New Paragraph

The Passing of Thomas B. O’Grady – OPP Commissioner Emeritus
April 22, 2024

On April 16, 2024, we lost an incredible police officer and leader from the OPP family. At the same time, his beloved wife Betty, his children and grandchildren all lost the dearly loved patriarch of theirs.


Tom O’Grady had a storied police career that lasted 42 years. He joined the RCMP in 1956 as a young 18 year from Northumberland County in Ontario and following a short stint in Rockcliffe Park (Ottawa), was posted to the Cornerbrook, Newfoundland. Then in 1958, Tom left the RCMP and moved back to Ontario. In those days the RCMP would not allow their young officers to wed and given that he married the lovely Betty that same year, it appears the RCMP lost a good man over their policy.


Tom subsequently served with two small municipal police departments in what is now Durham Region, before joining the OPP in 1961.


His OPP career took him first to Bradford, then Stayner, Huntsville and by 1972 he was assigned to the OPP Anti-Rackets Branch at OPP Headquarters in Toronto. He flourished in the investigative realm and was promoted several times there, including to Detective Inspector upon his transfer to the Criminal Investigation Branch (CIB). He led a number of complex homicide and other major cases across Ontario, including into outlaw motorcycle gangs and even an international case that involved the possible overthrow of a Caribbean country by extremists.


That is when I first met Tom O’Grady, when he was in the CIB and came to London Detachment to conduct some interviews. My Staff Sergeant at the time asked me “Do you know that guy?”, and I replied that I had only heard his name, and in a positive way. He said, “He could well be the Commissioner someday.”


At that time, I didn’t even know what a CIB Inspector was, but after meeting Tom, learning of his cases and watching his interaction with other members, how he spoke and carried himself, my career goal was cemented. I was determined to be a CIB Inspector at some point in my career.


Commissioner O’Grady went on to lead the CIB then was promoted to Chief Superintendent in-charge of the entire Investigations Division, and with a couple of other brief stops, was appointed to be OPP Commissioner in February 1988.


I never really interacted with the Commissioner much prior to the early 1990s. Then through various assignments and investigations, I had to meet with him on occasion and even briefed the Solicitor General and Ontario government committees with him. I was always so impressed with the way he spoke and the impact that had on those he was addressing, whether they be political or police leaders. He maintained a calm, reassuring presence, enunciated his words carefully and purposefully, all while exuding knowledge, confidence and professionalism. There’s no doubt they all admired him greatly and I was certainly proud to call him “Commissioner”.


I attended a meeting with him in Ottawa in the mid-90s, regarding a national strategy to fight organized crime. He sat at a huge table, quietly and thoughtfully, as movers and shakers in police leadership from across the country debated various options and strategies to tackle the growing organized crime threat. After many had spoken and the tide of the discussions had ebbed and flowed, he indicated that he had something to say. When he had the floor, all the other police Chiefs and Commissioners focused intently as he articulated his views – expressing agreement with portions of the earlier dialogue and some contrary thoughts. That changed the direction of the entire conversation. Others nodded in agreement and then the Chair spoke, and the entire group indicated their consensus.


One of things he said to the group, and it struck me, was: “Whether it be federal, provincial or municipal police services, they are all paid for by the taxpayers. And it’s all the same taxpayers. We owe it to them to work together effectively and to get it right for them.”


I told him after the meeting that I thought in future meetings – that involved a galaxy of egos and agendas, he should simply speak first, everyone would agree, and we could wrap things up much more quickly. He laughed and said, “Well, they all need to have their say.”


I didn’t realize it then, but through those interactions I learned valuable lessons that would help me in my journey as a police leader.


In 1995, Tom called me to his office in Orillia. He was very concerned about a letter to the editor that I had sent to a major newspaper to correct some misleading reporting they had published.

Although I had worded the letter carefully, he felt that I had disregarded his instructions to the entire OPP to not engage with the media about a controversial issue that the OPP had been criticized over. Although I made a brief counterargument, there was no doubt in my mind that I was not going to sweet-talk my way out of this discussion, so I fell on my sword.


