Complaints Concerning Police Conduct (5:V) - Revision history

Nate Russell at 20:58, 27 November 2025

2025-11-27T20:58:02Z

LSLAP at 19:01, 13 October 2025

2025-10-13T19:01:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:01, 13 October 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= August ~~23,~~ 2025}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= 11 August 2025}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = complaints}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = complaints}}

LSLAP: /* h) Reviews on the Record */

2025-09-27T18:12:59Z

h) Reviews on the Record

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:12, 27 September 2025
Line 120:		Line 120:

	The OPCC can order a review on the record instead of a public hearing if it is unlikely that a review of a disciplinary decision will require evidence beyond:		The OPCC can order a review on the record instead of a public hearing if it is unlikely that a review of a disciplinary decision will require evidence beyond:
	*~~the~~ record of the decision;		*The record of the decision;
	*~~the~~ officer’s service record;		*The officer’s service record;
	*~~submissions~~ from the officer, complainant, and the OPCC.		*Submissions from the officer, complainant, and the OPCC.

	A review on the record is limited to the issues and evidence that were used in a disciplinary proceeding. The process for calling a review on the record, as well as the associated deadlines and the available outcomes, are substantially similar to that of a public hearing. Consult sections 141 and 143 of the ''Police Act'' for certainty.		A review on the record is limited to the issues and evidence that were used in a disciplinary proceeding. The process for calling a review on the record, as well as the associated deadlines and the available outcomes, are substantially similar to that of a public hearing. Consult sections 141 and 143 of the ''Police Act'' for certainty.

LSLAP: /* Test for Ordering a Public Hearing */

2025-09-27T18:12:49Z

Test for Ordering a Public Hearing

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:12, 27 September 2025
Line 110:		Line 110:

	In deciding whether such a hearing is necessary in the public interest, the OPCC must consider all relevant factors, including:		In deciding whether such a hearing is necessary in the public interest, the OPCC must consider all relevant factors, including:
	*~~the~~ nature and seriousness of the complaint;		*The nature and seriousness of the complaint;
	*~~the~~ nature and seriousness of the alleged harm caused by the police officer, including whether the officer’s conduct has undermined public confidence in the police or its disciplinary processes;		*The nature and seriousness of the alleged harm caused by the police officer, including whether the officer’s conduct has undermined public confidence in the police or its disciplinary processes;
	*~~whether~~ a public hearing would assist in ascertaining the truth;		*Whether a public hearing would assist in ascertaining the truth;
	*~~whether~~ a case can be made that the investigation was flawed, the proposed disciplinary measures are inappropriate, or the discipline authority incorrectly interpreted the law.		*Whether a case can be made that the investigation was flawed, the proposed disciplinary measures are inappropriate, or the discipline authority incorrectly interpreted the law.

	After a public hearing takes place, the judge’s decision is communicated to all interested parties. The parties can appeal questions of law, but not questions of fact, to the BC Court of Appeal.		After a public hearing takes place, the judge’s decision is communicated to all interested parties. The parties can appeal questions of law, but not questions of fact, to the BC Court of Appeal.

LSLAP: /* h) Reviews on the Record */

2025-09-27T18:12:19Z

h) Reviews on the Record

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:12, 27 September 2025
Line 120:		Line 120:

	The OPCC can order a review on the record instead of a public hearing if it is unlikely that a review of a disciplinary decision will require evidence beyond:		The OPCC can order a review on the record instead of a public hearing if it is unlikely that a review of a disciplinary decision will require evidence beyond:
	*the record of the decision,		*the record of the decision;
	*the officer’s service record,		*the officer’s service record;
	*submissions from the officer, complainant, and the OPCC.		*submissions from the officer, complainant, and the OPCC.

LSLAP: /* Test for Ordering a Public Hearing */

2025-09-27T18:11:49Z

Test for Ordering a Public Hearing

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:11, 27 September 2025
Line 110:		Line 110:

	In deciding whether such a hearing is necessary in the public interest, the OPCC must consider all relevant factors, including:		In deciding whether such a hearing is necessary in the public interest, the OPCC must consider all relevant factors, including:
	*the nature and seriousness of the complaint,		*the nature and seriousness of the complaint;
	*the nature and seriousness of the alleged harm caused by the police officer, including whether the officer’s conduct has undermined public confidence in the police or its disciplinary processes,		*the nature and seriousness of the alleged harm caused by the police officer, including whether the officer’s conduct has undermined public confidence in the police or its disciplinary processes;
	*whether a public hearing would assist in ascertaining the truth,		*whether a public hearing would assist in ascertaining the truth;
	*whether a case can be made that the investigation was flawed, the proposed disciplinary measures are inappropriate, or the discipline authority incorrectly interpreted the law.		*whether a case can be made that the investigation was flawed, the proposed disciplinary measures are inappropriate, or the discipline authority incorrectly interpreted the law.

