Suspended police officers in Toronto win appeal, lost wages

Two Toronto-based police officers were suspended without pay during a criminal investigation into their actions for which they were charged — but after an appeal turned that decision around, they sought compensation for the suspension.

Edward Ing and John Cruz, two police constables with the Toronto Police Services Board, were charged with assaulting and causing bodily harm to a civilian.

They were charged and convicted (despite pleading not guilty) and received a one-year conditional sentence.

As a result, they were suspended without pay, as per the collective agreement and Police Services Act. Both appealed the issue and, under the same clause, remained on suspension without pay pending the outcome of the trial.

A judge dismissed the charges and the officers petitioned the board for reimbursement of lost wages during the suspension, which the police board refused.

The Toronto Police Association filed a grievance, arguing both officers were entitled to compensation because not only were the criminal charges appealed (thereby rendering the initial suspension obsolete), but a police officer’s compensation should not be dependent on duties performed, but rather that they hold public office.

Since Ing and Cruz maintained their police officer status, they were entitled to compensation for lost wages.

"As a matter of fact and law, there was no conviction, no custodial sentence, and now no statutory or other basis for a suspension without pay," the police association argued.

"While the suspension without pay was once valid, once the factual and legal basis for it disappeared, Ing and Cruz had to be put back in the position that they would have been in, absent a conviction and custodial term."

Essentially, the officers were entitled to compensation for the period of time when they had been deprived of their income.

However, the police board dismissed the association’s argument that police hold public office and are therefore entitled to compensation no matter what. A collective agreement need not be negotiated otherwise, and officers are and should be treated as employees.

"Neither police officer could provide any services to the board while under suspension and there was no basis to compensate so long as the suspension was validly in effect," the board said. "As unionized employees, they were subject to the same overriding legal regime as anyone else."

That the charges were dropped was of no consequence as both officers lost pay for a period during which they were justifiably suspended under the law.

In his decision, arbitrator William Kaplan sided with the association and upheld the grievance, ordering both officers be remunerated.

Without a doubt, he said, the board did nothing wrong in suspending the officers initially. However, circumstances changed.

It would not have been fair for charged police officers to receive compensation pending trial, but those officers who should never have been charged in the first place should be compensated.