New Paragraph

Do Torontonians still love their police?
October 16, 2017

A recent Newstalk 1010 “Pulse of Toronto” survey presented the views of Torontonians on a variety of issues, including the Toronto Police Service (TPS). The TPS component indeed provided some concerning and surprising results to me.

The survey states that “6 in 10 (61%) Torontonians indicate they'd "be scared" if they were "pulled over by a police officer for no apparent reason”” and that “51% believe many/most/all Toronto police never really get punished for any wrongdoing they commit on or off the job.”


The survey also said that a concerning number of respondents feel the Toronto Police Association (TPA) cares more about its members than about citizens and policing and quoted several other disturbing perceptions among those surveyed about Chief Saunders’ effectiveness, police treatment of “black/dark-skinned” citizens, and other issues that demonstrate that public trust in police is waning.


Where is all of this coming from?


The TPS is a good police service. I truly believe it is one of the best of its size in North America. The vast majority of officers and staff are honest, hard-working and committed to public safety. Crime rates in Toronto (including homicides) are miniscule compared to similar sized cities in the U.S. That doesn’t mean they are totally without fault of course, no police service is.


Canadian policing is probably the most regulated and governed profession there is, and public oversight is extremely high – through legislation, boards, public complaints and use of force investigation bodies, as well as extensive media scrutiny. Occasionally bad things will occur unfortunately, but members will most often be held accountable through due process.


The past few years have seen public and Toronto Police Services Board concerns raised over street-checks (or “carding”); the criminal conviction of Constable Forcillo in the death of Sammy Yatim; a few high-profile incidents and trials around alleged police misconduct; as well as the well-publicized protest by the TPA over the TPS modernization initiative. Those few instances – in some cases totally unacceptable and in other cases where the validity of the criticism is debatable, should be far over shadowed by all the good things TPS members do to protect people and property, 24/7, year round. However, whether an allegation of wrongdoing by police ends up being substantiated or not, it can still become a public perception issue for community members. I get that.


We live in a society that is highly-impacted by a 24 hour real-time news cycle and inundated by social media reports that are often exaggerated or completely inaccurate. Unfortunately more people use the veil of anonymity social media provides to spread criticism and false allegations than do the majority of citizens that value their police service. At the same time, the U.S. has been plagued with wide-spread concern over police use of force and allegations of racialized policing, resulting in volatile anti-police protests and furthering police criticism. I’m convinced that this negative publicity south of the border has impacted the Toronto survey to some degree.


Chief Saunders is a good police chief. He came up through the ranks and was publicly endorsed by the TPA during the selection process. He is committed to the people of Toronto and to the members of the TPS, but at times has to make very difficult decisions that will not please everyone. I believe he makes those decisions in the best interests of community safety, closely followed by what is best for the employees of the TPS. The citizens of Toronto must come first – even before officer safety. If the officers came first, he wouldn’t allow them to leave their stations and risk their lives to protect the people of Toronto. But officer safety is a huge concern for him too. He has been there and has done that work himself.


The TPA leaders on the other hand, will never be re-elected if they voice a position that staffing cuts are acceptable. I’m sure they care about public safety as well, but let’s be honest – membership satisfaction and safety will always be their most critical concern.


Policing is an increasingly expensive business and very little structural and service-delivery change has occurred within the TPS for decades. Most Canadian police services have and are going through substantive change to be as effective and efficient as they can. TPS is not alone.


I don’t know if all the recommendations made in the TPS Modernization Project are valid or not, but Chief Saunders and his team believe them to be. I also don’t know if the TPA was properly consulted throughout the modernization process, but I can’t imagine in my wildest dreams that Chief Saunders would agree to a plan that unnecessarily places officers at even higher levels of risk than they would normally face. Right or wrong, this obvious divide between the TPS and TPA executives does nothing to maintain public confidence in its police service.


I’m not questioning the accuracy of the Newstalk 1010 survey, which was conducted by a reputable firm, but people are people and opinions change with the wind. We have all seen political surveys where nominees are shown to be highly favoured during election campaigns, only to suffer humiliating losses when the dust settles. That is simply human nature at work.


I think most Torontonians still love their police. Regardless, TPS and TPA obviously have some work to do to rebuild public trust to the levels they have enjoyed for many years. That critical trust is built one public interaction at a time and the ball is firmly in their court to fix it.

