that Greenstone members would never be used. DSS Veillieux explained that as the criminal investigation evolved, requests for assistance were made outside the core team.

[30] The OPS Report concluded that the allegation of deceit was unsubstantiated and stated:

The threshold to substantiate deceit is high. The evidence must demonstrate a respondent officer knowingly gave a false statement or omitted information. In other words, intent to deceive must be proven. While it is regrettable the statements in [DSS Veillieux]’s duty report to the OPP PSB were not enough to prevent the complainant from forming this opinion, there is insufficient evidence to form reasonable grounds to believe he wilfully made a false, misleading or inaccurate statement.

[31] In coming to this conclusion, the OPS Report notes that DS Daniel Cooke, who wrote the OPP report regarding the First Complaint, states that he was aware of DS St. Onge’s task to interview Ms. Chaine in Nakina and disagrees with the assertion that he was lied to or misled by anyone. The OPS Report further notes that while DS St. Onge, a Crime Supervisor, was embedded in the OPP Greenstone Detachment he was attached to the Thunder Bay OPP Regional Headquarters.

[32] On January 3, 2023, an internal review of the OPS Investigation Report found that it was a “complete and reasonable investigative report”.

[33] On February 23, 2023, M.L. Kearns, of the OPP’s Office of Professionalism, Respect, Inclusion and Leadership, notified PC Loker that there were no reasonable grounds to find misconduct. His letter states:

The investigation determined there is insufficient evidence to support that there are reasonable grounds to believe misconduct occurred. I am satisfied that the officer conducted themselves appropriately and within Ontario Provincial Police policies and generally accepted police practices. The investigative report provides details and conclusions supporting that decision.

On behalf of Commissioner Thomas Carrique, pursuant to Section 66(2) of the Police Services Act, it is my decision to take no further action in this matter.

[34] On March 15, 2023, PC Loker submitted a request for review of the Commissioner’s decision regarding the Third Complaint to the OIPRD.

Interim Decision

[35] On September 5, 2023, the IPRD issued an interim decision, pursuant to section 71 of the PSA, that directed the Ottawa Police Service to take the following supplementary action:

1. Designate [DS Peckford] as a responding officer. The allegation against him is whether he committed discreditable conduct by assigning [DS St. Onge] to interview a witness in the investigation, Ms. Chaine, despite the complainant having been told that members of the Greenstone OPP would not be involved in the investigation due to a potential conflict of interest.

2. [DS Peckford] is to prepare a supplementary duty statement addressing the following issues:

a. What were the factors that he considered in deciding to request that [DS St. Onge] take the statement?

b. Why the decision was made to task [DS St. Onge] with the interview, when:

1. The originally assigned officer (OPP Detective Constable Jon Friday) was willing to travel to Nakina to take the statement;

2. when another witness was going to be interviewed by phone as she was in a fly-in community until the end of February 2020; and

3. the core investigative team included an officer from the Nipigon detachment (OPP Detective Constable Brian Perala) which is closer to Nakina than Thunder Bay.

c. Did [DS Peckford] ask [DS St. Onge] whether he had a personal or professional relationship with the alleged perpetrator? d. Whether [DS Peckford] contacted the complainant to advise her that an officer associated with the Greenstone OPP would be taking a witness statement? If not, why not?

d. Whether [DS Peckford] contacted the complainant to advise her that an officer associated with the Greenstone OPP would be taking a witness statement? If not, why not?

3. [DSS Veillieux] is to prepare a supplementary duty statement to address the allegation that he lied to, or misled, the complainant regarding the involvement of the Greenstone OPP in the investigation into her allegations of sexual assault. Specifically, duty statement should address:

a. What [DSS Veillieux] told the complainant about the involvement of the Greenstone OPP in the criminal investigation.

b. What factors he considered in approving the decision to assign [DS St. Onge] to conduct the investigation.

c. Whether [DSS Veillieux] told the complainant that an officer associated with the Greenstone OPP was going to, or had, conducted a witness interview in the investigation. If not, why not?

d. Whether [DSS Veillieux] deliberately concealed the involvement of [DS St. Onge] in criminal investigation and/or whether [DSS Veillieux] deliberately concealed his previous role as the detachment commander of the Greenstone OPP from the complainant? If so, why?

