Police Act — Ontario Employment Law
Related Keywords
About Police Act
In Ontario, police officers occupy a unique position in employment law. Unlike most workers, sworn police officers are not considered traditional 'employees' under the common law; instead, they are statutory office holders. Consequently, their employment relationship, disciplinary procedures, and terminations are strictly governed by specialized provincial legislation—historically referred to as the Police Act, then the Police Services Act, and most recently, the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 (CSPA). This statutory framework replaces standard civil mechanisms like wrongful dismissal lawsuits with highly prescribed administrative tribunals and police association arbitrations.
Because of this distinct legal status, standard workplace legislation such as the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) or the general Labour Relations Act does not apply to police officers in the typical way. Core entitlements like statutory severance pay or the ability to strike are replaced by specialized collective bargaining mechanisms and binding arbitration regimes. When an officer faces allegations of misconduct—such as discreditable conduct, insubordination, or off-duty criminal charges—the governing police legislation dictates a formal investigative and disciplinary process.
Procedural fairness and natural justice are central to these proceedings. If an employer attempts to bypass the mandatory disciplinary framework and terminate an officer or a special constable outright, courts frequently quash the dismissal as procedurally unfair. Suspension without pay is also a highly regulated area; historically in Ontario, suspending an officer without pay was exceptionally difficult unless specific statutory criteria were met, often leading to complex legal battles over back pay and benefits upon an officer's acquittal or reinstatement.
Navigating matters involving police employment regulations requires a firm understanding of administrative law and the current legislative framework, rather than general employment principles. Because the governing statutes change over time and the internal procedures are notoriously strict, consulting with a legal professional who concentrates specifically on police disciplinary tribunals and administrative law is a critical step for anyone facing these complex workplace matters.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an Ontario police officer sue their police service for wrongful dismissal?
Generally, no. Because police officers are statutory office holders rather than standard employees, disputes over dismissals must usually be addressed through the specific disciplinary tribunals or grievance arbitrations established by current police legislation, rather than through civil wrongful dismissal lawsuits.
Are police officers covered by the Employment Standards Act (ESA) in Ontario?
Sworn police officers are exempt from most core provisions of the ESA, including those related to hours of work, overtime, termination pay, and severe severance pay. Their working conditions and compensation packages are instead determined by collective agreements negotiated under specialized policing statutes.
Can a police officer be suspended without pay while facing criminal charges?
Suspension without pay is heavily restricted and strictly governed by provincial police legislation. While recent legislative updates (such as the Community Safety and Policing Act) have broadened a police chief's ability to suspend without pay in exceptional circumstances, officers traditionally remained on payroll during investigations unless they were incarcerated or specific statutory exemptions applied.
What rights do special constables have when facing termination?
While special constables may not share the exact same statutory protections as sworn officers, they are still entitled to strict procedural fairness and natural justice. If a special constable is terminated without access to a proper disciplinary hearing or investigation, a court may quash the termination and order reinstatement on administrative law grounds.
Should I speak to an employment lawyer if my police association is handling my grievance?
While your police association acts as your bargaining agent and manages collective agreement disputes, a police officer facing severe disciplinary hearings or dismissal should still consider seeking independent legal counsel who focuses on police and administrative law, especially if your career or reputation is on the line.
Is there a time limit for challenging a police tribunal decision?
Yes. If you wish to challenge a decision made by a police disciplinary tribunal or the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (or its legislative successor), you must usually file an application for judicial review in Divisional Court within a very strict statutory window, often 30 days.
Common Scenarios
- A sworn officer is charged with off-duty impaired driving and faces internal discreditable conduct hearings. Instead of standard workplace discipline, they must navigate a formal statutory tribunal where their rank and employment are at stake.
- A special constable is abruptly relieved of their duties without being given a chance to respond to the allegations against them. They apply for judicial review, arguing the employer bypassed the mandatory procedural fairness requirements central to standard administrative law.
- An officer suspended with pay for two years is ultimately acquitted of criminal charges. Disagreements arise between the officer, the police service, and the association regarding back pay, benefits continuation, and the required mitigation steps taken during the suspension period.
- A local police association files a grievance concerning a change in working conditions. Because police officers are forbidden from striking, the dispute is pushed to mandatory interest arbitration under the particular framework of provincial policing legislation.
What You Should Know
- Do not rely on standard employment law resources or ESA calculators if you are a sworn officer; your rights are tied directly to your collective agreement and provincial police legislation.
- Preserve all written communications regarding investigations, operational reviews, or disciplinary notices, as these documents are critical to determining whether you received procedural fairness.
