New Paragraph

The Passing of Thomas B. O’Grady – OPP Commissioner Emeritus
April 22, 2024

On April 16, 2024, we lost an incredible police officer and leader from the OPP family. At the same time, his beloved wife Betty, his children and grandchildren all lost the dearly loved patriarch of theirs.


Tom O’Grady had a storied police career that lasted 42 years. He joined the RCMP in 1956 as a young 18 year from Northumberland County in Ontario and following a short stint in Rockcliffe Park (Ottawa), was posted to the Cornerbrook, Newfoundland. Then in 1958, Tom left the RCMP and moved back to Ontario. In those days the RCMP would not allow their young officers to wed and given that he married the lovely Betty that same year, it appears the RCMP lost a good man over their policy.


Tom subsequently served with two small municipal police departments in what is now Durham Region, before joining the OPP in 1961.


His OPP career took him first to Bradford, then Stayner, Huntsville and by 1972 he was assigned to the OPP Anti-Rackets Branch at OPP Headquarters in Toronto. He flourished in the investigative realm and was promoted several times there, including to Detective Inspector upon his transfer to the Criminal Investigation Branch (CIB). He led a number of complex homicide and other major cases across Ontario, including into outlaw motorcycle gangs and even an international case that involved the possible overthrow of a Caribbean country by extremists.


That is when I first met Tom O’Grady, when he was in the CIB and came to London Detachment to conduct some interviews. My Staff Sergeant at the time asked me “Do you know that guy?”, and I replied that I had only heard his name, and in a positive way. He said, “He could well be the Commissioner someday.”


At that time, I didn’t even know what a CIB Inspector was, but after meeting Tom, learning of his cases and watching his interaction with other members, how he spoke and carried himself, my career goal was cemented. I was determined to be a CIB Inspector at some point in my career.


Commissioner O’Grady went on to lead the CIB then was promoted to Chief Superintendent in-charge of the entire Investigations Division, and with a couple of other brief stops, was appointed to be OPP Commissioner in February 1988.


I never really interacted with the Commissioner much prior to the early 1990s. Then through various assignments and investigations, I had to meet with him on occasion and even briefed the Solicitor General and Ontario government committees with him. I was always so impressed with the way he spoke and the impact that had on those he was addressing, whether they be political or police leaders. He maintained a calm, reassuring presence, enunciated his words carefully and purposefully, all while exuding knowledge, confidence and professionalism. There’s no doubt they all admired him greatly and I was certainly proud to call him “Commissioner”.


I attended a meeting with him in Ottawa in the mid-90s, regarding a national strategy to fight organized crime. He sat at a huge table, quietly and thoughtfully, as movers and shakers in police leadership from across the country debated various options and strategies to tackle the growing organized crime threat. After many had spoken and the tide of the discussions had ebbed and flowed, he indicated that he had something to say. When he had the floor, all the other police Chiefs and Commissioners focused intently as he articulated his views – expressing agreement with portions of the earlier dialogue and some contrary thoughts. That changed the direction of the entire conversation. Others nodded in agreement and then the Chair spoke, and the entire group indicated their consensus.


One of things he said to the group, and it struck me, was: “Whether it be federal, provincial or municipal police services, they are all paid for by the taxpayers. And it’s all the same taxpayers. We owe it to them to work together effectively and to get it right for them.”


I told him after the meeting that I thought in future meetings – that involved a galaxy of egos and agendas, he should simply speak first, everyone would agree, and we could wrap things up much more quickly. He laughed and said, “Well, they all need to have their say.”


I didn’t realize it then, but through those interactions I learned valuable lessons that would help me in my journey as a police leader.


In 1995, Tom called me to his office in Orillia. He was very concerned about a letter to the editor that I had sent to a major newspaper to correct some misleading reporting they had published.

Although I had worded the letter carefully, he felt that I had disregarded his instructions to the entire OPP to not engage with the media about a controversial issue that the OPP had been criticized over. Although I made a brief counterargument, there was no doubt in my mind that I was not going to sweet-talk my way out of this discussion, so I fell on my sword.