4. The supplementary duty statements should be completed within 21 days of the date of this decision; and

5. The [OPS] is to prepare a Supplementary Investigation Report, within 45 days of the date of this decision, addressing:

a. Whether [DSS Veillieux] was guilty of deceit or discreditable conduct with respect to his communications with the complainant regarding the involvement of the Greenstone OPP in the investigation of her allegations of sexual assault.

b. Whether [DSS Veillieux] is guilty of deceit or discreditable conduct for failing to disclose his previous role as detachment commander of the Greenstone OPP to the complainant; and

c. Whether [DS Peckford] is guilty of discreditable conduct with respect to the decision to assign a witness interview to [DS St. Onge].

[36] On November 9, 2023, the Ottawa Police Service completed its Supplementary Investigative Report. It addressed the following issues:

(a) Did DSS Veillieux commit Discreditable Conduct or Deceit with respect to his communications with the complainant regarding the involvement of the Greenstone OPP in the investigation of her allegations of sexual assault?

(b) Did DSS Veillieux commit Discreditable Conduct or Deceit with respect to failing to disclose his previous role as detachment commander of the Greenstone OPP to the complainant?

(c) Did DS Peckford commit Discreditable Conduct by assigning DS St. Onge to interview a witness in the investigation?

[37] The Supplementary Investigative Report concluded that were insufficient grounds to substantiate misconduct on the part of DSS Veillieux or DS Peckford (the “Responding Officers”).

[38] In respect of the issue of whether DS Peckford had committed Discreditable Conduct by assigning DS St. Onge to interview a witness, the Supplementary Investigative Report states:

[DS Peckford]’s role in this investigation was of primary investigator. On January 15, 2020, he received permission from [DSS Veillieux] to ask Greenstone area Crime Unit to obtain a statement for this investigation. The OIPRD Request for Review, on page 4, states, “D/S/Sgt. Veillieux gave me the OK to ask Greenstone Crime Unit to assist in obtaining a statement of [witness].”. The following paragraph in the OIPRD report indicates both “[DSS Veillieux] and [DS Peckford] essentially came to an agreement together that a Greenstone OPP could be used for an interview”.

This witness was not central to this investigation and was considered by the OPP to be a “peripheral/collateral” witness.

Although [DS Peckford] was the primary investigator he advised [DSS Veillieux] of his intent to use a member of the Greenstone OPP. Also, [DS Peckford] knows the Greenstone OPP officer to be professional and compassionate supervisor who conducts interviews with integrity. There is no evidence anything untoward came from that interview. This interview was reviewed by [DSS Veillieux] and [DS Peckford] and found to be professional. It was also reviewed by the Crown Attorney’s office according to [DSS Veillieux].

Sgt. Arbuthnot of OPS Professional Standards already addressed this matter extensively in his report on page 15 and 16 in three separate paragraphs and came to the conclusion it was unsubstantiated.

[DS Peckford]’s compelled response dated September 29, 2023, lists several reasons for using [DS St. Onge] for the interview and there are no issues with this response for the reasons why this decision was made. It should be noted that the decision not to use Greenstone members was not an “absolute decision”. [DS Peckford] also has a supporting email from D/S/Sgt. Diane Harder that they are “trying” to keep Greenstone members away from this investigation. Therefore, it is clear there was no direct order or direction that Greenstone members could not be used.

Even the OIPRD Request for Review report indicates in the footnotes on page 2, [DS St. Onge] is not “technically” a member of the Greenstone OPP detachment, although he does supervise and work with members of that detachment.