Leadership involves risk, especially in policing

By Chris Lewis • March 28, 2026
Leadership is inundated with risk, every hour of every day, in all sectors. In policing, legislative authorities and established policy are the ever-present guideposts, but occasionally policy just doesn’t apply. At times someone has to just make a decision to do something, or not, or they will fail the public they serve and the personnel it is their duty to lead. If it goes bad, time to own up, do damage control, learn from it and move forward. It always frightened me when I saw some at the senior executive level in policing think that supervisors and managers operate in a pristine little bubble where nothing should ever go wrong. Then when it did because some supervisor tried their best to make something work for all the right reasons, they wanted to pigeon-hole the person that took the risk. There were times during my own career when executives were not encouraged to take any risk either. In fact, taking risk was career risk in itself. Despite the best of intentions, if it went bad, the one ‘responsible’ be forever labelled as having failed. Even if the gamble went well, the jaundiced eyes from above would still forever look at them as being a potential liability. It became the “Oh, him. He’s the one that...” At times the daily decision making of high-level commanders would be second-guessed by those in the executive suites – some of whom had never really commanded anything. My buddy retired Chief Wayne Frechette used to describe these folks as: “They’ve never been out after dark on company time.” I know this same concept was alive in many other police services. Some at executive levels actually did serve in operational roles at some point but they never took a risk. Somehow, they were fortunate to skate through difficult situations through sheer luck as opposed to good decision-making and never developed any scar tissue along the way. They didn’t learn from failure – they survived by luck. They also were viewed by weak executives above them as being golden because there was never a milli-second of negativity around them. They were Teflon. But those that worked under their “command” (for lack of a better word) had no respect for them. They simply watched them walk around with coffee in hand, never leaving the office or making a decision. It wasn’t leadership, but it did pave the way to stardom from on high, for some. True leaders do take risks at times. Many I worked with and for did it all and did it well. They did so in the best interests of those they served and those they led, because it wasn’t about themselves, but was done in the service of those that placed their trust in them. Policy simply doesn’t fit every situation. It is most often a guide that anticipates most circumstances that employees will face, particularly the more common (high-frequency) ones. But it cannot predict every possible scenario. When that happens in policing, it can occur in very unlikely situations (low-frequency) that are incredibly high-risk. Supervisors cannot say “Sorry folks, the book doesn’t cover this one” and run away crying. They also don’t have time to tell bad guys, “Hey big fella, sit tight. We need to take a pause here and get the whiteboard out so we can have a group-think about how to stop your murderous rampage.” I think that many pseudo-leaders – far too many, are afraid to make risky decisions out of fear that an error will jeopardize their career. Instead, they risk their careers by not making decisions. Or as I like to say: “their fear of career-risk, risks their careers.” This can be fatal in the policing world. When a police supervisor shirks their responsibilities or quivers, sucks their thumb, and prays for the situation to go away, thankfully constables will come forward and do their best to get their teammates through it. Sometimes that ends well and when the supervisor emerges from their fear-induced coma, they will more often than not take credit for the success. But when the situation goes to hell-in-a-handbasket – despite best efforts, the pseudo-leader will document the risk-taking employee and add another bullet-point to their list of things they’ve done to “hold people accountable.” The panel at their next promotional interview will likely hear the false rendition proudly told. I hear examples of this practise from serving police officers across North America on a much too frequent basis. True leaders develop a culture of trust among those they lead that their suggestions and feedback are encouraged and valued. Their confidence that the leader wants their input encourages them to constantly analyze situations and give thought to what policy says and the options available when policy says nothing. That is good for the employee’s development and may save the leader’s hind-end and the continuity of the team on occasion when an employee steps forward in a crisis. Having said that, there will clearly be situations where there isn’t time for the whiteboard, and a decision needs to be made by the responsible “leader.” When it doesn’t work out, the real leader will step forward and be accountable. But when it does go well, the true leader will allow the light to shine on the team they have the honour to lead. In my view, we’re not seeing enough of that in North American policing. We need more genuine leaders at all levels of law enforcement organizations. Developing and promoting real leaders that can manage risk effectively is a must. Anything less fails everyone.

Why Joint Forces Operations Are No Longer Optional

By Chris Lewis • March 26, 2026
They used to be simply a "nice to have."

Police investigating police: Is there another option?

