The Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner of BC (OPCC), the province’s independent agency for overseeing police complaints, released its annual report on substantiated allegations of misconduct, and officers from three Greater Victoria police departments were on the list.

The misconduct ranged from minor to serious, with one resulting in retroactive dismissal.

One OPCC investigation found that a Saanich officer had broken into the home of a person they had interacted with socially earlier that night and sexually assaulted them. The officer retired before the investigation was complete, but their service record will show they were dismissed.

Investigations into VicPD officers found multiple acts of misconduct, including abuse of force by using a vehicle to stop an individual on an e-bike—a tactic that officers in the department have used at least 12 times over the last decade—and feeding a known allergy to a person while they were in jail.

A VicPD whistleblower who leaked unredacted files to the press was nearly reduced in rank but only received a written reprimand, which will appear on their service record.

A botched arrest conducted by Central Saanich Police Service left the commissioner concerned that accusations of unfair treatment based on the complainant’s race had not been properly investigated by the discipline authority. Discipline authorities are typically the chief constable of the department.

Read on to see which acts of police misconduct in Greater Victoria were substantiated in 2024-2025. 

Victoria Police Department

Unnecessary force—1 day suspension with pay, verbal reprimand

A VicPD officer was found to have used a police vehicle to stop an e-bike rider who ran a red light, using the car to make contact with the bike’s rear wheel. The OPCC initiated the investigation after receiving information about the incident from VicPD.

The e-bike rider has since filed a suit against VicPD, saying their shoulder was dislocated when they were knocked over and they missed weeks of work. Their e-bike was damaged and confiscated, and, as of June, hadn’t been returned. The officer was disciplined with a one-day suspension for unnecessary force and a verbal reprimand for not submitting the correct paperwork. 

Releasing unredacted files to media—Written reprimand

VicPD requested that OPCC investigate a report that “a news media outlet was in possession of an un-redacted Final Investigation Report (FIR) from a historical Police Act investigation involving VicPD members.” The discipline authority determined that the member’s actions were “serious, reckless, and intentional” and had “breached the trust of their colleagues,” as the leaked documents contained the personal information of officers and civilians.

The discipline authority recommended that the officer have their rank reduced, but the adjudicator in charge of the OPCC’s review determined that a written reprimand was appropriate. The adjudicator said although “the member perceived themselves to be a whistleblower attempting to effect necessary change within the department, it was not permissible to release confidential information, regardless of the motivation.” The officer retired before the investigation was complete, but their service record will show the reprimand.

Unlawful arrest and search—4 day suspension without pay, counselling and treatment as directed

A person complained that they were arrested and searched for drug possession and trafficking without reason while the car they were a passenger in was stopped. The discipline authority found that there was no misconduct, but the OPCC chose to investigate further.

The adjudicator found that a “reasonable officer in the member’s circumstances would have known there were no grounds to arrest the complainant, and that there was therefore no basis to search the complainant.” The complainant’s unlawful arrest, resulting in loss of liberty, was noted as “serious” by the OPCC, and the incidental search was noted as “moderately serious.” The officer was suspended for four days for the unlawful arrest and one day for the search.

Food allergy ignored—Verbal reprimand

The OPCC received a complaint that VicPD gave a jailed person food that contained an ingredient the person was severely allergic to, causing a reaction that required medical intervention. The OPCC found the officer was aware of the allergy and did not ensure the delivery of an “appropriate alternative meal.” The complainant noted that they did not want the officer disciplined but rather hoped to educate and raise awareness of food allergies.

Impaired driving—5 day suspension without pay

According to VicPD, an off-duty officer was involved in a traffic incident and was pulled over by the RCMP. The off-duty officer told the RCMP that “they had had ‘nothing’ to drink,” then failed the breathalyzer test twice. The RCMP issued a 90-day Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) and a 30-day vehicle impoundment to the officer. The officer was slapped with a five-day suspension by the OPCC (four for impaired driving and one for providing a false statement to the RCMP, to be served consecutively).

Improper documentation of arrest—Advice as to future conduct

The complainants alleged the officers had broken into their home and arrested them both without explanation, but the discipline authority found there was no misconduct in entering and arresting them. However, one officer failed to properly document their actions in “arresting, Chartering, and transporting one of the complainants to VicPD jail cells.”

Unnecessary use of force—Verbal and written reprimand

It was reported that after a person had been arrested and placed in handcuffs on the ground, the member used force and struck the affected person’s head against the ground. The discipline authority confirmed the misconduct and determined that “the force used was unreasonable and disproportionate in the circumstances.” The prehearing conference authority classified the misconduct as moderate. 

‍Failing to properly document their actions—Written reprimand

An officer was accused of abuse of force, but the discipline authority found this was not the case. However, the officer had not completed any notes or reports as required.

Saanich Police Department

Discreditable Conduct Conduct—Dismissal

An officer was accused of following a person, with whom they had an off-duty “social interaction at a restaurant,” entering their home and bedroom unannounced, and initiating “sexual contact” without the person’s consent. 

The commissioner directed the Vancouver Police Department (VPD) to conduct an investigation, and a senior VPD officer was designated as discipline authority. The misconduct investigation was briefly suspended as the RCMP initiated a criminal investigation. The suspension was lifted after the RCMP investigation was concluded with no criminal charges recommended.  

The discipline authority found the accusation to be substantiated and said the conduct “amounted to the highest level of Police Act misconduct” and that nothing “short of dismissal” would be appropriate. The officer had quit before the investigation was complete, but their service record will show they were dismissed.

Insufficient investigation—Advice as to future conduct

Two officers were accused of insufficiently investigating an assault. The officer handling the investigation had not pursued it thoroughly, and the supervising officer had not ensured it was properly investigated before closing. 

Operating vehicle unsafely—Advice as to future conduct

The OPCC received a complaint that an officer was speeding while providing the complainant a ride in a police vehicle. “The complainant argued that the member engaged in the same behaviour which caused his vehicle to be towed,” read the OPCC report. 

Central Saanich Police Service

Neglect of duty, abuse of authority—1 written reprimand, 1 verbal reprimand

The OPCC investigated a complaint that a person’s report of an assault against them resulted in their arrest. The complainant, who identifies as Black, said officers made negative comments and treated them differently because of their race.

The OPCC directed the Saanich PD to conduct the investigation, with the chief constable acting as the discipline authority. Saanich PD did not find that the members committed misconduct, but the OPCC disagreed with this decision. The commissioner raised multiple concerns, including that the complainant was not read their Charter rights until approximately more than an hour after their arrest and was “advised they would go to jail if they did not sign an undertaking for release.” The commissioner was also concerned that the discipline authority had not adequately addressed the complainant’s allegations regarding race-based comments.

One officer was found to have committed misconduct, including Neglect of Duty (not reading Charter rights, insufficient investigation) and Abuse of Authority (threatening the complainant with jail time). They received one written and two verbal reprimands.

Profanity—Written reprimand 

The department initiated an internal discipline investigation into the conduct of a senior officer. It was alleged that they had used profanity while making “demeaning comments” toward a constable during a verbal exchange that occurred in the workplace. The senior officer was found to have violated the CSPS respectful workplace policy.