LSLAP at 20:38, 23 August 2025

2025-08-23T20:38:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:38, 23 August 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= ~~July 22~~, ~~2024~~}}		{{REVIEWED LSLAP \| date= August 23, 2025}}
	{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = complaints}}		{{LSLAP Manual TOC\|expanded = complaints}}

LSLAP: /* D. Civil or Criminal Proceedings */

2025-08-23T20:23:54Z

D. Civil or Criminal Proceedings

LSLAP: /* c) Step 3: Formal Resolution */

2025-08-23T20:22:35Z

c) Step 3: Formal Resolution

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:22, 23 August 2025
Line 167:		Line 167:
	==== c) Step 3: Formal Resolution ====		==== c) Step 3: Formal Resolution ====

	A complainant who is not satisfied with the results of the investigation may request that the Commission review the handling of the complaint within 60 days of receiving notice of the decision or report (''RCMPA'', section 45.7(1)). As a result of this review, the Commission may refuse to conduct a further investigation, or may conduct a public inquiry into the complaint. There is no further appeal from the Commission’s decision.		A complainant who is not satisfied with the results of the investigation may request that the Commission review the handling of the complaint within 60 days of receiving notice of the decision or report (''RCMPA'', section 45.7(1)). As a result of this review, the Commission may refuse to conduct a further investigation or may conduct a public inquiry into the complaint. There is no further appeal from the Commission’s decision.

	== D. Civil or Criminal Proceedings ==		== D. Civil or Criminal Proceedings ==

LSLAP: /* 2. Complaint Process */

2025-08-23T20:20:07Z

2. Complaint Process

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:20, 23 August 2025
Line 55:		Line 55:
	\| phone = (604) 687-2919 <br /> Toll-Free: 1-855-556-3566 <br /> Fax: (604) 687-3045		\| phone = (604) 687-2919 <br /> Toll-Free: 1-855-556-3566 <br /> Fax: (604) 687-3045
	}}		}}

	==== b) Step 2: Admissibility ====		==== b) Step 2: Admissibility ====

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:58, 27 November 2025
Line 105:		Line 105:
	The OPCC can order public hearings into matters involving misconduct by municipal police officers in British Columbia. After the investigation into the complaint has concluded, the complainant or the member may request a public hearing within '''20 business days''' of receiving the disciplinary authority’s report (''Police Act'', section 136(1)). Alternatively, the OPCC must initiate a public hearing itself if it determines that a public hearing is necessary in the public interest (''Police Act'', section 138(1)). At a public hearing, the adjudicator must decide if misconduct has been proven, determine the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, and recommend any changes in policy or practice to the police board (section 143(9)). Amendments to the ''Police Act'' in 2024 gave the OPCC the ability to consolidate multiple matters to be heard at a public hearing if they involve the same officer or are otherwise related (section 138(3.1)).		The OPCC can order public hearings into matters involving misconduct by municipal police officers in British Columbia. After the investigation into the complaint has concluded, the complainant or the member may request a public hearing within '''20 business days''' of receiving the disciplinary authority’s report (''Police Act'', section 136(1)). Alternatively, the OPCC must initiate a public hearing itself if it determines that a public hearing is necessary in the public interest (''Police Act'', section 138(1)). At a public hearing, the adjudicator must decide if misconduct has been proven, determine the appropriate disciplinary or corrective measures, and recommend any changes in policy or practice to the police board (section 143(9)). Amendments to the ''Police Act'' in 2024 gave the OPCC the ability to consolidate multiple matters to be heard at a public hearing if they involve the same officer or are otherwise related (section 138(3.1)).

