New Paragraph

Should the Police Chief be blamed for the misdeeds of subordinates?
February 13, 2026

I say "No."

The recent arrest of a number of Toronto Police Service (TPS) members has drawn some public outcry that points a finger at Chief Myron Demkiw, with calls for his resignation. I think that is an unfair condemnation of the Chief. He was advised of the concerns, threw his complete support behind York Regional Police and stayed out of any decision-making role.


It’s difficult to understand the role of the TPS Chief of Police and the complexities therein, unless you have been there, or in at least a very high-ranking position.


TPS is comprised of about 8000 employees – police officers and civilian personnel, who work in TPS Headquarters; special investigation and operational buildings outside of HQ; and Division buildings across the city. The organization is divided up in various commands (Community Safety, Specialized Operations, Corporate Services, etc.) that are largely headed up by Deputy Chiefs or civilian equivalents, who have downstream civilian Managers, Chief Superintendents, Superintendents, Inspectors, Staff Sergeants and Sergeants supervising the various Constables and civilian employees. 


This is an immense operation that is the biggest municipal police service and polices the largest city in Canada, with a budget of over $1.2B. Think about that!


It is reasonable to think that the Chief will even personally know the officers that were arrested? He likely has never met them. Would he ever possibly interact with them during his long days of dealing with all the budget, HR, infrastructure, operational, media and political issues he and the TPS face 24/7? Would he ever be in a position to assign them patrol zones and daily duties? Would he have a clue how many cars they stopped, or how many charges they laid, or the number of calls they responded to, or arrests made? Would he know that one or two or even 100 of the checks of TPS and Ministry of Transportation databases they made were illegitimate, out of the thousands they each would make in a year? Absolutely not. He’d know none of that and nor should he. 


The Chief has Deputy Chiefs and Chief Superintendents that will tell him things that go really good or very bad across Toronto over the course of a day. There are Sergeants and Staff Sergeants should know much of the above but wouldn’t know how many illicit checks of databases might have been conducted. They don’t sit beside each of the several or more of the Constables under their supervision to say “Okay, why did you just run a check on Jane Doe?” They don’t often ride with them in cruisers and watch every computer check they make on their in-car Mobile Workstations either. 


Sergeants assign duties, zones, partners, cars and generally each supervise the activities of several Constables at a time. They attend some of the calls they are assigned to see them dealing with the public and making decisions on the fly. They should be making sure they look good, show up for work on time, are fit for duty and interact well with colleagues. They should monitor their investigations, arrests, charges and reports. They are also responsible to scrutinize their training, equipment and administration. That’s a big responsibility for a Sergeant who is also attending major incident scenes, processing paperwork and more. A Sergeant is not going to know every little thing each Constable does on a shift and certainly will never know what they are doing off duty. Nor would any supervisor or executive team members on higher – right up to the Chief.


Police officers are issued guns. They are entrusted with making decisions around the use of deadly force. If we have to assign one Sergeant to directly surprise every single Constable and watch every keystroke they make on a computer, then we are done. Let’s take away all the guns and badges.


If complaints are received about the professionalism of a Constable, Sergeants and Staff Sergeants would  have a role in documenting them, meting out minor discipline and ensuring employee behavioural improvements going forward, but the bigger stuff would go up to Professional Standards for investigation. The local Unit Commander (Inspector) would start to get involved for sure at that point, and then it would travel up the food chain from there, but not necessarily all the way to Chief Demkiw.


The Chief wouldn’t be told about most public or internal complaints against Constables, Sergeants and even Staff Sergeants unless they are likely to draw media and/or the Police Services Board’s attention. If Professional Standards feels Criminal or Police Act charges are warranted the Chief would likely be advised, especially if serious and then decisions around suspending are necessary. Other than that, he’d seldom know of the allegations let alone be able to monitor the activities on duty and off, of Constables under his ultimate watch.


If Deputy Chiefs were ever charged with corruption offences, the Chief would have questions to answer from his Board and could fall, depending on what he knew and when and how he reacted or didn’t. Similarly, if Chief Superintendents went bad, knowledge/actions/inaction of Deputy Chiefs would have to be reviewed, and so on. But that’s not what alleged here.


The TPS is not a small work unit like the famous Boston bar “Cheers”, where everybody knows your name. It is a behemoth organization that requires the Chief to able to count on his direct reports, and they on theirs, to prevent misdeeds and take proper action when they do occur, from investigative, process and reparation perspectives. Is that not what he has been doing in this case? Let’s give him a chance.



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.