Suzanne Tinglin thought she was fulfilling her civic duty when she walked into her local police station in Toronto’s northwest corner last summer.

The registered nurse and York University instructor had received several voicemail messages from an officer requesting that she come to 23 Division to speak about an investigation at Humber College, where she goes to the gym. He gave few details, but Tinglin assumed she was needed to help solve a crime.

Instead, when she arrived she was taken into a police interview room, recorded and stunned by an accusation that she stole a laptop from her gym’s locker room. She claims she was “intimidated” by the officer, who she alleged “bullied” her in an attempt to prompt a confession. She was never charged.

“I felt that I wasn’t treated appropriately,” Tinglin said in a recent interview, denying any involvement in the theft. “I was accused before I had the opportunity to say anything in my own defence.”

She complained to Ontario’s Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD), seeking a probe of the July 2015 encounter. The provincial watchdog, which investigates complaints against police, quickly ruled that the incident warranted investigation and was being referred to Toronto police’s professional standards unit.

The investigator assigned to probe Tinglin’s complaint was a detective at 23 Division, where the complaint originated.

“She was hoping there would be an independent review, not someone who . . . maybe is his best buddy for all she knows,” said Barry Swadron, Tinglin’s lawyer. “How can she expect to get a fair deal?”

Tinglin’s complaint ended with police ruling her allegations against the officer were unsubstantiated, concluding she was treated in a “fair and professional” manner.

The case highlights one of the most frequent public criticisms about police oversight in the province: that it’s not independent.

During public consultations as part of the ongoing review of police oversight in Ontario by judge Michael Tulloch, questions about police involvement in civilian watchdogs repeatedly arose.

For years, complaints have been made about former police officers being employed by the province’s Special Investigations Unit (SIU), which probes deaths and serious injuries involving police.

Lesser known is that police are involved in the majority of investigations by the OIPRD — and that cases such as Tinglin’s are the norm.

According to its 2014-2015 statistics, the watchdog referred 1,008 police complaints to the police service where the problem originated — six times the number of complaints the watchdog investigated itself (168). In only seven cases, the complaints were referred to another police service for investigation.

Statistics for previous years are similar, showing only a gradual increase in the number of complaints investigated by the watchdog.

Critics say those figures are unacceptable.

“This makes a complete mockery of calling the OIPRD an independent and impartial oversight body,” said Darryl Davies, an instructor in criminology and criminal justice at Carleton University. “Having police investigate police . . . does untold damage to the credibility and integrity of police oversight in this province.”

Rosemary Parker, a spokesperson for the OIPRD, says the plan for the watchdog was always to have police involvement in the investigations. The watchdog was created in 2009 after a report on police oversight by Justice Patrick LeSage.

“There is much merit in the view that civilians should conduct these investigations, but I am not convinced that it is necessary to recommend a system where the presumption is that all investigations are to be conducted by independent civilian investigators,” LeSage wrote in his 2005 report.

Cost and lack of resources are significant hurdles to an exclusively civilian system. The OIPRD receives between 1,000 and 1,500 complaints per year about officers in Ontario’s 52 municipal and regional police services and the OPP’s 172 detachments. The watchdog, based in Toronto, has just 14 investigators.

“It is absolutely impossible for the OIPRD to investigate all complaints,” Parker said.

The OIPRD instead “combines the benefits of police involvement with the independence of civilian oversight,” said OIPRD director Gerry McNeilly in a 2010 report, meaning the watchdog oversees all investigations into complaints, even those conducted by police.

When the OIPRD sends complaints back to the police service where the issue originated, the complaint is probed by a member of a professional standards unit, or in smaller police forces, a senior officer. Large police services, including Toronto police, have professional standards officers based in each division.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

The OIPRD monitors the progress of the probes then reviews the final report to ensure “a full and fair investigation,” Parker said. “If issues are identified, the director will instruct the police service appropriately.”

When the probe is completed, the complainant has 30 days to request that the OIPRD conduct a detailed review of the police service’s investigation — which includes the watchdog accessing the police service’s full investigative file. Mark Pugash, a Toronto police spokesperson, said this review option is one of the “checks and balances built into the system” that promotes accountability.

In Tinglin’s case, the probe was conducted by a Toronto police professional standards officer who was based out of 23 Division. At one point, she was asked to return to 23 Division to provide more information; she refused — “seeing what happened the last time,” she said — instead asking the investigator to come to her home.

“She was reluctant to even meet with the (investigator) because she figured that he would just rubber stamp what the first officer did,” said Swadron, Tinglin’s lawyer.

The internal investigation included a review of Tinglin’s video recorded interview with the officer in question and concluded Tinglin’s allegations were unsubstantiated.

The officer had been attempting to carry out his duty in investigating a theft, according to the Toronto police report. He had identified Tinglin as a person of interest, based on surveillance footage that showed her bag appeared to be larger upon exiting the gym than on entry; this was “not a fishing expedition,” reads the report. Tinglin says her bag may have appeared different in size because she would have moved around its contents, including her workout gear, after using the gym.

The report cites “inconsistencies” in Tinglin’s account, including that while she alleged the officer yelled and banged on the table, “this did not occur.”

“Contrary to the allegation, the respondent officer’s behaviour was fair and professional throughout the interaction,” reads the investigative report. The conclusion was supported by the OIPRD liaison officer with Toronto police’s professional standards division.

Frustrated that she didn’t get the independent probe she sought when she complained to the OIPRD, Tinglin opted not to have the watchdog review the investigation; Swadron said the decision was understandable, given the probe had the “flawed foundation” of being conducted by police.

John Sewell, former Toronto mayor and the head of the Toronto Police Accountability Coalition, was initially hopeful about the OIPRD when it began operating. But the number of cases that get referred back to the police services to probe means the OIPRD “is just not good enough.”

He hopes to see significant changes recommended in the ongoing police oversight review.

“There’s no question that when police services are investigating themselves, the culture takes over, and that’s the big problem.”

Judge Michael Tulloch, whose review is examining Ontario’s three police oversight bodies including the OIPRD, declined to comment for this story. He and his team must release their report and recommendations by March 31, 2017.