Using a hidden camera installed in his condo’s bathroom, Ontario Provincial Police officer Jeffrey Steers secretly filmed a naked relative showering and undressing.

He made homemade pornography by superimposing an image of himself naked into the photos. Years later, he was arrested and pleaded guilty to criminal mischief.

At the time, his rank was inspector. He is still a high-ranking member of Ontario’s provincial police force.

In 2012, at the force’s internal disciplinary tribunal, reserved for officers who have committed “serious” misconduct, Steers pleaded guilty and was demoted to staff sergeant, a rank below inspector, and was told he could not compete for a promotion for two years.

His annual earnings dipped from $130,000 to $116,000 in 2013 and were back up again the following year, according to the province’s sunshine list.

“Inspector Steers’ betrayal of trust of a family member, who was a guest in his home, offended the law and violated community standards,” Robin Breen, a Toronto police superintendent presiding over the case, wrote in his July 2012 decision.

“He chose for whatever reason to disregard his sworn duty as well as the rules of his profession and compromised the integrity and good name of the Ontario Provincial Police.”

The Star has analyzed hundreds of police disciplinary tribunal decisions since 2010 from the OPP and the five police services in the Greater Toronto Area — Toronto, Peel, York, Durham and Halton. The nearly 400 cases reveal reckless, deceitful and often illegal behaviour by officers who have sworn to uphold the law and, in almost all cases, were allowed to continue working as police officers. Those stories will be told in the coming days.

Steers, a veteran officer with nearly 30 years’ experience, told the Star that the matter was behind him. “That’s all been dealt with and I’ve moved on,” he said.

In a statement, his victim said she will never fully recover from what happened: “He is wearing a uniform that people identify with trust and safety,” she wrote. “It is in question if I will ever trust a police officer the way I would have in the past.”

Steers’ criminal files are sealed, but the Star is able to provide an account using a summary of facts that both Steers and the OPP agreed to at his disciplinary tribunal, as well as allegations made in court filings as part of divorce proceedings.

The officer’s crimes date back to 2001, when he’d placed a camera in the bathroom of the condo he and his wife owned in Sutton, Ont., near Lake Simcoe.

There, he filmed a relative alone “naked in the shower and standing in front of the mirror.” He also filmed the woman in a bedroom changing into clothes. She never knew the camera was there.

In the spring of 2010, Steers’ now ex-wife was cleaning out her basement when she uncovered a bag full of CDs and DVDs with a sticky note marked “to be destroyed.”

The videos spanned “a 10-year period, depicting (Steers) in perverse acts with numerous women, including voyeurism and obtaining secret pictures and videos by placing a hidden camera, including in the washrooms and bedrooms of their own home, and then ‘photo shopping’ himself into pictures,” Steers’ then-wife alleged in a statement to the court as part of divorce proceedings. She described the photos as comprising “sexually degrading situations.”

After receiving a tip about Steers’ secret films, the OPP opened an investigation. They interviewed the ex-wife, who described having found images of her naked relative, and that Steers had superimposed an image of himself standing beside the woman trying to touch her, according to the agreed statement of facts.

The investigators prepared a search warrant and seized the contents of the bag she found: 23 homemade CDs and DVDs, one VHS tape and an external hard drive.

They discovered the images of the relative.

The search warrant document used to obtain the material notes that OPP investigators were also considering the charge of voyeurism, a crime defined in the criminal code as making a visual recording of someone who has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

That charge was never laid because voyeurism was not a criminal offence until 2005 and the images of the relative were believed to have been taken before that, the victim told the Star.

In January 2011, OPP investigators arrested Steers and charged him with two counts of criminal mischief. He was suspended from work for 20 months with pay. Later that year, he pleaded guilty and received a one-year probation and conditional discharge, meaning that after three years of good behaviour the offence was purged from his record and his court files sealed.

In the spring of 2012, Steers was brought before the police tribunal, which forces hold when officers are charged with a criminal offence.

Steers’ lawyer and the tribunal prosecutor made a joint submission on the penalty, accepted by the presiding officer, who called it “reasoned and reasonable.” Inspector Steers would be immediately demoted and ineligible to seek promotion for at least two years. He was required to undergo counselling and could only return to duty when deemed fit by a doctor.

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

The prosecutor said the very serious misconduct would warrant Steers being dismissed from his job if not for mitigating factors: by pleading guilty, the officer accepted responsibility for his actions; and his employment record was otherwise unblemished and included commendations from his superiors and awards for community service.

Steers’ lawyer noted that the officer had been receiving counselling since before he was criminally charged. Through his lawyer, Steers apologized to the OPP, vowing he would never “repeat such behaviour and he is aware that should he do so it will be the end of his career.”

The presiding officer denounced what was not a “single isolated act of misconduct that may have been the result of a momentary lapse in judgment.”

“On a number of separate occasions, over a protracted period of time and at different locations, he committed criminal mischief,” Breen wrote in his decision.

“Without question, should the details of Inspector Steers’ misconduct be revealed to the general public, it would cause significant damage to the reputation of the Ontario Provincial Police.”

Steers is currently a staff sergeant with the OPP’s Highway Safety Division.

Jeffrey Steers’ victim writes her first public statement.

I have known Jeff Steers since I was 13 or 14 years old, more than half my life. I am now 41.

To me, he appeared to be a great father, and a standup police officer. Now, he is a person that I cannot trust, bring myself to see, or even want to discuss.

December 2010, I was made aware of photos that Jeff had taken of me, in various stages of undress, without my knowledge. These pictures were taken in places I had previously felt safe, and will never feel the same about now.

It scares me to think of other photos that were taken that I am not aware of. I have that feeling in the pit of my stomach that makes me sick. I won’t ever really get over it and feel completely comfortable.

What was his punishment? He was charged with mischief. Voyeurism was not a criminal offence when the pictures were believed to be taken. They were discovered in 2010, but the date they were taken was in question.

The prosecutor summed it up in a meeting before Jeff was charged. Mischief is equivalent to the same crime as someone scratching your car. Being violated, filmed without my permission, was equivalent to someone scratching my property. That is when I knew that he would not be fully punished for his crime.

Jeff took so much from me, and broke my trust. I will have that feeling for the rest of my life. He goes on like nothing he did was wrong. And, he is still a police officer in the OPP. He is wearing a uniform that people identify with trust and safety. I now identify the uniform with mistrust and lies. It is in question if I will ever trust a police officer the way I would have in the past.

To this day, he has not acknowledged that what he did was wrong, and he has not apologized to me for what he did. He just went about his daily life moving on. He wrecked many lives when he decided to commit this crime. I will be impacted for the rest of mine.