He asked, “Why do you do these things?” It appeared t he had the perception that I spoke my mind a bit too directly at times. He had me there! I replied, “Because they pissed me off.” He said, “Well they pissed me off too, but I didn’t write them a letter.” I said, “Perhaps you should have.” He went on to tell me that I wasn’t alone in that thought and that someday he would publicly speak to the issue, adding, “In the meantime, the next time you’re pissed off, come and see me before you write the press.”


I reported directly to him through my years at Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario (which he assigned me to) and then he promoted me to Superintendent two years later. I totally appreciated that he never threw the towel in on me over my media letter. Other leaders I worked for over the years certainly would have.


Tom O’Grady led the OPP through some challenging years. Ten of them in fact. Fiscal, relationship, public safety and media challenges that we had seldom ever faced as an organization required a high level of patience and strategic thinking. Although as a minor player at the time, I didn’t always agree with the direction chosen or some of the players he promoted to executive roles, but I respected Tom as our leader and did what I could to support him and his agenda, as I did for every Commissioner to follow.


I would eventually find out that being Commissioner of a 9000-person organization can be a lonely position. As a rule, making suggestions to the boss and then disagreeing with his or her decision on occasion isn’t all that stressful. Actually, it’s a pretty easy go. But when the buck stops with you, as it did with Tom for a full decade, it’s a whole different world. I know many people didn’t agree with all my decisions or promotions over the years either – and at times rightly so. Despite Tom’s or my best efforts to get it right, at times we didn’t. That reality comes with the turf.


Commissioner O’Grady retired in 1998. I couldn’t make it to his retirement celebration, but I sent him a letter to wish him well and to thank him for his leadership, his unwavering support of all of our men and women, and for his belief in me. I added at the end, “Even though you’re retired, anytime I’m pissed off, I will give you call before I write a snotty letter to the press.”


We chatted on many occasions over the years to follow. He would still give me his opinion if I asked, but never once offered it when I didn’t. His sage advice and at times silence, was always valued and greatly appreciated.


When I wrote a book on leadership in 2016, I interviewed Tom as well as several other past and current Canadian police Chiefs. In response to my question regarding the importance of leadership, he offered this thoughtful feedback:


“It has been said that the public is generally oblivious to good policing, rather it is the absence of it that draws public attention and concern.

 

By comparison, an efficient and effectively functioning organization is the result of good leadership, a fact that usually goes unnoticed. Only when the organization begins to malfunction does the subject of good leadership or the lack thereof become a subject of public debate.”


Well said, Sir.


I’ll miss Tom O’Grady. As I do, I will certainly keep Betty and his family in my thoughts. They’ve suffered a tremendous loss.


Rest in peace Commissioner.