He asked, “Why do you do these things?” It appeared t he had the perception that I spoke my mind a bit too directly at times. He had me there! I replied, “Because they pissed me off.” He said, “Well they pissed me off too, but I didn’t write them a letter.” I said, “Perhaps you should have.” He went on to tell me that I wasn’t alone in that thought and that someday he would publicly speak to the issue, adding, “In the meantime, the next time you’re pissed off, come and see me before you write the press.”


I reported directly to him through my years at Criminal Intelligence Service Ontario (which he assigned me to) and then he promoted me to Superintendent two years later. I totally appreciated that he never threw the towel in on me over my media letter. Other leaders I worked for over the years certainly would have.


Tom O’Grady led the OPP through some challenging years. Ten of them in fact. Fiscal, relationship, public safety and media challenges that we had seldom ever faced as an organization required a high level of patience and strategic thinking. Although as a minor player at the time, I didn’t always agree with the direction chosen or some of the players he promoted to executive roles, but I respected Tom as our leader and did what I could to support him and his agenda, as I did for every Commissioner to follow.


I would eventually find out that being Commissioner of a 9000-person organization can be a lonely position. As a rule, making suggestions to the boss and then disagreeing with his or her decision on occasion isn’t all that stressful. Actually, it’s a pretty easy go. But when the buck stops with you, as it did with Tom for a full decade, it’s a whole different world. I know many people didn’t agree with all my decisions or promotions over the years either – and at times rightly so. Despite Tom’s or my best efforts to get it right, at times we didn’t. That reality comes with the turf.


Commissioner O’Grady retired in 1998. I couldn’t make it to his retirement celebration, but I sent him a letter to wish him well and to thank him for his leadership, his unwavering support of all of our men and women, and for his belief in me. I added at the end, “Even though you’re retired, anytime I’m pissed off, I will give you call before I write a snotty letter to the press.”


We chatted on many occasions over the years to follow. He would still give me his opinion if I asked, but never once offered it when I didn’t. His sage advice and at times silence, was always valued and greatly appreciated.


When I wrote a book on leadership in 2016, I interviewed Tom as well as several other past and current Canadian police Chiefs. In response to my question regarding the importance of leadership, he offered this thoughtful feedback:


“It has been said that the public is generally oblivious to good policing, rather it is the absence of it that draws public attention and concern.

 

By comparison, an efficient and effectively functioning organization is the result of good leadership, a fact that usually goes unnoticed. Only when the organization begins to malfunction does the subject of good leadership or the lack thereof become a subject of public debate.”


Well said, Sir.


I’ll miss Tom O’Grady. As I do, I will certainly keep Betty and his family in my thoughts. They’ve suffered a tremendous loss.


Rest in peace Commissioner.

Should the Police Chief be blamed for the misdeeds of subordinates?

By Chris Lewis • February 13, 2026
I say "No."

When Oversight Becomes Overreach: Why a Few Bad Officers Must Not Redefine Policing

