Skip to main content

Formal Discipline

Calgary Police Service Formal Discipline

On average, about 0.2 per cent of the interactions we have with the public result in conduct concerns being raised. Around 10 per cent of these require a formal investigation and disciplinary process to properly be resolved.

To learn more about the process of reporting a concern or filing a formal complaint, please visit our concerns about misconduct page.

Reports

Formal Complaint Outcome Reports

Formal Complaint Outcome reports show how formal investigations were resolved, including any disciplinary action taken by the Chief Constable or the Presiding Officer of a Professional Conduct Hearing:

Professional Conduct Hearing Decisions

Written summaries of the charges, evidence and precedents considered during disciplinary hearings, as well as the result. To protect the privacy of everyone involved in these hearings, names and personal information are removed:

2021 Discipline Hearing Outcomes

Complaint No.	Date of Decision/Penalty	Officer	Misconduct Alleged and Finding	Summary and Penalty Decision
19-0256	2021-05-18	Constable AA Constable BB	Constable AA: Improper Use of Firearms 5(2)(f)(iii); UUEA 5(2)(i)(i); Neglect of Duty 5(2)(h)(i); Discreditable Conduct 5(2)(e)(vii); Discreditable Conduct s. 5(2)(e)(viii); UUEA contrary to section 5(2)(i)(ii); Neglect of Duty 5(2)(h)(i); Discreditable Conduct 5(2)(e)(viii) – Not Guilty on all counts Constable BB: Discreditable Conduct 5(2)(e)(viii) Improper Use of Firearms 5(2)(f)(iii); UUEA 5(2)(i)(i); Neglect of Duty 5(2)(h)(i); Discreditable Conduct 5(2)(e)(viii); Discreditable Conduct 5(2)(e)(vii); Discreditable Conduct s. 5(2)(e)(viii); UUEA contrary to section 5(2)(i)(ii); Neglect of Duty 5(2)(h)(i); Insubordination 5(2)(g)(ii); Discreditable Conduct 5(2)(e)(viii) – Not Guilty on all counts	The Members were patrolling their district in an unmarked police vehicle when they believed they had come across a stolen vehicle involved in a lengthy pursuit with police earlier in the evening. In an attempt to get a closer look at the vehicle and plate, the Members drove towards the rear of the vehicle that was parked at the bottom on a sloped entrance into a parking lot. Due to slippery road conditions, the Members’ vehicle slid into the rear end of the suspicious vehicle causing minor damage to the suspect vehicle’s bumper. The Members then engaged in a “high risk” traffic stop. With firearms drawn in the ready position, they exited the police vehicle, directed the driver to get out of the vehicle and onto the ground, where they handcuffed, searched, and placed the driver into the rear of the police vehicle. The driver indicated that their identification could be found in the front of their vehicle. A Member then entered the vehicle and retrieved the driver’s identification. It was then determined that the vehicle was not stolen nor was it the vehicle involved in the police pursuit earlier in the evening. The driver was not chartered and cautioned and was subsequently released. The Members were acting in the course and scope of their duties in what is acknowledged to be a high-crime area. They reasonably believed that the vehicle was involved in an offence and used only as much force as was necessary and consistent with their training in securing the driver. The Members acted promptly upon realizing their mistake, while the entire time over which the driver was handcuffed was in the range of 3 to 4 minutes. In finding the officers not guilty on all counts, Presiding Officer P. Manuel (Retired Superintendent) provided an extensive analysis of the law in the following areas: Assessment of Credibility and Reliability Burden of Proof Officers Acting in Good Faith Failing to Charter and Caution and Competing Charter Interests Discreditable Conduct Informal Resolution Bar to Allegations under PSR Differentially Treating on Basis of Race or Ancestry Use of Force – Handcuffing Reasonable Suspicion and Investigative Detention Duty to Apologize, Speak to Supervisor, Traffic Unit Attend Scene of Accident Finding: Counts 1 and 10 were withdrawn by the Service. Counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 Constable AA and BB not guilty on all counts.