A review of the OIPRD Request for Review report, seems to suggest there is concern by the OIPRD that a Greenstone member conducted an interview of a peripheral witness in this investigation and that could potentially be misconduct. The foundation for this concern embodies the fact the complainant was allegedly told a Greenstone member would not be used in this investigation. The allegation against [DS Peckford] is unsubstantiated.

[39] On December 5, 2023, the Commissioner advised PC Loker that the OPP would take no further action in this matter in light of the findings of the Supplementary Investigative Report.

Final Decision

[40] On April 26, 2024, the IRPD issued its final decision. The IPRD varied the decision of the Commissioner, pursuant to s. 71(3) of the PSA, as he found that the Responding Officers had each committed one count of discreditable conduct, under cl. 2(1)(a)(xi) of the Code of Conduct, by assigning DS St. Onge to conduct the interview of Ms. Chaine “… given DS St. Onge’s close association with the Greenstone OPP, the potential conflict of interest arising from that association and the availability of other officers with no potential conflict to conduct the interview.” The IPRD confirmed the Commissioner’s decision in all other respects.

[41] The IPRD gave the following reasons for this finding:

Although [DS St. Onge] was technically no longer a member of the Greenstone OPP detachment at the time of investigation, he did have ongoing involvement with the members of that detachment in his role as Area Crime Supervisor, making him directly responsible for overseeing the work of members of the Greenstone OPP. Further, the social media posts provided by the complainant show that [DS St. Onge] had or has an ongoing association with the Greenstone OPP and may have worked out of that detachment. These factors give rise to perception that [DS St. Onge] was closely associated with the Greenstone OPP and therefore that there was the potential for a conflict of interest, or the perception of a potential conflict of interest.

In making this finding, I want to make clear that I do not find that [DS St. Onge] was in an actual conflict of interest. I accept [DS St. Onge]’s evidence that he would not have conducted the interview if he felt he was in a conflict of interest. Further, LECA has reviewed the transcript of the interview [DS St. Onge] conducted with [Ms. Chaine], and it was conducted thoroughly and professionally. There is no evidence of any bias or partiality towards the alleged perpetrator in the interview. Nor did [DS St. Onge]’s involvement have any negative effect on the investigation, or factor into the decision not to lay charges.

However, as noted above, the OPP policy on conflict of interest requires officers to avoid actions that could be perceived as potential conflicts, in addition to avoiding actual conflicts. The assignment of [DS St. Onge] to interview [Ms. Chaine] gives rise to a reasonable perception of a potential conflict of interest, particularly in the eyes of the complainant. The perception of a potential conflict was exacerbated by the fact that the alleged perpetrator felt comfortable enough to call [DS St. Onge] to inquire about the status of the investigation, suggesting at least some level of a prior relationship.

[DS Peckford] stated that it was his belief that the direction not to use Greenstone OPP members was not absolute and was only to be adhered to if practicable. The evidence demonstrates that it was practicable to assign another officer, with no association with the Greenstone OPP, to conduct the interview of [Ms. Chaine] either in person or by telephone as had been done with another peripheral witness. [DS Peckford] stated that he assigned [DS St. Onge] in order to move the investigation along and avoid any potential delays. While the timeliness of an investigation is important, the integrity of an investigation and the perceived integrity of the investigation are more important.

I also note that [DS Peckford] did not ask [DS St. Onge] if he was in a conflict of interest or a potential conflict or had a prior professional or personal relationship with the alleged perpetrator and just assumed that if [DS St. Onge] was in a conflict he would identify that conflict. Given the sensitivity of the investigation and the recognized potential for conflicts with respect to members of the Greenstone OPP, these inquiries should have been made directly.

