Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that every individual is equal before and under the law. This principle becomes particularly curious when those responsible for enforcing the law are themselves convicted of crimes, and the consequences are perceived as less severe than those for civilians. In such situations, questions of accountability, transparency, and equality before the law become central.
This study examined the disciplinary outcomes for sworn police officers in the province of Alberta who have been accused or convicted of criminal offences. A troubling double standard emerges when comparing civilian applicants, who must maintain clean criminal records, with sworn officers who remain employed despite violations of the Police Act and the Criminal Code. Union protections, evidentiary dynamics, and opaque disciplinary systems may shift wrongdoing into internal administrative procedures. Compounding this, such cases are often not systematically recorded or published, limiting transparency and oversight.
Drawing on government databases and research documenting violations committed by officers from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, municipal police services, and First Nations policing agencies within Alberta, this study assessed patterns of misconduct and institutional responses. The findings suggest a persistent double standard and disconcerting outcomes for officers who are convicted of violent versus property crimes. Over 40% of officers who committed violent crime remain employed, compared with ~10% of officers who commit theft or fraud.