Complaint No.	Date of Decision/Penalty	Officer	Misconduct Alleged and Finding	Summary and Penalty Decision
20-0112	2020-05-12	Sergeant	Insubordination, under Section 5(2)(g)(ii) of the Police Service Regulation (Alberta) - Guilty Discreditable Conduct, under Section 5(2)(e)(viii) of the Police Service Regulation (Alberta) – Guilty	The Member participated in a WhatsApp chat group using a CPS issued cell phone, where the conversations were offensive and inappropriate. The messages contained content that breached Section 6(d) of the Calgary Police Service Information Technology Policy as it relates to “Mobile Phones” and Section 12(1)(a)(i) of the Calgary Police Service Respectful Workplace Policy as it relates to “Roles and Responsibilities”. The Member was the officer in charge of the team members involved in the WhatsApp chat group and failed to show the appropriate leadership. This type of behaviour will be treated with the utmost seriousness and will no longer be tolerated. In the written decision, Presiding Officer Alexander G. Park. Q.C. states: If the members of the Calgary Police Service follow those two priorities of eliminating harassment and bullying, it only makes sense that the public will not only maintain respect for the police but will increase its respect for the police. … In imposing penalty on Sergeant XXXX it must be recognized that the penalty should act as a deterrent not only to him but to other members of the Calgary Police Service and to other police officers serving the public in all Canadian communities. Public respect for the police is founded on a foundational base that police officers must be aware their proper and correct conduct and compartment is under continuous scrutiny. Penalty ordered: Discreditable Conduct, suspended from duty without pay for twenty (20) hours. Insubordination, suspended from duty without pay for twenty (20) hours.

Complaint No.	Date of Decision/Penalty	Officer	Misconduct Alleged and Finding	Summary and Penalty Decision
18-1082	2021-02-25	Constable	Discreditable Conduct, under Section 5(2)(e)(iii) of the Police Service Regulation (Alberta) – Guilty	The Member, while in supervisory capacity, attended a training course in another jurisdiction with members of his squad. Interaction with another CPS Member became strained during the training week, culminating into a telephone altercation upon returning to Calgary. The altercation was witnessed by many officers of the Member’s squad. The Member used profane and insulting language to their fellow CPS Member which caused divisiveness within the squad. In the written decision, Presiding Officer P. Manuel (Retired Superintendent) sets out: “Police officers must work together to achieve the goals of the Police Service, and to serve the public. They should not be distracted by petty differences that escalate into arguments and hostilities. Policing has rightfully adjusted in the ways its members interact between the ranks. However, it is still paramilitary and there is still delineation particularly with its rank structure and the responsibilities within the ranks. Subordinate police officers are not to be insubordinate to officers of a higher rank. Conversely, officers of a higher rank are not to be demeaning, or tyrannical to their subordinate officers. Respect must flow both ways and when that respect does not exist and members are uncivil to each other, discipline may result.” … “I have participated in the training week as a squad member and as a Commander. The week is physically and mentally exhausting, but I never experienced or witnessed the stress as described, or members “being on edge.” What I did witness was members coming together as squad mates, working towards a common goal in training. I saw the development of an esprit de corps and a sense of accomplishment. This was primarily due to the excellent leadership demonstrated by the squad leaders.” … “When the Sergeant and squads second in command are feuding, the squad is devoid of leadership. A squad devoid of leadership does not achieve any of its learning objectives during the training week.” … “While it has not been requested, and I will not order it, training in conflict resolution would be beneficial to XXXXXXXXX.” Penalty ordered: Discreditable Conduct, under Section 5(2)(e)(iii) a reprimand.