By Chris Lewis • March 18, 2026
The March 17 th announcement by the Toronto Police Service (TPS) regarding the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) investigation into allegations by an Ontario Justice that three TPS officers colluded and lied during a 2024 murder trial against a man that ran over and killed TPS Constable Jeffrey Northrup in 2021, has further inflamed the debate over who should investigate alleged police wrongdoing. This instance combined with the recent arrests and ongoing police investigation into several TPS officers for their alleged involvement with organized crime, has brought this discussion to a boiling point. I appreciate the public perceptions around this investigative model given that the average citizen doesn’t necessarily understand the professionalism and commitment of police investigative teams like the recent OPP Criminal Investigation Branch (CIB) group. I have all the confidence the world in that team, but I also personally know the ability and integrity of the OPP Detective Inspector in-charge. So, if these investigations aren’t carried out by police, who will do them? They do not fall under the mandate of the Ontario Special Investigations Unit (SIU), which by the way is largely comprised of former police criminal investigators and forensic identification experts, many of whom investigated homicides in police services. For SIU to assume a larger role, they would have to grow exponentially and expand their team of ‘former cops’. These cases generally do not fall under the purview of Ontario’s Inspectorate of Policing either. They would loosely fall under the oversight role of Ontario’s Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA), who is responsible for receiving, managing and overseeing public complaints against police, but frankly they don’t have mandate or the horsepower to conduct complex criminal investigations. They oversee the “public complaints” that may lead to a criminal investigation, but the investigation would be the responsibility of a police service to conduct. An expansion of the LECA would require a tremendous amount of funding and human resources, most of whom would also be former police officers. Hiring and training civilians to conduct such investigations is an option, but largely an incomprehensible one. Police criminal investigators are trained officers that generally start out as uniformed officers responding to occurrences and investigating more routine and less serious crimes, i.e. minor assaults and property crimes. They build investigative expertise over time, including in interviewing and interrogation; gathering and securing physical evidence; legal processes like obtaining judicial authorizations; presenting evidence in court; and various investigative strategies. They learn how to work with special police units that provide specific investigative skills, and more. All of this doesn’t happen overnight, but over a period of years and with the tutelage of more experienced investigators along that journey. Trying to turn a group of young and well-educated civilians – no matter how intelligent and well-intended, into a team of elite investigators, would be a complete disaster and unfair to the public or to the officers being investigated. Over my many years as a member or as the Director of the OPP CIB, my colleagues and I investigated criminal allegations against cops from other agencies. Before the SIU was formed, we investigated officers from many Ontario police services – large and small, who had used deadly force. Many were cleared and a number were arrested and charged. We also investigated criminal allegations against police chiefs in Ontario. Again, several were appropriately cleared, and some were brought before the courts. Municipal, provincial and federal elected officials were similarly investigated and some charged. Our members also investigated police officers in other provinces, including high-ranking ones. I personally investigated two Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officers that were involved in an arrest that result in the death of a suspect. They were properly exonerated, but I would have charged them in a heartbeat if they had wrongfully killed than man. I arrested an OPP Sergeant for sexual assault. A CIB colleague investigated and arrested two different OPP officers for criminal offences. Both of those officers had been personal friends of mine and years later committed suicide. There are tons of similar examples that I can refer to over my career. All of these involved the oversight and legal analysis of a Crown Attorney, sometimes from another province. The interesting thing, and what most of the anti-police folks will never believe, is that in every single one of those investigations, the dialogue that I was involved in with other officers that I worked with or supervised, involved doing what was right. In other words, “If the allegation is substantiated, we will put the case together, arrest them and put them before the courts.” Not even once, did we think about or do anything that would give an officer a pass when they committed a criminal offence. Never. I have every confidence in the world that the vast majority of municipal and RCMP colleagues across Canada would operate under the same guiding principle. Has the occasional officer worked in conflict with that approach? Undoubtedly. Were some investigators not as committed or capable as they should be and perhaps did a poor investigation accidentally or deliberately? Quite likely so. But I truly believe those cases are the exception, not the rule in criminal investigations. Where I more often believe poor investigations or deliberate attempts to inappropriately give a colleague a break continues to occur, is in Police Act investigations, where policy or employee harassment wrongdoings are suspected. I like to think that the focus on that continues to improve, but not fast enough in some cases. Sadly, I know now that unbeknownst to me at the time, it happened under my watch. A focus for my next article. The public and police deserve the very best of investigators to ensure that bad cops are effectively put out of business and good officers are cleared. If there’s another effective option that would appease the doubting public – aside from using current officers from other agencies or creating a new and costly entity that would be staffed by former police officers, I’d like to hear it.