When misconduct happens, disciplinary systems are meant to deliver justice — for victims, communities, and the profession itself. But too often, outcomes feel mismatched to the harm. A death in custody might result in a suspension with pay. A clear abuse of authority might be settled with “retraining.” The result? Public trust erodes, and officers who cross the line may continue to serve without meaningful consequence.
Common Patterns in Canada
Suspensions with pay: Often called “vacations on the taxpayer’s dime,” they’re the default response in many provinces.
Delayed proceedings: Investigations can take years, by which time public attention has faded.
Quiet resignations: Officers can retire or resign before discipline concludes, avoiding long-term consequences.
Uneven standards: Similar misconduct can result in very different outcomes depending on jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
For victims: Inadequate consequences compound the original harm, signaling that their suffering doesn’t matter.
For communities: Light discipline reinforces the perception that police are above the law.
For good officers: Lack of accountability tarnishes those who serve with integrity, fueling resentment inside the ranks.
For democracy: If police enforce the law but don’t seem bound by it, legitimacy suffers.
The Challenges
Union protections: Strong police associations often negotiate disciplinary protections that shield members.
Legal complexity: Misconduct hearings are procedural, with limited public transparency.
Institutional culture: A tendency to protect colleagues makes harsh discipline rare.
Political pressure: Local leaders may resist strong sanctions for fear of conflict with police unions.
The Opportunities
Clearer disciplinary guidelines: Standardized penalties for misconduct across Canada.
Civilian oversight boards: With authority to recommend — and enforce — stronger outcomes.
Transparency reports: Public accounting of charges, outcomes, and reasoning.
Restorative approaches: Giving communities a role in defining what justice should look like.
The Bigger Picture
Accountability without consequences is performance art. If disciplinary outcomes don’t reflect the harm caused, then misconduct becomes just another occupational hazard — not a breach of public trust.
The Question
If the punishment doesn’t fit the harm, does accountability really exist? Which leaves us to ask: how can Canada ensure disciplinary outcomes restore trust, protect communities, and actually deter misconduct?
Disciplinary Outcomes: Do Consequences Match the Harm?
The Accountability Gap
When misconduct happens, disciplinary systems are meant to deliver justice — for victims, communities, and the profession itself. But too often, outcomes feel mismatched to the harm. A death in custody might result in a suspension with pay. A clear abuse of authority might be settled with “retraining.” The result? Public trust erodes, and officers who cross the line may continue to serve without meaningful consequence.
Common Patterns in Canada
Why It Matters
The Challenges
The Opportunities
The Bigger Picture
Accountability without consequences is performance art. If disciplinary outcomes don’t reflect the harm caused, then misconduct becomes just another occupational hazard — not a breach of public trust.
The Question
If the punishment doesn’t fit the harm, does accountability really exist? Which leaves us to ask:
how can Canada ensure disciplinary outcomes restore trust, protect communities, and actually deter misconduct?