Cumulatively, I find there are reasonable grounds to believe that [DS Peckford]’s conduct constitutes misconduct because, viewed objectively, the assignment of [DS St. Onge] to conduct the interview gives rise to the perception of a potential conflict of interest. Further, this assignment was made contrary to the direction of the OPP because there were reasonable alternatives to the assignment of [DS St. Onge]. In making this assignment, [DS Pickfield] chose expediency at the expense of the victim-centered approach required in a sexual assault investigation, and his conduct therefore, is bringing discredit upon the reputation of the OPP.

[DSS Veillieux]’s approval of the assignment of [DS St. Onge] to interview [Ms. Chaine] also constitutes misconduct because he failed to inquire if [DS Pickford] had asked [DS St. Onge] about a potential conflict and just assumed that [DS St. Onge] would identify a conflict. Nor did he inquire if there were reasonable alternatives. Given the direction from the Regional Crime Office, [DSS Veillieux] should have inquired whether the assignment of [DS St. Onge] was the only practicable means to complete the interview.

I find that the assignment of [DS St. Onge] to conduct the interview and the approval of that assignment bring discredit upon the OPP and therefore there are reasonable grounds to believe that both [DSS Veillieux] and [DS Peckford] committed discreditable conduct. [Emphasis added]

[42] For the purposes of determining the appropriate penalty, the IPRD found that the misconduct was not of a serious nature. The IPRD stated:

While [DSS Veillieux and DS Peckford] should not have assigned [DS St. Onge] to conduct the interview of [Ms. Chaine], I find that this assignment, ultimately did not have a negative effect on the criminal investigation and had no bearing on the decision not to lay charges. Further, I find that [DS St. Onge] conducted a thorough and professional interview.

Because I have found that the allegation of misconduct against [DSS Veillieux and DS Peckford] is not of serious nature, pursuant to the PSA, the Chief may attempt to informally resolve the matter with the complainant and [DSS Veillieux and DS Peckford], provided all parties consent. If an agreement is reached, LECA must be notified of the resolution in writing and be provided with a copy of the Informal Resolution Agreement Form.

If an agreement is not reached, the Chief may impose a penalty on the officer without holding a formal hearing. This process is distinct from the informal resolution outlined above. Under the PSA, the Chief does not require the complainant’s consent and may impose one or more of the penalties outlined in the PSA on the officer. If the matter is disposed of by way of discipline without a hearing, the Chief must notify LECA of any penalty imposed or any action taken. The Chief is not required to advise the complainant of the type of penalty imposed on the officer.

If the matter cannot be resolved by way of discipline without a hearing, a disciplinary hearing must be held. In that case, the Chief must notify LECA and the complainant of the date of the hearing and any subsequent dates. The complainant and OIPRD must also be provided with a copy of the Notice of Hearing after it has been served on the respondent officer.

[43] The Commissioner has not imposed a penalty on the Responding Officers nor has a disciplinary hearing been held. Instead, the Commissioner commenced this application for judicial review.

Position of the Parties

[44] The Commissioner submits that the IPRD’s decisions should be quashed because his finding of discreditable conduct was unreasonable and he failed to assess whether such misconduct had been established objectively. The intervenors, the Responding Officers, support this position.

[45] The IPRD submits that his decision was based on an objective assessment of discreditable conduct rather than his or the complainant’s subjective view. Further, the IPRD submits that his reasons were comprehensive and considered all the evidence. The intervenor complainant supports this position.

Statutory Scheme

[46] Clause 80(1)(a) of the PSA states that a police officer is guilty of misconduct if he or she commits an offence described in a prescribed code of conduct.

[47] Subsection 30(1) of O. Reg. 268/10 states that any conduct described in the code of conduct constitutes misconduct for the purpose of section 80 of the PSA.