By Chris Lewis • February 11, 2026
Policing depends on public trust. So does police oversight. When either loses credibility, both suffer and the public they are sworn to serve isn’t sure who to believe or where to turn. In recent years, calls for stronger police oversight have grown louder, often driven by a small number of high-profile misconduct cases. Confidence in institutions by the public – often fueled by ridiculous social media theories and damnations, is more fragile than in the past, and reputational damage spreads faster. Despite the fact that Canadian police officers operate under tight legislative and regulatory frameworks that exceed any other Canadian profession in my view, existing oversight bodies feel pressure to take action quickly when bad things happen, as isolated as they may be. But there is a risk in this moment that deserves equal attention: the risk of overreach. The seven officers who have been alleged to have committed crimes – including serious ones that involve organized crime, must not be allowed to redefine an entire profession. Public trust certainly adds urgency to this moment. When corruption cases like this surface, the public does not necessarily see them as isolated failures. They see a system that is broken and in my view in this instance they see that unfairly. Policing is unlike most professions. There are over 70,000 police officers in Canada, comprised of federal, provincial and municipal officers that work under the worst of circumstances at times and face the harshest of critics. As a result of the arrests of seven serving Toronto Police Service (TPS) officers as well as a retired officer, then the subsequent suspension of two additional TPS officers and two Peel Regional Police Service officers, a large portion of the Canadian public are focusing on the ‘bad’ and forgetting the wonderful and brave police work occurring in their communities 24/7. Officers exercise coercive authority on the public on behalf of the public, often in volatile environments. They have right to take away people’s liberty and in the worst of situations to take lives. That authority most definitely demands the greatest of accountability, but it also demands reasonable, sensible and balanced oversight. Oversight systems designed around ‘worst-case scenarios’ risk governing by exception rather than thoughtful considerations and reality. One of the most overlooked consequences of overly broad oversight is its impact on ethical officers. When serious misconduct is identified, entire services face scrutiny and as a result of the Inspector General of Policing’s announcement to inspect all 45 police services in Ontario, the impacts are far reaching and not isolated to the police service of the members in question. The risk is that the resulting collective stigma will not only damage public trust but will also hurt officer morale; officer initiative may decline; recruiting could be impacted; and the reputation of the entire profession across Ontario will be damaged because of the alleged actions of a few. Oversight that blurs critical lines risks judging officers by association rather than their individual conduct. Officer trust in the oversight system and public trust in the policing profession could both be further harmed. As a result, both the Toronto Police Association and the Police Association of Ontario have rightfully expressed their concern regarding the inspection of all of Ontario’s police services. Their distress is that the announcement may be read by many that police corruption is rife across the province. At this point we do not know how much of this alleged criminal activity occurred off duty, versus on. We don’t know all the details of what they may have done and how, let alone what processes, policies or systems within the TPS that may have to be examined by the Inspector General. He may well have identified them all, but perhaps not. As the investigation portion by police continues, more things for inspection may be identified. In the meantime, I have no doubt that Ontario’s police Chiefs are reviewing their processes based on what they know so far, to ensure their policies, systems and internal oversight mechanisms are as tight as they can reasonably be. The seven charged officers are suspended and before the courts. The justice system is entrusted with dealing with these allegations from here. Others not charged but under investigation are suspended as well. There was no rush to begin a review process as this unfolds. Announcing that it will occur when the criminal investigation is complete and when they are armed with a more fulsome understanding of the issues that should be examined, would have been more appropriate. None of this lessens the need for accountability. It argues for thoughtful processes, analysis and reporting. Misconduct should be addressed decisively and dealt with through due process as it is, but broad oversight driven by isolated wrongdoings risks weakening the institutions we all depend on. Public trust matters. Undoubtedly. But so does institutional trust in police officers. In my view, processes that signal broad-based suspicion undermine the trust they are meant to protect. Oversight works best when it is firm, fair, and controlled.

Police corruption arrests: How do we move on from here?

