Police occupy a critical and demanding role in Canadian society. They are entrusted with preserving public safety and preventing crime while enforcing the law. To achieve these objectives in complex and typically high-pressure situations, the police are granted significant powers — the authority to detain, search, question and use force. However, such powers are not without limits. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms establishes constitutional safeguards designed to protect individuals from state overreach.
The research report, Unlawful Enforcers: Charter Violations by Major Ontario City Police Services, conducted by a team of researchers from Western Law and the Centre for Criminology and Sociolegal Studies at the University of Toronto, investigates what occurs when those protections are not respected. A review of published court decisions between January 1, 2015, and May 31, 2025, revealed that officers from Ontario’s five largest municipal police services — the Toronto, Peel, York, Durham, and Ottawa services — committed over 1,000 Charter violations across more than 600 reported cases.
Many of these violations are not merely technical breaches, but breaches of fundamental constitutional protections. Sections 8 and 10(b) were the most frequently violated Charter protections — namely, the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay. Together, these two Charter protections account for more than 60% of all violations identified in the report. Importantly, these findings only represent a fraction of the problem. Many decisions are unreported, and the report does not capture Charter-infringing conduct that never results in criminal charges.
These findings have significant implications for the legal profession. Charter litigation is a regular feature of criminal law, and cases supported by strong evidence can collapse when such evidence is obtained in violation of constitutionally protected rights. More than 70% of the over 600 cases identified in our research resulted in the exclusion of evidence, stays of proceedings, or sentence reductions. Practically, this means that prosecutions involving guns, drugs, and even reliable evidence of child exploitation can deteriorate because of Charter violations.
For academics, students, lawyers, and advocates, these findings raise broader, systemic questions. What does it mean for the rule of law when constitutional violations are recurring rather than sporadic? How should legal institutions respond when safeguards intended to protect Charter rights are routinely undermined in practice?
Charter violations are often accompanied by significant extra-legal consequences for individuals, including adverse effects on the physical and mental well-being of those subjected to unlawful police conduct. They also erode public confidence in law enforcement and the justice system — confidence that is essential for effective policing and community safety.
In addition to our quantitative findings, the qualitative analysis in Unlawful Enforcers focuses specifically on decisions involving the Toronto Police Service and the Peel Regional Police Service. This analysis identified more than 20 systemic concerns described by judges and identified by our research team, including: failures to inform individuals of their right to counsel without delay; interference with the right to counsel of choice; and racial profiling.
Particularly troubling are the report’s findings relating to investigative integrity and honesty. The report identifies multiple cases in which officers were found to have lied or provided false testimony, often resulting in the exclusion of evidence. Courts have also excluded reliable evidence in several cases involving allegations of child pornography because of unlawful investigative practices.
Unlawful Enforcers also explores the phenomenon of “hidden racial profiling” by the Peel Regional Police and Toronto Police Service. The research team identified decisions where the race of the accused was noted and racial profiling was not at issue before the court, but an inference of racial profiling could nonetheless be drawn from the circumstances described on the record. While these findings do not constitute definitive judicial determinations of racial profiling, they also do not preclude its existence and instead suggest patterns that warrant closer scrutiny. More broadly, this analysis highlights how systemic bias may become operationalized within everyday policing practices, often falling outside the formal scope of litigation.
Where Charter violations are persistent and systemic, meaningful and rigorous reform must follow. The report advances several recommendations that are intended to enhance monitoring, accountability, transparency, and independent oversight. These recommendations include:
- creating formal processes to notify police leadership of court decisions with findings of Charter violations;
- conducting investigations into officer misconduct linked to those findings;
- implementing annual public reporting on Charter breaches and related disciplinary action;
- reviewing policies, procedures, and training in light of recurring issues; and
- strengthening independent oversight through inspections and instruction by arms-length regulatory bodies.
These recommendations are intended to address a fundamental gap in the justice system: although courts regularly identify Charter violations, there is no consistent mechanism to ensure that those findings translate into prevention efforts, institutional learning, or meaningful accountability.
Unlawful Enforcers does not seek to assign blame to a single institution or actor. Rather, it recognizes that the integrity of the justice system depends on the consistent application of constitutional principles at every stage of the investigative and adjudicative process. Safeguarding constitutional rights is a shared obligation across the legal profession and justice system. Grounded in empirical research and focused on systemic reform, Unlawful Enforcers advocates for stronger accountability, transparency, oversight, and institutional responsiveness to better protect constitutional rights, and to strengthen public confidence in the administration of justice and the rule of law.
Read the full report here:
Any article or other information or content expressed or made available in this Section is that of the respective author(s) and not of the OBA.