- Be aware that appealing a disciplinary decision or submitting an application for judicial review involves extremely tight filing deadlines, meaning you cannot afford to delay seeking professional guidance.
- If you are a special constable facing dismissal without a formal hearing, ask a lawyer to review whether your administrative rights to a fair procedure were violated before accepting any severance package.
Featured Cases
Brockville Police Assn. v. Brockville (City), Board of Commissioners of Police
1995 CanLII 1025 (ON CA) · 1995-06-09An appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario regarding labour relations and the interpretation of the Police Act involving the Brockville Police Association and the City of Brockville.
Brockville Police Association v. Board of Commissioners of Police of Brockville and B.
1992 CanLII 8483 (ON CTGDDC) · 1992-01-07Judicial Review: Police Bargaining Unit & Wages
This is a judicial review of an arbitrator's decision concerning collective bargaining rights for police employees. The Divisional Court quashed the arbitrator's decision for misinterpreting the Police Act regarding the inclusion of the 'secretary to the Chief of Police' in the bargaining unit and directed the arbitrator to determine the appropriate wage rate for that position.
S. v. Strathroy (Town) Commissioners of Police (Ont. Div. Ct.)
1988 CanLII 4809 (ON SC) · 1988-07-27Police Officer Termination Case: Procedure Under Police Act
A termination of employment case involving a police officer, with the legal issue centered on the procedure for termination under the Police Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 381, s. 58(1).
G. v. Ontario Police Commission (Ont. Div. Ct.)
1987 CanLII 4089 (ON SC) · 1987-12-08Police Officer Dismissal: Judicial Review Dismissed for Impaired Driving
A judicial review application by a police officer who was charged with discreditable conduct for impaired driving and faced disciplinary action requiring resignation or dismissal. The Ontario Police Commission upheld the decision, and the court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding the decision reasonable and impartial under the Police Act and its regulations.
Re F. and Commissioner of Ontario Provincial Police
1983 CanLII 1732 (ON SC) · 1983-05-20Wrongful Dismissal: Special Constable Terminated Without Procedural Fairness
A wrongful dismissal case involving a special constable who was relieved of duties and terminated without access to a disciplinary process under the Police Act. The court found the termination quashed for lack of procedural fairness and ordered reinstatement without remuneration due to delays in the application.
Re Town of Southampton et al. and S. et al.
1983 CanLII 1934 (ON SC) · 1983-03-30This is a grievance arbitration decision involving the Town of Southampton and police employees under the Police Act and relevant regulations.
C. et al. v. Board of Commissioners of Police of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto et al.
1982 CanLII 2054 (ON SC) · 1982-09-21Police Officers Entitled to Salary During Suspension Without Pay
A merits decision involving police officers suspended without pay who were acquitted on appeal. The court addressed whether they were entitled to salary and benefits during suspension, the obligation to mitigate damages by seeking temporary employment, and the award of prejudgment interest.
Toronto Police Association v. Toronto Police Commissioners Board
1981 CanLII 72 (ON CA) · 1981-02-26Arbitrator Jurisdiction: Police Constable Dismissal
This is a judicial review of a Divisional Court decision quashing an arbitrator's interim ruling on jurisdiction. The case concerns whether an arbitrator appointed under the Police Act had jurisdiction to hear a grievance alleging the dismissal of a probationary constable without reasonable cause, or if such dismissal was exclusively governed by regulation. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which upheld it (Toronto Police Association v. Toronto Police Commissioners Board, [1982] 1 SCR 451). The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal from the Ontario Court of Appeal, finding no reversible error. The judgment quashing the arbitration award stands.
Metropolitan Toronto Police Association v. Metropolitan Toronto Police
1980 CanLII 2701 (ON HCJDC) · 1980-04-28This is a judicial review application concerning the scope of an arbitrator's jurisdiction in collective bargaining under the Police Act. The Divisional Court addressed whether matters such as force reduction, recall rights, equipment provisions, and survivor benefits constitute 'working conditions' arbitrable under the Act, and whether statutory caps preclude addressing pension escalation.
Durham Regional Police Association v. Durham Regional Board of Police Commissioners
1980 CanLII 62 (ON CA) · 1980-03-17This is an appeal concerning the scope of collective bargaining under the Police Act, specifically whether an arbitrator had jurisdiction to include a clause requiring the reimbursement of legal expenses for police officers acquitted of duty-related charges. The court examined whether the municipal council's statutory discretion to pay legal expenses precluded such negotiation in a collective agreement. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which reversed it (Durham Regional Police Association v. Durham Regional Board of Police Co., [1982] 2 SCR 709). The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the courts below, and reinstated the award of the arbitrator including the collective agreement clause for legal fees indemnification.