[48] Subclause 2(1)(a)(xi) of the Code of Conduct states that “… any chief of police or other police officer commits misconduct if he or she engages in …Discreditable Conduct, in that he or she, … acts in a disorderly manner or in a manner prejudicial to discipline or likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the police force of which the officer is a member.” [Emphasis added]

[49] Under the PSA:

(a) Any member of the public may make a complaint to the IPRD about the conduct of a police officer: PSA, s. 58(1)(b);

(b) If the IPRD determines that a complaint about the conduct of a police officer should be investigated, then the IPRD may: (i) refer the complaint to the police service to which the police officer who is subject of the complaint belongs for investigation, (ii) refer the complaint to another police service for investigation, or (iii) retain the complaint for investigation by the IPRD: PSA, s. 61(5))

(c) A chief of police shall cause every complaint referred by the IPRD to be investigated and to be reported on in a written report. Following the chief of police’s review of the investigation report, if the chief of police:

(i) is of the opinion that the complaint is unsubstantiated, then the chief of police shall take no action in response to the complaint and shall notify the complainant, the police officer that is the subject of the complaint and the IPRD, of the decision and of the complainant’s right under s. 71(1) of the PSA to ask the IPRD to review the decision within 30 days: PSA, s. 66(2)

(ii) believes on reasonable grounds that the police officer’s conduct constitutes misconduct as defined in section 80 of the PSA or unsatisfactory work performance, then a hearing shall be held into the matter, unless the chief of police being of the opinion that the misconduct or unsatisfactory work was not of a serious nature may choose resolve the matter informally without a hearing, with the consent of the police officer and the complainant: PSA, s. 66(3),(4). Before resolving the matter informally, the chief of police shall notify the complainant and the police officer of his opinion that there was misconduct or unsatisfactory work that was not of a serious nature, and that complainant may under s. 71(1) of the PSA ask the IPRD to review this decision within 30 days: PSA, s. 66(5).

(d) If a complainant has been notified under s. 66(2) that his or her complaint is unsubstantiated or under s. 66(5) that the conduct that he or she complained of has been determined to be not of a serious nature, the complainant may, within 30 days, ask the IPRD to review the decision: PSA, s. 71(1).

(e) The IPRD shall endeavour to complete its review within 30 days and shall not hold a hearing. Upon completion of its review of a decision, the IPRD may confirm the decision, direct the chief of police to deal with the complaint as the IPRD specifies, assign the investigation of the complaint or the conduct of a hearing in respect of the complaint to a police force other than the police force to which the complaint relates, take over the investigation of the complaint, or take or require to be taken any other action with respect to the complaint that the IPRD considers necessary in the circumstances: PSA, ss. 71(2),(3).

(f) Where the IPRD finds that misconduct has occurred, the IPRD will classify the misconduct as “serious” or “not serious” for the purposes of determining the appropriate range of penalties. Misconduct will only be found to be serious when it reaches a level where the demotion or termination of an officer may be seen as an appropriate remedy: PSA, s. 66(10).

(g) Where it is determined that the misconduct is not of a serious nature, then the chief of police need not direct a hearing if the issue of the proper resolution can be resolved with the consent of the complainant and responding police officer: PSA, s. 66(4),(10).

(h) At a hearing under s. 66(3), misconduct must be established on “clear and convincing evidence”: PSA, s. 84(1).

[50] There is no statutory right of appeal from the IPRD’s decision on a review conducted under s. 71 of the PSA. However, an application for judicial review may be brought if the complainant or a police service is dissatisfied with the IRPD’s decision: see Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J.1, ss. 2, 6(1).

Standard of Review

[51] The presumptive standard of review on an application for judicial review is reasonableness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653, at paras. 65-68.

[52] A reviewing court cannot interfere with a decision because it would have decided the matter differently. More is required. As noted in Vavilov:

100 The burden is on the party challenging the decision to show that it is unreasonable. Before a decision can be set aside on this basis, the reviewing court must be satisfied that there are sufficiently serious shortcomings in the decision such that it cannot be said to exhibit the requisite degree of justification, intelligibility and transparency. Any alleged flaws or shortcomings must be more than merely superficial or peripheral to the merits of the decision. It would be improper for a reviewing court to overturn an administrative decision simply because its reasoning exhibits a minor misstep. Instead, the court must be satisfied that any shortcomings or flaws relied on by the party challenging the decision are sufficiently central or significant to render the decision unreasonable.