2020 Discipline Hearing Outcomes

Complaint No.	Date of Decision/Penalty	Officer	Misconduct Alleged and Finding	Summary and Penalty Decision
18-1280	2020-04-08	Constable	Deceit Section 5(2)(d)(i): Guilty Discreditable Conduct Section 5(2)(e)(viii): Guilty	While off duty, the Member submitted 40 false medical claims to Green Shield Canada for services that the Member or the Dependents of the Member had not received. The Member received approximately $4,000 in payments from Green Shield Canada. Green Shield Canada audited the Member’s claim which revealed the unsupported claims. The Member repaid Green Shield Canada for the funds received for the false medical claims and provided a lengthy explanation as to the circumstances that lead to the false claims. The Presiding Officer reviewed significant mitigating factors relating to the Member’s personal circumstances, health and treatment. On both counts of misconduct the Presiding Officer ordered a global penalty as follows: Pursuant to s. 17(1)(d) of the PSR, the Member is to be reduced from a Senior Constable Level II, to Constable 1st Class for a period of one (1) year. After one year, the Member will be elevated to Senior Constable Level I for a period of one year after which time the Member is to be returned to Senior Constable Level II. In addition, pursuant to s. 17(1)(a.1) of the PSR the Presiding Officer imposed a number of conditions including participation in specific treatment programs and reporting.
16-1232	2020-05-06	Constable	Discreditable Conduct. Section 5(2)(e)(viii): Guilty Improper Use of Firearms. Section 5(2)(f)(iii): Guilty	The Member did not purchase or acquire a Possession and Acquisition License before purchasing a firearm. The Member, while off-duty, stored a shotgun at their residence in a manner that was not in compliance with firearms legislation and presented a potential danger to others in the residence. The Member was also charged under the Criminal Code of Canada with s. 91(1), Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm and s. 86(2) Careless Use of a Firearm. A resolution to the criminal charges involved the Member attending treatment and counselling. Upon completion of the treatment and counselling, the charges were withdrawn and the firearm was forfeited for destruction. The Member on their own, with no direction from the Courts, made a monetary donation to the Legacy Place Society. The parties put forth a joint submission on penalty, being a forfeiture of 20 hours accumulated through overtime for each count of misconduct. The proposed penalty speaks to the seriousness
16-0466	2020-06-18	Constable	Discreditable Conduct Section 5(2)(e)(i)(A): Guilty	While off-duty, the Member unlawfully gained access to the former matrimonial home. Following a separation, a court awarded the Member’s ex-spouse exclusive occupancy and possession of the matrimonial home. The Member, knowing that the ex-spouse was away attended the matrimonial home and attempted to gain access, but the locks had been changed. The Member returned the next day with a locksmith who drilled through the front door lock. The Member removed property from the home. The Member plead guilty to Forcible Entry under section 72(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada and received a suspended sentence and one-year probation. After assessing the circumstances of the incident, the Presiding Officer ordered a penalty of forfeiture of thirty (30) hours of work accumulated through overtime as per s. 17(1)(d) of the PSR. The forfeiture of hours is to be immediate. The Presiding Officer noted that it is important to know that such a penalty would not be the norm. The penalty is tailored to the individual circumstances of the member and the significant mitigating factors present in this case. The Presiding Officer made recommendations regarding CPS putting in place policy to address the service of civil documents on the behalf of CPS Members on other CPS Members that can be accessed from the link to the full decision.
16-1175	2020-11-18	Constable	Neglect of Duty, under Section 5(2)(h)(i) of the Police Service Regulation (Alberta) – Guilty Insubordination, under Section 5(2)(g)(ii) of the Police Service Regulation (Alberta) - Guilty Discreditable Conduct, under Section 5(2)(e)(viii) of the Police Service Regulation (Alberta) – Guilty	While an employee of the CPS, the member participated in a pre-employment polygraph interview for another policing agency. During the polygraph interview matters of concern were disclosed in relation to the conduct of the member both on and off duty. The policing agency contacted CPS with their concerns about the disclosure. In particular the disclosure brought to light that early in the member’s career the member did not arrest or process approximately 50 individuals that the member knew were wanted on outstanding warrants; did not conduct a proper investigation into a collision involving a suspected intoxicated person who drove into a parked car; did not conduct an impaired driving investigation and issued a 72-hour suspension instead of demanding a breath sample; disposed