A provincial police watchdog is opening an investigation into the Durham Regional Police Service after receiving “credible information” that the force’s top brass, including the chief, “might have” participated in alleged criminal conduct.

Citing a “crisis of confidence” within Durham police for Chief Paul Martin and his senior leadership, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission has issued an order appointing a retired deputy chief of the Toronto police to oversee the beleaguered Durham force while the commission investigates allegations of corruption and abuse of power.

“The Commission has received credible information that suggests certain members of the Service’s leadership might have covered up, attempted to cover up, allowed, tolerated, encouraged or participated in the alleged misconduct or criminal conduct … and that they may have interfered in previous external and internal investigations,” reads the May 23 order, signed by Linda P. Lamoureux, executive director of Tribunals Ontario.

Lamoureux’s order says the commission does not yet have enough information to make any formal findings. “However, it is clear that the Service’s morale suffers from a prevalent perception that advancement and preferential treatment within the Service is restricted to individuals favoured by certain members of the Service’s leadership,” she writes.

These favoured individuals are known within the service as the “untouchables,” Lamoureux writes. They are “believed to be impervious to workplace harassment complaints, and to allegations of criminal activity and/or misconduct due to their relationship to the Service’s leadership.”

Neither Durham police nor a lawyer representing senior officials, including Chief Paul Martin, immediately responded to a request for comment.

Lawyer Sean Dewart previously described the allegations against Martin and senior brass as “false and defamatory,” adding that a “handful of disgruntled individuals within (or formerly within) the DRPS have been proffering baseless allegations to try to destroy the reputations of members of the force’s management and command.”

The commission’s investigation is part of growing turmoil engulfing Durham police, Canada’s 10th-largest municipal force, which patrols the region east of Toronto, including the cities of Oshawa and Pickering.

Martin and other top officials within the Durham force were accused of serious misconduct by several veteran officers who filed complaints to the province, as previously revealed by the Star. The complaints include allegations that senior command threatened officers with trumped-up accusations of misconduct in attempts to intimidate or dig up dirt on those who had fallen out of favour with the management, and allegations of lying under oath to cover up for the chief.

Worried that officers would not come forward out of fear of reprisal by senior command, the commission has appointed Mike Federico, a retired deputy chief with Toronto police, as administrator, who will oversee the Durham force during the oversight agency’s investigation.

Federico’s responsibilities will include approving promotions and overseeing all internal discipline, the order said. Durham police must reimburse the commission for the cost of the administrator.

The other senior Durham officers named in the complaints are Deputy Chief Dean Bertrim, former deputy chief Uday Jaswal and chief administrative officer Stan MacLellan. Dewart also represents Bertrim, Jaswal and MacLellan, who have said the allegations against them are baseless and defamatory.

Lamoureux said the Commission has already discovered a widespread “sense of mistrust in the judgment, integrity and capacity of the Service’s leadership and the (Police Services) Board’s oversight abilities.”

“The most commonly expressed reasons for mistrust are allegations of cronyism manifested as favoritism with respect to a variety of decisions made by the senior administration of the Service,” she writes, adding that senior officials were alleged to have been “willfully blind” to harassment, intimidation and “retaliatory discipline.”

Ontario’s solicitor general asked the commission, an independent police watchdog, to investigate the allegations after receiving complaints from at least three longtime officers with the police service. The complainants include a recently retired inspector, a veteran sergeant and a former president of Durham’s police union.

In one complaint sent to the solicitor general, Durham police Sgt. Nicole Whiteway alleges police brass demanded she dish out unsavoury information about other Durham police employees in order to resolve what she said were baseless internal discipline charges against her.

Another complaint was filed by Insp. Bruce Townley, who has since retired. Townley presided over internal disciplinary proceedings for the police service and alleged that at one such hearing, a senior officer lied under oath to protect the chief. The officer was subsequently promoted to deputy chief. Townley alleges the police board was aware of the allegations of his “false testimony” when it gave him the promotion.

The commission is also reviewing how the force’s senior command handled the case of a veteran cop who external investigators concluded misled Durham police about his marijuana side gig. The Ontario Provincial Police concluded in 2017 that Const. Phil Edgar committed multiple counts of professional misconduct and was “deceitful” when he sought approval from police brass to own a medical marijuana dispensary for which he didn’t have a licence.

In an interview with the Star, Edgar had said he did “absolutely nothing wrong” and that he would strongly defend himself if given the opportunity.

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

The OPP concluded that Durham police failed to do basic due diligence and should not have approved his request. Edgar’s superiors were aware as of June 2016 that the dispensary did not have a licence but had not initiated disciplinary charges, the report said.

Kevin Ashe, chair of the Durham police services board, said in an email that he had “not received any official notification of any order” from the Commission as of end of business Friday.

“The Board strives for transparency and looks forward to being in a position to comment further,” he said.