	In ''[https://~~www.~~canlii.~~org/en/bc~~/~~bcca~~/~~doc/2013/2013bcca92/2013bcca92.html?autocompleteStr=Florkow%20v%20British%20Columbia%20(Police%20Complaint%20Commissioner)%2C%202013%20BCCA%2092&autocompletePos=1~~ Florkow v British Columbia (Police Complaint Commissioner)]'', 2013 BCCA 92, the BC Court of Appeal found that under the ''Police Act'' as it then was then, the OPCC could only hold a public hearing after certain stages of the complaint process — after the discipline authority has concluded its investigation, after the retired judge has reviewed the file, or after the disciplinary proceeding. Amendments to the ''Police Act'' in 2024 gave the OPCC the power to order a public hearing much earlier in the process: at any time after a final investigation report is received (section 138(2.1)).		In ''[https://canlii.ca/t/fwc2p Florkow v British Columbia (Police Complaint Commissioner)]'', 2013 BCCA 92, the BC Court of Appeal found that under the ''Police Act'' as it then was then, the OPCC could only hold a public hearing after certain stages of the complaint process — after the discipline authority has concluded its investigation, after the retired judge has reviewed the file, or after the disciplinary proceeding. Amendments to the ''Police Act'' in 2024 gave the OPCC the power to order a public hearing much earlier in the process: at any time after a final investigation report is received (section 138(2.1)).

	===== Test for Ordering a Public Hearing =====		===== Test for Ordering a Public Hearing =====
Line 194:		Line 194:
	=== 2. Civil Proceedings ===		=== 2. Civil Proceedings ===

	Individuals may be able to sue police officers civilly, even when they have also made a complaint. Section 179(1) of the BC ''Police Act'' specifically states that the complaint proceedings outlined above do not preclude a citizen from taking, or continuing, civil or criminal proceedings against an RCMP officer or a municipal constable for misconduct. Outside of BC, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in ''[https://~~www.~~canlii.~~org/en/~~ca/~~scc~~/~~doc/2013/2013scc19/2013scc19.html?resultIndex=1~~ Penner v Niagara (Regional Police Services Board)]'', 2013 SCC 19, that the result of the police complaint process calls for a case-by-case review of the circumstances to determine whether it would be unfair or unjust to prevent further litigation.		Individuals may be able to sue police officers civilly, even when they have also made a complaint. Section 179(1) of the BC ''Police Act'' specifically states that the complaint proceedings outlined above do not preclude a citizen from taking, or continuing, civil or criminal proceedings against an RCMP officer or a municipal constable for misconduct. Outside of BC, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in ''[https://canlii.ca/t/fwx06 Penner v Niagara (Regional Police Services Board)]'', 2013 SCC 19, that the result of the police complaint process calls for a case-by-case review of the circumstances to determine whether it would be unfair or unjust to prevent further litigation.

	Typical actions that are launched against peace officers include tort actions in assault, battery, false imprisonment, or malicious prosecution. This could be helpful to individuals who have been mistreated or suffered monetary loss because of police misconduct. These actions may now be brought in Small Claims Court.		Typical actions that are launched against peace officers include tort actions in assault, battery, false imprisonment, or malicious prosecution. This could be helpful to individuals who have been mistreated or suffered monetary loss because of police misconduct. These actions may now be brought in Small Claims Court.
Line 202:		Line 202:
	EXAMPLE: An action brought by a complainant named John Smith could read “John Smith vs City of Vancouver, Constable Jane Doe, and Constable Richard Roe.”		EXAMPLE: An action brought by a complainant named John Smith could read “John Smith vs City of Vancouver, Constable Jane Doe, and Constable Richard Roe.”

	:'''NOTE:''' If a police complaint is being made in addition to another legal action (typically, a civil lawsuit or a claim at the BC Human Rights Tribunal), filing a police complaint does not satisfy the relevant limitation period before which a legal action must be started. If an individual does not initiate legal action until the police complaint process has concluded, it is likely that the limitation date will have passed. If the complaint is against a municipal police force, '''special limitation periods''' apply. The municipality must be informed by notice letter to sue within '''60 days''' ('''NOTE:''' filing a police complaint does '''not''' constitute notifying the municipality), and the notice of claim should be filed within '''2 years''' of the incident (see ''[https://~~www.~~canlii.~~org/en/bc~~/~~bcca~~/~~doc/2002/2002bcca61/2002bcca61.html?resultIndex=1~~ Gringmuth v The Corporation of the District of North Vancouver]'', 2002 BCCA 61). The regular Small Claims Court limitation periods apply if you are suing the RCMP or a private security guard. For the BC Human Rights Tribunal, there is a '''1-year''' deadline from the date of the incident to make a claim, and there is no requirement to notify the municipality within 60 days.		:'''NOTE:''' If a police complaint is being made in addition to another legal action (typically, a civil lawsuit or a claim at the BC Human Rights Tribunal), filing a police complaint does not satisfy the relevant limitation period before which a legal action must be started. If an individual does not initiate legal action until the police complaint process has concluded, it is likely that the limitation date will have passed. If the complaint is against a municipal police force, '''special limitation periods''' apply. The municipality must be informed by notice letter to sue within '''60 days''' ('''NOTE:''' filing a police complaint does '''not''' constitute notifying the municipality), and the notice of claim should be filed within '''2 years''' of the incident (see ''[https://canlii.ca/t/4z12 Gringmuth v The Corporation of the District of North Vancouver]'', 2002 BCCA 61). The regular Small Claims Court limitation periods apply if you are suing the RCMP or a private security guard. For the BC Human Rights Tribunal, there is a '''1-year''' deadline from the date of the incident to make a claim, and there is no requirement to notify the municipality within 60 days.