of a small quantity of Methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia into a garbage as opposed to processing seized drugs and paraphernalia according to section 40.7 (CPS Property Handling policy); on approximately four or five occasions, the member did not properly report domestic assault complaints according to section 7 (CPS Domestic Conflict policy); on other occasions, while having located a variety of property including, but not limited to, a bicycle, baton, and pepper spray, disposed of them into a dumpster or pond, contrary to sections 26.1 and 4.2(a) (CPS Property Handling policy); while off-duty, took the member’s CPS issued firearm to another City and discharged it a number of times at a firearms range and a friend’s acreage. In his written decision, Presiding Officer Manuel states: “I must also give consideration to the issue of general deterrence. The cited officer indicated several aspects of the misconduct were accepted practices in xxx work area. This is troubling. Assessing anything less than a significant penalty would send a harmful message to other police officers concerning the behaviour in question. The actions of XXXXXXXXXXX went far beyond the normal facts of a neglect of duty matter or that of an insubordination for failing to follow policy. XXX misconduct included deceitful acts in relation to the domestic conflict reports, and honesty and integrity issues relating to property handling. In this regard, the serious nature of these disciplinary offences requires that general deterrence be properly factored into the sentencing equation.” After assessing the circumstances of the misconduct, the Presiding Officer ordered a global penalty as follows: Pursuant to s. 17(1)(d) of the Police Service Regulation, the Member is to be reduced within the rank, from Senior Constable Level I, to Constable 1st Class for a period of two (2) years. After the two-year period, the Member is to be returned to Senior Constable Level I. In addition, pursuant to s. 17(3) of the PSR: At the earliest opportunity, the Member is to register and successfully complete, the Impaired Driving Investigation Course (40 hour) offered by the CPS Chief Crowfoot Learning Centre. The Member is directed to undergo training in “Domestic Violence Investigations” as determined appropriate by the CPS Human Resources Division. For a period of two years, the Member is to report to the CPS Human Resources Division, as directed by the CPS Human Resources Division, for the purpose of attending any tests, examinations, or reviews as they deem necessary.
19-0440; 19-0509; 19-0435	2020-10-29	Constable	Insubordination, under Section 5(2)(g)(ii) of the Police Service Regulation (Alberta) - Guilty Discreditable Conduct, under Section 5(2)(e)(viii) of the Police Service Regulation (Alberta) – Guilty Insubordination, under Section 5(2)(g)(ii) of the Police Service Regulation (Alberta) - Guilty Insubordination, under Section 5(2)(g)(ii) of the Police Service Regulation (Alberta) - Guilty	The Member was involved in acrimonious separation and civil proceedings, which included child custody matters. The Member contacted CBSA, identified themself as a CPS Member and made inquiries about the Member’s ex-spouses’ new domestic partner. In addition, the Member conducted CPIC and CPS IT queries in relation to the Member’s ex-spouses’ new domestic partner for personal reasons. The Member's ex-spouse was charged criminally with assaulting the Member and was released on an Undertaking which included a condition to stay away from the Member and the Members’ new domestic partner. During one of the criminal court appearances, the Member attended in uniform, approached the Duty Crown Prosecutor, asked questions about the case and was provided information. The Duty Crown Prosecutor assumed that the Member was the investigating officer and not the alleged victim to the criminal proceedings. After assessing the circumstances of the misconduct, the Presiding Officer ordered a global penalty as follows: Pursuant to section 17(1)(d) of the PSR a reduction in seniority in rank, from Senior Constable Level II, to First Class Constable for a period of six (6) months. At the conclusion of six (6) months the Member will be elevated to Senior Constable Level I for a period of eighteen (18) months after which time the Member will return to Senior Constable Level II. In addition, pursuant to s. 17(1)(a.1) of the PSR the Presiding Officer imposed participation in counseling programs and reporting to the Calgary Police Service Psychological Services Division and Human Resources. The Presiding Officer noted that the penalty decision has been modified after taking into consideration the mitigating factor of significant financial hardship. Presiding Officer made the following comments in his written decision: “It is an unfortunate fact that the unauthorized queries of police databases are common amongst police officers. Using the information obtained for personal purposes is less common and adds an additional level of seriousness to the misconduct. As well, obtaining information from an employee of