Sudbury Regional Police Association et al. v. Sudbury Regional Board of Commissioners of Police et al.
1977 CanLII 1102 (ON SC) · 1977-04-13This is an interlocutory proceeding involving an application for an interim injunction by the Sudbury Regional Police Association against the Sudbury Regional Board of Commissioners of Police. The legal issues concern the grounds for an injunction based on anticipated infringement of legal rights under the Police Act.
Re Sudbury Regional Board of Commissioners of Police and Sudbury Regional Police Association et al.
1976 CanLII 816 (ON SC) · 1976-07-14Police Promotion Jurisdiction: Arbitrator's Authority Upheld
A labour and employment case involving police officers, addressing whether the promotion of officers falls under 'working conditions' under section 29(2) of the Police Act and whether the arbitrator has jurisdiction to address such matters. The court upheld the arbitrator's jurisdiction to address promotions as part of working conditions.
M. v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Board of Police Commissioners et al.
1976 CanLII 637 (ON SC) · 1976-02-20Police Officer Suspension: Pay Entitlement Under Police Act
A merits decision involving a police officer suspended without pay pending appeal after being convicted under the Code of Conduct. The court examined whether such suspension is permissible under the Police Act and Regulations, and whether the officer is entitled to pay during the suspension period. The case also addressed whether the officer is considered a public officeholder rather than a municipal servant, and whether the suspension constitutes a penalty under the regulations.
Crease et al. Board of Commissioners of Police of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto et al.
1976 CanLII 741 (ON SC) · 1976-01-05Police Officers' Suspension Without Pay and Employment Standards
A merits decision involving police officers suspended without pay while criminal charges were pending. The court examined whether such suspensions are permissible under the Police Act and whether officers are entitled to arrears of salary and benefits if acquitted.
Re Metropolitan Toronto Board of Commissioners of Police and Metropolitan Toronto Police Association
1975 CanLII 645 (ON CA) · 1975-02-19Police Collective Bargaining: Working Conditions & Safety
This is an appeal concerning the scope of collective bargaining rights for police officers under the Police Act. The central issue was whether the statutory term 'working conditions' includes safety-related measures, such as mandating two-officer patrols, and whether an arbitrator's award on this matter conflicted with the Board's statutory duties to maintain law and order.
Re Metropolitan Toronto Board of Police Commissioners and Metropolitan Toronto Police Association (Unit B) et al.
1973 CanLII 677 (ON HCJDC) · 1973-05-03Judicial Review of Police Arbitration Award
This is a judicial review proceeding concerning an arbitration award under the Police Act. The court addressed whether the arbitration board's failure to deliver its decision within the statutory 60-day time limit rendered the award a nullity, ultimately holding the time limit to be directory. The review also considered whether the board's failure to expressly address specific issues and alleged procedural irregularities violated natural justice, with the court upholding the award.
Re Town of Dryden and Dryden Police Association
1972 CanLII 631 (ON SC) · 1972-12-14Police Collective Agreement: Arbitrator's Jurisdiction Over Working Conditions
A labour and employment case involving the interpretation of 'working conditions' under the Police Act and the jurisdiction of an arbitrator in a collective agreement between the Town of Dryden and the Dryden Police Association. The case addresses whether an arbitrator can include provisions such as requiring two police officers per cruiser car during specified hours as a 'working condition' and whether an arbitrator can award pension benefits to the family of a deceased officer.
Re Board of Commissioners of Police for the City of Windsor and L. et al.
1972 CanLII 588 (ON SC) · 1972-02-03Police Act Arbitration: Collective Agreement Dispute
A labour relations case involving arbitration under the Police Act, s. 32(3), concerning a collective agreement between the Board of Commissioners of Police for the City of Windsor and L. et al.
Re C. and Metropolitan Toronto Board of Commissioners of Police et al.
1971 CanLII 563 (ON SC) · 1971-04-08Probationary Constable Dismissal: Delegation of Authority Under Police Act
A wrongful dismissal case involving a probationary constable who was dismissed by the Chairman of the Board of Police Commissioners without the Board confirming the dismissal within the probationary period. The court examined whether the Board could delegate its dismissal authority to the Chairman and whether the failure to confirm the dismissal rendered it ineffective under the Police Act.
B. v. City of Sault Ste. Marie Police Commissioners et al.
1968 CanLII 334 (ON CA) · 1968-06-17Police Officer Status Appeal: Police Act s. 28
This is an appeal concerning the legal status of a member of the police force under section 28 of the Police Act. The Court of Appeal for Ontario reviewed the determination of the officer's employment status within the police service.