Building an Effective Policing System in Ontario

The Ontario Police College (OPC) plays a vital role in training both new recruits and experienced officers dedicated to ensuring the safety and security of communities across Ontario. However, the OPC’s current facilities are outdated, limiting its ability to provide the comprehensive, modern training essential for effective, accountable, and community-oriented policing. To better equip Ontario’s police officers with the necessary skills and tools, we call on the government to make a critical investment to upgrade the OPC’s ageing facilities. This investment will enable the college to offer advanced, relevant, and responsive training that meets the evolving demands of policing in Ontario.

Built in Alymer, Ontario in 1962, the Ontario Police College (OPC) has long served as the primary training institution for police officers in the province. Initially designed to meet foundational training needs, the responsibilities and expectations of police personnel have evolved over the decades. This evolution requires a training facility that can keep pace with advancements in technology, new approaches to community safety, mental health crisis response, and de-escalation techniques. While the OPC has made efforts to adapt its training programs accordingly, its aging facilities lack the infrastructure required for delivering the high-caliber, multifaceted training now required.

Upgrading the OPC’s infrastructure will enhance the quality and safety of training environments, allowing for the integration of state-of-the-art simulators, practical training areas, and realistic settings that replicate field conditions. This will better prepare officers for real-world challenges, increasing their effectiveness and building community trust. Given the rapidly changing nature of policing, training institutions must remain agile and current. This investment would support the OPC’s transition to a high-tech, adaptable training environment, ensuring it remains relevant and effective in line with contemporary policing standards and community expectations.

The Ontario government need to make a substantial infrastructure investment to upgrade classrooms, dormitories, and other physical facilities to accommodate modern technologies. This investment should include expanding existing training spaces and developing new specialized facilities, as well as enhancing the technology infrastructure.

Our recommendation: Make a significant infrastructure investment in the Ontario Police College to support the future of policing.

Over the last several years, more and more attention has been paid to the toll that police work takes on the individuals who choose to serve their communities. With fewer police officers, dispatchers, and other supporting staff, our members have had to learn to do more with less. At the same time, Canada’s bail laws have loosened, resulting in a churn of habitual offenders cycling through the courts and our communities, and an increased workload for police. We know that these factors, as well as the significant traumas to which police personnel are exposed, make them more likely to suffer from debilitating mental health injuries.

A few police employers have recognized the workplace’s role in mental health and have worked toward culture changes that empower members to use their resources more readily, but this is not the norm. Too many police employers continue to be an obstacle to good health and recovery.

Sadly, for those workers who reach the point where their diagnosable mental health issues require them to be absent or accommodated, we are finding that their experience with the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) is tending to make problems worse, not better. Significant policy and procedural changes are needed at the WSIB and within police workplaces to prioritize wellness and increase the chances of successful returns to work. In addition to these policy changes, there are specific legislative changes that we need to make to ensure the legal framework more closely reflects the reality of these workplace injuries.

First, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act requires that members make a claim within six months of a diagnosis of a compensable illness. This does not reflect the reality of living with certain mental health injuries. A member may receive a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or another occupational stress injury at some point in their career, but the injury may not impair their ability to work until far in the future. For those members living with these injuries, there is a significant hesitation in filing an unnecessary claim for fear of stigma. For members with occupational stress injuries, the filing clock should not start running when they are diagnosed, but when it impacts their ability to work.

Second, the current presumptive legislation provides police officers and certain civilian members with presumptive coverage if they receive a Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) diagnosis. The presumptive legislation has had a positive impact on those members struggling with PTSD, allowing access to mental health support in a timely manner. The legislation needs to be expanded to cover all civilian police personnel. In particular, civilian members responsible for reviewing and redacting body-worn video or those responsible for examining or working directly with front-line disclosure materials.

Beyond expanding eligibility for the presumption, Ontario should also consider expanding the list of diagnoses covered under the presumption to encourage early access to treatment and recovery. In some cases, police officers or civilian members are affected by traumatic exposures arising out of their employment, but they do not yet meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD. They may be diagnosed with another stress-related disorder in response to trauma exposure. In these cases, their claims do not qualify for presumptive coverage, and they are required to list and describe each traumatic workplace exposure that has led to their mental stress injury. The unintended consequence of limiting presumptive coverage solely to the diagnosis of PTSD is that those who seek treatment for their mental health before they develop PTSD are facing delays in accessing support through the WSIB.

Our recommendation: Amend the timeline for mental health claims and the presumptive legislation to make it easier for all police personnel to access benefits and care they need.

The Special Investigations Unit (SIU) Act currently mandates that the SIU conduct investigations in instances where an officer discharges a firearm, regardless of the type of firearm or whether any injuries occur. This mandate applies to traditional firearms as well as less-lethal options, such as the Anti-Riot Weapon Enfield (ARWEN) and less-lethal shotguns, even if these devices are deployed as part of crisis intervention and de-escalation strategies and do not result in serious injuries to the person involved.

The broadened language of the SIU Act unintentionally includes less-lethal firearm deployments, initially intended to provide officers with alternatives within the scope of SIU investigations. This legislative interpretation has led to SIU attendance at scenes where no injuries have occurred, often due to the use of less-lethal options. This approach ultimately results in resource inefficiencies, creates delays in clearing officers for duty, and doesn’t support safer alternatives.

To address these issues, the government should amend the SIU Act to clarify that discharges of ARWENs, less-lethal shotguns, or other less-lethal firearms where there is no serious injury to the suspect or person in crisis, do not fall under the SIU’s investigative mandate. This amendment will maintain the initial legislative intention to align the language of the SIU Act with its original intent to investigate incidents of serious injury, sexual assault, or death involving police officers while excluding cases that do not meet this threshold.

Our recommendation: Amend the Special Investigations Unit Act to increase efficiency and resources while ensuring oversight meets public expectations.