a partner agency through misleading means is behaviour that must be curtailed. All police officers must be made aware that such actions can lead to serious consequences. Outside agencies who entrust another agency with access to their databases also have that expectation. Access is granted through negotiated Memorandums of Understanding (MOU’s) which detail how and what information can be accessed and for what purpose. It is also within the purview of the agency holding the information to withdraw access permissions if an agency does not appropriately deal with unauthorized use of that information. In cases where the public interest is engaged, particularly when the public’s privacy interests are at stake, the public has the rightful expectation that records retained by, or accessible by policing agencies, will only be used for legitimate purposes. When a member of the police service breaches those privacy interests for personal purposes, the public must see there are meaningful consequences. Cases involving breach of privacy and the use of improperly obtained confidential information are attracting more serious penalties as the public’s awareness and concerns about privacy increases. Penalties assessed prior may not be reflective of the current public expectations. Police Services are cognizant of this trend as should police officers be aware. The goal of the disciplinary process is to hold members who commit misconduct to account but in doing so we also must be cognizant of the member and their families well-being. A balance must be struck in determining a penalty that addresses the misconduct but does not devastate the member.”
15-0550	2020-11-30	Constable	Discreditable Conduct, under Section 5(2)(e)(viii) of the Police Service Regulation (Alberta) – Guilty Insubordination, under Section 5(2)(g)(ii) of the Police Service Regulation (Alberta) - Guilty	The Member, while using a CPS issued cell phone, sent numerous text messages in a disturbing manner and created a fictitious dating account to communicate with a civilian, unrelated to the Members duties as a police officer. In addition, the Member used CPS IT resources for personal reasons contrary to CPS Policy. The Members’ actions stemmed from learning that their romantic partner was involved with the civilian complainant. The Member embarked on a chosen and calculated action to domestically stalk and harass the civilian complainant by using information obtained in their professional capacity as a CPS Officer. In the written decision, Presiding Officer Manuel states: “It is extremely serious when a police officer uses their position to obtain the personal information of another person for a personal purpose. The public has the right to expect that their information contained on law enforcement databases is secure and only available for official purposes. Using the information, xxx obtained for personal purposes and in the way that xxx did raises the moral culpability of Constable XXXXX actions and increases the seriousness of the misconduct to a significantly higher degree. The type of stalking, harassing behavior of Constable XXXX is not a common type of misconduct but when it does occur, it must be dealt with swiftly and harshly. The public’s respect must be maintained and if a police agency is seen not to address such behavior in a definitive manner, then that respect is easily lost. It is also the case the public must see that police agencies take the protection of their privacy seriously. Each time personal information is accessed for an inappropriate purpose, it chips away at the trust bestowed upon us by the public. Any time there is a breach of privacy, unintentional or intentional, it is a serious matter and will be dealt with as such. This type of misconduct is becoming commonplace and it is apparent that penalties issued in the past have been of little deterrence. As these matters now come before a disciplinary tribunal, the resulting penalties will become more harsh as a means to change the perception that accessing confidential information contained in police data systems, is “not a major concern” in the minds of officer’s making such queries.” Penalty ordered: Discreditable Conduct, reduced in seniority in rank, from Senior Constable Level I, to First Class Constable for a period of one year. At the conclusion of the one year, the Member will return to Senior Constable Level I. Insubordination, suspended from duty without pay for forty (40) hours of work. The forty (40) hour suspension will be administered by the work area Commander taking into consideration the needs of the work area. In addition, pursuant to s. 17(1)(a.1) of the PSR, the following conditions on the Member are imposed: At the conclusion of these proceedings, the Member will report to the Calgary Police Service, Wellness & Resiliency Division for assessment. The Member is required to attend all treatment programs, seminars and/or counselling required by their physician/psychiatrist/psychologist/counsellor(s) or any other providers, relating to their condition. The Member will continue to undergo any treatment therapies and follow the directions of their treating physician/psychiatrist/psychologist and/or any other authorized practitioners relating to any medical condition and/or treatment. The Member will continue to participate in these treatment plans until such time as determined by the attending care providers. The Member will participate in and be subject to a “Fitness for Duty” Assessment to be completed by the Calgary Police Service Wellness & Resiliency Division and or Human Resources Division.