	Even if a complainant has not sent a notice letter to the municipal government, the municipal government should still be named as a party. At trial, the claimant can argue they had a reasonable excuse for failing to deliver a notice letter to the city, and that the municipality has not been prejudiced by the failure to write the letter.		Even if a complainant has not sent a notice letter to the municipal government, the municipal government should still be named as a party. At trial, the claimant can argue they had a reasonable excuse for failing to deliver a notice letter to the city, and that the municipality has not been prejudiced by the failure to write the letter.
Line 210:		Line 210:
	:'''NOTE:''' If a municipal government or Minister of Justice is willing to accept liability on behalf of its officers where liability is proven, they may ask that the individual officers’ names to be removed from the lawsuit. While there may be reasons to keep the individual officers on the lawsuit, if the court finds they were left on unnecessarily, costs may be awarded against the complainant.		:'''NOTE:''' If a municipal government or Minister of Justice is willing to accept liability on behalf of its officers where liability is proven, they may ask that the individual officers’ names to be removed from the lawsuit. While there may be reasons to keep the individual officers on the lawsuit, if the court finds they were left on unnecessarily, costs may be awarded against the complainant.

	Both municipal police and RCMP officers are partially immune from civil liability under subsection 21(2) of the ''Police Act''. However, subsection 21(3)(a) provides that this defence does not apply if the police officer has “been guilty of dishonesty, gross negligence or malicious or wilful misconduct”. In ''[https://~~www.~~canlii.~~org/en/~~ca/~~scc~~/~~doc/2010/2010scc27/2010scc27.html?autocompleteStr=Ward%20v%20Vancouver%20(City)%2C%202010%20SCC%2027&autocompletePos=1~~ Vancouver (City) v Ward]'', 2010 SCC 27, it was held that intentional torts do not qualify as wilful misconduct for the purposes of subparagraph 21(3)(a).		Both municipal police and RCMP officers are partially immune from civil liability under subsection 21(2) of the ''Police Act''. However, subsection 21(3)(a) provides that this defence does not apply if the police officer has “been guilty of dishonesty, gross negligence or malicious or wilful misconduct”. In ''[https://canlii.ca/t/2bq8r Vancouver (City) v Ward]'', 2010 SCC 27, it was held that intentional torts do not qualify as wilful misconduct for the purposes of subparagraph 21(3)(a).

	For detailed step-by-step information on suing the police (as well as private security guards), please see David Eby & Emily Rix, ''How to Sue the Police and Private Security in Small Claims Court'' (Vancouver: Pivot Legal Society, 2007).		For detailed step-by-step information on suing the police (as well as private security guards), please see David Eby & Emily Rix, ''How to Sue the Police and Private Security in Small Claims Court'' (Vancouver: Pivot Legal Society, 2007).

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:23, 23 August 2025
Line 172:		Line 172:
	Other approaches to dealing with misconduct by the police force are:		Other approaches to dealing with misconduct by the police force are:
	<BR><BR>		<BR><BR>
	(a) Asking for a criminal investigation and acting as a witness; or <BR>		(a) Asking for a criminal investigation and acting as a witness, or <BR>
	(b) Suing in tort to get compensation for loss.		(b) Suing in tort to get compensation for loss.