101 What makes a decision unreasonable? We find it conceptually useful here to consider two types of fundamental flaws. The first is a failure of rationality internal to the reasoning process. The second arises when a decision is in some respect untenable in light of the relevant factual and legal constraints that bear on it. There is however, no need for reviewing courts to categorize failures of reasonableness as belonging to one type or the other.

Was the IPRD’s Decision Reasonable?

[53] A finding of discreditable conduct under cl. 2(1)(a)(xi) of the Code of Conduct requires a finding that a police officer engaged in conduct that is “likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the police force of which the officer is a member”.

[54] Whether a police officer committed discreditable conduct turns on “… whether a reasonable member of the community, fully aware of the facts, would find that the conduct would likely discredit the reputation of the [police force] if it were to become public knowledge”. In the absence of evidence as to the expectations of the community, the IPRD is to use their own judgment and place themselves in the position of a reasonable person fully apprised of the facts to determine if the test has been met.: Cudney, #254 v. St. Thomas Police Service, 2023 ONSC 3443 (Div. Ct.), at paras. 32-33.

[55] The IPRD found that the conduct reflected by DS Peckford’s assignment of DS St. Onge to interview Ms. Chaine constituted discreditable conduct as:

(a) There was a perception that DS St. Onge was closely associated with the Greenstone OPP and therefore there was a “potential for conflict of interest”, or the “perception of a potential conflict of interest”. This perception was a “reasonable perception” of a potential conflict of interest particularly in the eyes of PC Loker.

(b) There were reasonable alternatives to the assignment of DS St. Onge. His assignment reflected a preference for expediency over a victim centered approach required in a sexual assault investigation under Section 2.13.1 of the Ontario Provincial Police Orders, which is an OPP policy document.

[56] The IRPD found that the conduct reflected by DSS Veillieux’s approval of the assignment of DS St. Onge to interview Ms. Chaine also constituted discreditable conduct because:

(a) He failed to inquire if DS Peckford had asked DS St. Onge about a potential conflict of interest and just assumed that DS St. Onge would identify a conflict.

(b) He failed to inquire if there were reasonable alternatives. Given the direction from the Regional Crime Office, DSS Veillieux should have inquired about whether the assignment of DS St. Onge was the only practicable means to complete the interview.

[57] In finding that the Responding Officers had committed discreditable conduct, the IPRD did not acknowledge that the test for finding discreditable conduct is whether a reasonable member of the community, fully aware of the facts, would find that the conduct would likely discredit the reputation of the police force if it were to become public knowledge. More importantly, his reasons do not reflect the reasonable application of that test. The reasoning outlined by the Ontario Divisional Court in A.Z. v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director, 2023 ONSC 6365, at para. 55, is also applicable in these circumstances:

A reasonable apprehension of bias is to be determined not from the standpoint of the decision-making organisation, or from that of the complainant. Rather, the person considering the alleged bias must be reasonable, and the apprehension of bias itself must also be reasonable in the circumstances of the case. [Citations omitted] [Emphasis added]

[58] It is clear from the language used in the Decision that the IPRD had regard for the complainant’s view that there was a potential conflict of interest in assigning DS St. Onge to interview the witness. Her view does not govern the analysis. Only the underlying facts should have informed the analysis of whether DSS Veillieux and DS St. Onge had committed discreditable conduct.

[59] The Decision acknowledges that: (a) DS St. Onge was not in an actual conflict of interest and that he would not have conducted the interview if he felt he was in a conflict of interest; (b) a review of the transcript shows that the interview was conducted thoroughly and professionally; (c) no harm was done as DS St. Onge’s involvement in the investigation did not have any negative effect on the investigation or factor into the decision not to lay charges; (d) the witness had little evidentiary value as she did not observe the alleged assaults.