The worst boss: Nightmare for some, reality for many

By Chris Lewis • June 21, 2025
Image: new-manager-training.com Imagine this scenario if you will, getting the worst boss on earth – a person who is the total antithesis of leadership. Your new “Boss” replaces a leader that wasn’t always right and was getting too old to meet the mental and physical demands of the job, but at the same time treated all those around him with respect. He tried to select people for key positions based on their experience base and his confidence that they may not always agree but the individuals picked would be honest with him, other employees and the client base. He undoubtedly made mistakes here and there and did have some flaws but would readily admit to most of them. This boss comes back to the organization having committed a list of publicly confirmed misdeeds and illegal acts – many of which would have singularly been a good reason to not hire even the lowest level of employee, and justification for imprisonment for others. However, he was chosen for the top job despite all that baggage. Conversely, he brings not one redeeming quality to the top position. From day one, it’s obvious that the new Boss is truly a “boss” and not a “leader.” He has old personal scores to settle and wreaks revenge on many employees that he doesn’t like. Not because they were dishonest, incapable or lazy, but because he perceives that they didn’t want him to return or didn’t always agree with his philosophies and rash actions during past affiliations. This activity causes panic among all employees who know they have no choice but to get aboard his out-of-control train or perish beneath it. Then – without any deep evaluation or thought, he makes tremendous cuts to many organizational programs – leaving thousands without work and lacking any strategy to provide much needed services to a vast array of client groups. He viciously cuts through the organization like a chainsaw through softwood. Why? Because he can. Some of these decisions may have had some degree of validity following a proper assessment, while others not, but that analysis never occurred. Most previous positive relationships with partner agencies and the majority of client groups are immediately scuttled by the new boss. He publicly demeans and taunts longtime allies with irrational statements and outright falsehoods. Never in the many decades of history of the organization has such broad-ranging international indignation been felt, largely as a result of his childish behavior. Very few productive relationships remain and although some new ones are developed, they are only with organizations that are poorly considered by clients and upstanding industry players. His decisions continually fly in the face of the needs of the immense client group but more align with the personal business interests of only the Boss and his business associates – some of whom are either known despots or of questionable character. Company stocks continue to plummet as a result of his silliness. That also has a significant negative impact on the fiscal picture of partner organizations around the world. Anyone that respectfully expresses disagreement or suggests alternative decisions to the Boss, are sidelined or fired, then are ridiculed and until they become unemployable. Gas-lighting, exaggerations, denials, the passing of blame and blatant lies are his norm. He seldom speaks the truth about anyone or any situation. The sycophants he has positioned to assist in his destruction of the organization, publicly praise him for his leadership and courageous decision-making, when the majority of employees and clients know it is just flagrant butt-kissing on their part. He constantly seeks and demands praise, even for things he didn’t do, then sulks and whines when he doesn’t receive it. He falsely takes credit for the few good things that do happen but quickly passes blame when things that have his fingerprints all over them, go horribly wrong. His God-complex is resounding and worsens with each passing day. His public claims of success – before and since becoming the Boss, and assertions of being the “Greatest Boss in history”, fall flat with anyone that truly knows him. He aggressively takes advantage of anyone he can but then turns on them at the flip of a switch. No one is beyond being found at the pointy end of his meanness stick. When caught making an error, he’ll blame everyone on his “team” before accepting any criticism. In fact, he’d turn on his own children if he felt it would make him look brave or heroic, or if it would prevent him from public humiliation. He states his 24/7 lies over and over so often to make his base of lemming followers believe him, that he seemingly believes them to be factual himself. Even when he is confronted with witness testimony or audio/video of his brazen lies, he blames others for being out to get him. Being accountable when things go wrong and letting the light shine on others when they go well, is beyond his comprehension. (Can you spell “narcissistic”?) Although he doesn’t understand the business, he refuses to surround himself with people that do, given that he thinks he knows more than any of them and possibly more than anybody, anywhere, ever, since the dawn of time. Public statements he makes are often completely ridiculous and childish, causing all those around him to force plastic smiles, offer him undeserved praise and nod like pre-programmed bobbleheads. People and even affiliated organizations live in such fear of his thirst for retribution that they either cow-tow to his insanity or prepare for annihilation. He is an embarrassment internally and externally, on an international scale. No past executive has even been so blatantly self-centered, mean spirited and/or inept, nor have they ever had such a negative impact on the organization and its people. It may take decades to repair all the damage he has done. Thankfully, his employment contract is only for four years, so there may be some light at the end of the tunnel. Most of those within and those reliant on the organization, as well as friends, associates, allies internationally pray that this nightmare will end at that time. If it’s not too late, that is. Just a bad dream for some or a reality for millions of us?

What did the PM’s most recent announcement on border security really mean?

By Chris Lewis • February 4, 2025
Is there any meat to this or is it more of the same?