18-0629	2020-12-17	Constable	Unlawful or Unnecessary Exercise of Authority, under Section 5(2)(i)(ii) of the Police Service Regulation (Alberta) – Guilty	During a call for service after a robbery and assault, the civilian victim became uncooperative with EMS and CPS Officers. The civilian victim was suffering from the effects of pepper/bear spray to the face and eyes. The civilian victim was yelling and belligerent and was causing a disturbance in the early hours of the morning and was physically restrained by the Member in a controlled take down and delivered a single strike, described as a stun, in order to gain compliance. In the written decision, Presiding Officer P. Manuel sets out: “This incident should not have occurred. The interaction between XXXXXXX and XXXXX escalated toa point where neither individual was going to back down. This resulted in XXXXXXXXXX deciding XXX was going to take XXXXXXXX into custody and using a disproportionate degree of force to do so. My interpretation of the takedown and strike were that they were the result of poor decision making, and an improper assessment of the circumstances. XXXXXXX was a victim of a crime. XXX interaction with the officer’s became heated resulting in XXX causing a disturbance. In my view, XXXXXXX contributed to XXXXXXXXX creating this disturbance by not disengaging. When XXXXXXXXXXXXX chose to detain XXXXXXXXX which in my view was a poor exercise of judgment, albeit likely lawful, XXX suffered minor injuries (skinned knees) as a result of being taken to the ground. There is no evidence of injury from the strike.” Penalty Unlawful or Unnecessary Exercise of Authority, under Section 5(2)(i)(ii) of the Police Service Regulation (Alberta) forfeiture of thirty (30) hours of work accumulated through overtime. The forfeiture of hours will be immediately taken from the cited officers timebank. In addition, pursuant to s. 17(3) of the PSR, the Member is ordered to undergo training in “De-escalation Techniques” as to be determined by the Calgary Police Service Human Resource Services Section.
20-0158	2020-12-15	Sergeant	Discreditable Conduct, under Section 5(2)(e)(viii) of the Police Service Regulation (Alberta) – Guilty Insubordination, under Section 5(2)(g)(ii) of the Police Service Regulation (Alberta) - Guilty	The Member’s conversation, while talking on a CPS radio to the Member’s subordinates, was overheard by two Civilian CPS Members belonging to another unit. The conversation included swearing, derogatory comments towards other CPS Members and referred to another CPS Member as a “Rat” in relation to an ongoing Professional Standards Investigation. The Member encouraged unprofessional behaviour of their subordinates by laughing and not challenging or attempting to stop the conversation which did not support a culture of respect as set out in the CPS Respectful Workplace Policy. In the written decision, Presiding Officer Alexander G. Park. Q.C. sets out: “While I am satisfied that XXXXXXXXX believed the offending comments were made in a jocular manner to other police officers, and were not intended to offend or harass any fellow police officer or officers, it must be recognized xxx was the officer in charge and xxx had a duty to ensure the principles enunciated in the Calgary Police Service Respectful Workplace policy were respected and carried out by xxx and his subordinate police officers. Here I accept that the offending words were spoken in a jestful manner to other police officers. It was not XXXXXXXXX intention to harass, bully or intimidate the police officers who were the objects of the statements. However, while it might not have been taken as offensive by those police officers, the fact remains that the person who heard those statements was seriously offended. I note xxx offensive conduct was not directed to the public at large. Rather xxx is a conscientious officer who has expressed remorse from the commencement of this investigation. xxx has lived and worked with these charges hanging over xxx head since February of 2020. xxx has realized xxx conduct was unacceptable. I am satisfied the trauma, shame and guilt xxx has experienced will result as an ongoing reminder that xxx is not to conduct xxxxxx or allow other to conduct themselves in this matter in the future. This process and the lessons xxx learned will be indelibly stamped on xxxx mind and will serve as a very effective educational process.” Penalty • Discreditable Conduct, forfeiture of twenty (20) hours of work accumulated through overtime. • Insubordination, forfeiture of a further twenty (20) hours of work accumulated through overtime.