[60] The IPRD’s analysis did not acknowledge that: (a) DS St. Onge was known to be a professional and compassionate supervisor who conducts interviews with integrity; (b) The Responding Officers had no concerns about DS St. Onge being biased; (c) The Direction from the Regional Crime Office not to use Greenstone detachment members was not “absolute” as an email from DSS Diane Harder indicated that they were “trying” to keep Greenstone members away from this investigation.

[61] The IPRD’s conclusion that the Responding Officers had committed discreditable conduct in their investigation does not reflect the deference to be afforded to choices made in good faith during a police investigation. In Boua v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director, 2024 ONSC 2172, 173 O.R. (3d) 165, at para. 16, the Divisional Court stated:

Complainants are entitled to a comparatively low level of procedural fairness with respect to investigations because they are not facing a concrete impact to their rights and interests. It is the police officers who are at risk of findings of misconduct and the resulting consequences. Additionally, significant deference is owed to the procedure chosen by the TPS in its investigation. The law does not require a perfect investigation and courts are reluctant to interfere in an administrative decision-maker's investigative process unless there is bad faith or patent unfairness. [Citations omitted]

[62] The complainant submits the IPRD found that the Responding Officers had “seriously undermined” public confidence in the police service as “the OPP officers’ failure to maintain impartiality, their neglect in interviewing pivotal parties, and their inadequate assessment of the evidence constituted a significant breach of the professional standards expected of them”. The complainant also submits that the IPRD had found that Responding Officers had “significantly undermined the integrity of the entire investigative process”. No such findings were made by the IPRD.

[63] The IPRD submits that on a review under s. 71 of the PSA the IPRD is only required to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to believe, on reasonable grounds, that the conduct of the Respondent Officers constituted misconduct. The IPRD further submits that this standard presents a low evidentiary threshold and that allegations of misconduct are not subject to the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence. There is only one civil standard of proof at common law and that is proof on a balance of probabilities: F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 41, at para. 40; Outram v. College of Massage Therapists of Ontario, 2025 ONSC 4201, at para. 33.

[64] I agree with the views expressed by the Commissioner and the Responding Officers that the IPRD approached the issue of whether discreditable conduct had been committed from the eyes of the complainant rather than from the dispassionate perspective of the reasonable member of the community. Applying the correct test as set out in Cudney, the evidence before the IPRD could not support a finding that on a balance of probabilities the conduct of the Respondent officers constituted misconduct.

Disposition

[65] For these reasons, this application for judicial review is granted and the IPRD’s Decision is set aside.

[66] In Vavilov, the principles regarding when it is appropriate to remit a case for a rehearing were described, at paras. 141 and 142, as follows:

… where a decision reviewed by applying the reasonableness standard cannot be upheld, it will most often be appropriate to remit the matter to the decision maker to have it reconsider the decision, this time with the benefit of the court’s reasons. In reconsidering its decision, the decision maker may arrive at the same, or a different, outcome:

However, while courts should, as a general rule, respect the legislature’s intention to entrust the matter to the administrative decision maker, there are limited scenarios in which remitting the matter would stymie the timely and effective resolution of matters in a manner that no legislature could have intended. An intention that the administrative decision maker decide the matter at first instance cannot give rise to an endless merry-go-round of judicial reviews and subsequent reconsiderations. Declining to remit a matter to the decision maker may be appropriate where it becomes evident to the court, in the course of its review, that a particular outcome is inevitable and that remitting the case would therefore serve no useful purpose. [Citations omitted]

[67] There is a complete record before this Court. The interview by DS St. Onge occurred in January 2020 and this particular complaint was commenced in March 2022. There is no advantage in remitting the matter to the OIPRD, as the result is inevitable.

Faieta J.

I agree _______________________________

Sachs J.

I agree _______________________________

Backhouse J.

Released: September 17, 2025