What police don’t need during a crisis

By Chris Lewis • January 4, 2025
Police know how to conduct major investigations and find bad guys. Although several specific factors change from case to case, their general investigative playbook remains the same. Once some ungodly multi-victim attack occurs, in very simplistic terms: the scene is protected, and the health of the living victims is looked after. Forensic experts begin processing the crime scene. Witnesses are located and interviewed. Physical evidence is gathered. Area and witness video recordings are collected and analyzed. Victims are identified. An off-site reunification centre is established where there are multiple victims. Next of kin notifications begin. At any point – if a suspect or suspects become known, their background is gathered, and the hunt begins. They need to be apprehended before anyone else is hurt. Area law enforcement officers need to know suspect details ASAP. “Motive” is at top of mind as investigators are synthesizing all this information, whether the suspect is identified or not. Of course, establishing motive often leads to identifying the suspect, but at other times identifying the suspect helps fill in the blanks on motive. What was the initial basis of what became a murder? Was it a robbery? Could it have been a street fight gone bad? Was it simply a want or need to kill someone specific or maybe anyone at all? That’s for investigators to sort out. There is an onus to warn the public or at least tell them something, i.e. “ongoing threat”, “stay indoors”, or “no threat to public safety”. There are reporting protocols to follow. Senior officers need to be advised up the food chain as do their political masters, so everyone knows what is happening. None of that should detract investigators from doing what they do best – catching killers. But that’s when the ravenous “thirst for knowledge” and political grandstanding often take over and completely interfere with police work. The only knowledge the investigators are thirsty for in those early hours is evidence and then identifying, locating and capturing bad people. They do not need politics monopolizing their time or efforts. The New Years Day massacre in New Orleans was big. Fourteen innocent party goers were killed and dozens injured. The world wanted to know what happened and the community wanted to know if they were in danger. I absolutely get that. However, what sometimes comes with such tragedies is everyone wanting to know everything. We see it in most mass murder cases, but this was an exceptional example of the insanity surrounding such a high-profile incident. Whatever blanks weren’t immediately filled in by police officials and verified mainstream media reports, were filled in by social media. In such cases police totally lose control of the narrative as rumours, theories, falsities, conspiracy theories and “hey look at me” games take over. The political party and individual positioning in this case was nauseating. In any multi-agency response, having the leaders of those agencies at press conferences in a united front makes sense. The public needs to have confidence that the situation is in the best of hands. But where did these massive press conferences where police officials are flanked by numerous politicians come from? I can see some elected leaders being present when a new program is launched or government funding is being announced, but it should never be in the early hours of a mass murder. Having a bunch of partisan wonks peacocking on stage and in follow-up interviews, helps no one at the operational level. As some of them were speaking, I was responding to their dumb questions in my mind: Was it a terror attack? Maybe, but let the experts figure that out. In the meantime, it’s a mass murder. Was the killer an illegal immigrant? Let’s worry about that when the dust settles. What political party is to blame for allowing him into the country? We don’t care. Maybe he was born here. Let’s sort that out if he turns out to be an illegal immigrant. Why wasn’t the area more secure? Good question for a future debrief. We need to get the FBI and HSI leaders before a government committee right away so we can find out who failed! Shut up. We have police work to do. There are always enough social media theories, private citizens’ investigations into suspects, outright lies and misinformation being spread to the public, without silly partisan games sidetracking investigators who are fighting to stay ahead of legitimate theories and tips. In the early hours of a mass murder case investigators are probably the busiest they have ever been, and don’t need any of this interference. Controlling the social media fever is next to impossible. It would take a sudden level of maturity across the populace that may be unattainable. But politicians at all levels need to get the message that they are not welcome on stage at operational press conferences and their comments to the media – if asked for them – aside from expressing sadness, thoughts, prayers and confidence in the police, should be “Our law enforcement agencies are investigating, and we need to let them do what they do.” Adding any theories, raising questions or passing blame is totally wrong. If elected officials truly care about their electorate and feel the need to say more, they should have some prior dialogue with the police leaders or their Public Information Officers to ensure that what they say is helpful as opposed to harmful. Otherwise, be quiet.