By Chris Lewis • February 7, 2026
Thursday’s announcement of the arrest of seven serving and one retired Toronto police officers for corruption, was a dark moment for policing in Canada and for the communities that trust their police to always do what is honest and right. At times like this it is too easy for us all to lose trust in those in which we should hold the highest level of trust in society, because of the actions of a few. I believe that we must remind ourselves about all that is good in policing in Canada – where training, standards, equipment, professionalism, governance and competence are second to none in the world. I view this as both bad news and good news stories. The bad news is that seven officers allegedly broke their oaths and committed heinous crimes. Startling, sad and completely unacceptable for the profession and more importantly for the public they were sworn to serve. The “good” news (although I struggle with the word) is that the system worked. Suspicions arose about a certain Toronto Police (TPS) officer’s potential involvement in a crime in York Region. Police there notified the Chief of the TPS, and they quickly agreed that York Regional Police (YRP) would lead the investigation, and TPS would remain in a support role by providing Professional Standards investigators and other assistance as required. I assume that would mean investigative support personnel and access to internal information about the TPS officers in question, like their schedules; what police cars they were driving; assignments and personnel file information, at minimum. By design, the TPS Chief did not have decision-making authority in the investigation. None of that raises any red flags for me. This was a large and complex investigation that eventually involved 400 officers and would require highly experienced investigators and specialty personnel. YRP and TPS have all of that and more. The leaders that addressed the media spoke competently and professionally, leaving no doubt that they would leave no stone unturned. Evidence was gathered and arrests of officers and others were made. The public was then appropriately advised of as many details as we have ever seen released in a media conference when charges were before the courts and an investigation ongoing. TPS Chief Demkiw announced he was seeking to suspend at least some of the officers without pay. That is something that has only recently became acceptable under Ontario’s policing regulations and must be used judiciously. Of course, social media “experts” and anti-police pundits took over from there. Please allow me to offer answers to some of the most consistent queries: Why wasn’t an independent oversight body like the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) brought on to investigate? Police shouldn’t investigate police! It’s not the legislated mandate of the SIU to conduct criminal investigations into police except in specific circumstances around police use of force or sexual assault. Nor is it the mandate of Ontario’s Inspectorate of Policing. These governing bodies do not possess the expertise or resources to conduct massive criminal investigations into officers and organized crime groups. Only large police services have the critical mass and knowledge to manage such difficult operations. An option for Chief Demkiw was to let his Professional Standards personnel be the liaison for TPS information and potential Police Act charges against TPS personnel that might emerge but leave the investigative support/assistance piece to another large outside service. That would’ve helped suppress any concern around TPS investigating their own. But police services often conduct criminal investigations into their own people with regularity in Ontario, unless they involve senior officers. There’s no hard and fast rule or Ministry guidelines on the issue to my knowledge. The Toronto Chief should step down. This happened under his watch. I cannot speak to his day-to-day job performance, but in my view, Chief Demkiw did not handle this case wrongly. The alleged illegal actions of 0.12% of his police personnel do not justify his removal. If he knew and didn’t take action that would be different but there is no suggestion of him doing anything but throwing his full support behind the YRP investigation. Again, perhaps he should’ve kept TPS out of it as much as possible, but that was a judgement call made in the early stages of an investigation that grew very large over time. All cops are corrupt. Why didn’t other officers stop them? What? This was seven officers in a police service of almost 6000 TPS officers and out of over 70,000 police officers in Canada. It is awful, without a doubt and concerning to say the least, but this does not mean there is a wave of police corruption and ties to organized crime across the nation. As this criminality unfolded and as we speak, thousands of officers are on the streets of Canada, saving lives and risking their own; patrolling communities; preventing crime and victimization; responding to life and death situations; arresting evil criminals and more. They do that professionally, bravely and honestly, or they are held to account under various laws and disciplinary processes. They are governed and regulated more than any other profession in Canada. Yes, some cops (even one is too many) out of those 70,000, commit crimes in their careers, which is unacceptable. Some of that occurs while they are on duty, some not. It is disappointing when it happens, but with rare exception police leaders will not accept it and will deal with it expeditiously through due process. In cases where a police supervisor or executive doesn’t take proper action, they will be held to account as well. As a rule, no one hates dirty cops more than honest cops. They hurt the profession as a whole across the continent. Canadian officers take a reputational hit regardless of where the wrongdoing occurs in North America. We don’t know the details yet of what these accused officers were doing or how much of it they were doing on the job, versus off duty. IF evidence comes to light in the ongoing investigation that colleague officers knew or participated in any way in the criminality, they will be in trouble as well. Let’s not jump to conclusions that other officers “must have known” and let the investigation run its course. Why do officers not have more oversight on the use of police databases? Police officers and a number of civilian colleagues have access to the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) database that holds all licenced driver and vehicle registration information in Ontario. Most police cars have computers in them that can access that information, which includes driver’s and owners’ addresses. It is accessed non-stop, 24/7, as a regular part of core police business. Other databases involving outstanding warrants and criminal history, as well as occurrence records are similarly accessed. Government employees that work at MTO or in some other Ministries have like access to people’s names and addresses. That is reality in all 10 provinces. We cannot limit legitimate government employee access to vital systems on the off chance they may be inappropriately used. That includes those that we entrust to carry guns and make life and death decisions. When such databases are misused in some way, proper action must be taken promptly, as it was in this case, as opposed to hamstringing the operability of several hundred thousand honest employees across Canada. Canadian police officers are internationally highly-regarded, but they are human, have frailties and will honestly err on occasion while truly trying to do their best. That can be dealt with and repaired when it occurs. But when officers commit acts of malice, they will be appropriately held accountable and dealt with through due process. That is the bedrock of Canadian policing. Public trust in police is paramount to effective policing, and largely we enjoy that in our country. We cannot let this dark day define what policing actually is in Toronto or anywhere in Canada. Canadians should move forward with confidence that the system did work in this case. Those that violated our trust are before the courts. The vast, vast majority of officers that are still out there bravely doing what they do so well, will never let us down. Please give them a chance.