Line 178:		Line 178:

	The ''Criminal Code'' [''CC''] limits the criminal liability of public officers who, in the course of conducting investigations or law enforcement activities, commit acts or omissions that would otherwise constitute offences. Under sections 25.1 to 25.4 of the ''CC'', a public officer would be justified in committing an act or omission, or in directing another person to do so, that would otherwise constitute an offence, so long as the public officer (section 25.1(8)):		The ''Criminal Code'' [''CC''] limits the criminal liability of public officers who, in the course of conducting investigations or law enforcement activities, commit acts or omissions that would otherwise constitute offences. Under sections 25.1 to 25.4 of the ''CC'', a public officer would be justified in committing an act or omission, or in directing another person to do so, that would otherwise constitute an offence, so long as the public officer (section 25.1(8)):
	# Is investigating criminal activity or an offence under an Act of Parliament, or is enforcing an Act of Parliament;		# Is investigating criminal activity or an offence under an Act of Parliament, or is enforcing an Act of Parliament,
	# Is designated as a public officer for the purposes of sections 25.2 to 25.4 by the competent authority (the Solicitor General of Canada in the case of RCMP officers; the provincial Minister responsible for policing in the case of police forces constituted under provincial laws); and		# Is designated as a public officer for the purposes of sections 25.2 to 25.4 by the competent authority (the Solicitor General of Canada in the case of RCMP officers; the provincial Minister responsible for policing in the case of police forces constituted under provincial laws), and
	# Believes on reasonable grounds that committing the act or omission, given the nature of the offence or criminal activity being investigated, is reasonable and proportional in the circumstances.		# Believes on reasonable grounds that committing the act or omission, given the nature of the offence or criminal activity being investigated, is reasonable and proportional in the circumstances.

Line 202:		Line 202:
	EXAMPLE: An action brought by a complainant named John Smith could read “John Smith vs City of Vancouver, Constable Jane Doe, and Constable Richard Roe.”		EXAMPLE: An action brought by a complainant named John Smith could read “John Smith vs City of Vancouver, Constable Jane Doe, and Constable Richard Roe.”

	:'''NOTE:''' If a police complaint is being made in addition to another legal action (typically, a civil lawsuit or a claim at the BC Human Rights Tribunal), filing a police complaint does not satisfy the relevant limitation period before which a legal action must be started. If an individual does not initiate legal action until the police complaint process has concluded, it is likely that the limitation date will have passed. If the complaint is against a municipal police force, '''special limitation periods''' apply. The municipality must be informed by notice letter to sue within '''60 days''' ('''NOTE:''' filing a police complaint does '''not''' constitute notifying the municipality), and the notice of claim should be filed within '''2 years''' of the incident (see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2002/2002bcca61/2002bcca61.html?resultIndex=1 Gringmuth v The Corporation of the District of North Vancouver]'', 2002 BCCA 61). The regular Small Claims Court limitation periods apply if you are suing the RCMP or a private security guard. For the BC Human Rights Tribunal, there is a '''1 year''' deadline from the date of the incident to make a claim, and there is no requirement to notify the municipality within 60 days.		:'''NOTE:''' If a police complaint is being made in addition to another legal action (typically, a civil lawsuit or a claim at the BC Human Rights Tribunal), filing a police complaint does not satisfy the relevant limitation period before which a legal action must be started. If an individual does not initiate legal action until the police complaint process has concluded, it is likely that the limitation date will have passed. If the complaint is against a municipal police force, '''special limitation periods''' apply. The municipality must be informed by notice letter to sue within '''60 days''' ('''NOTE:''' filing a police complaint does '''not''' constitute notifying the municipality), and the notice of claim should be filed within '''2 years''' of the incident (see ''[https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/2002/2002bcca61/2002bcca61.html?resultIndex=1 Gringmuth v The Corporation of the District of North Vancouver]'', 2002 BCCA 61). The regular Small Claims Court limitation periods apply if you are suing the RCMP or a private security guard. For the BC Human Rights Tribunal, there is a '''1-year''' deadline from the date of the incident to make a claim, and there is no requirement to notify the municipality within 60 days.

	Even if a complainant has not sent a notice letter to the municipal government, the municipal government should still be named as a party. At trial, the claimant can argue they had a reasonable excuse for failing to deliver a notice letter to the city, and that the municipality has not been prejudiced by the failure to write the letter.		Even if a complainant has not sent a notice letter to the municipal government, the municipal government should still be named as a party. At trial, the claimant can argue they had a reasonable excuse for failing to deliver a notice letter to the city, and that the municipality has not been prejudiced by the failure to write the letter.