The Ontario Inspector General of Policing has dismissed a complaint against Sault Ste. Marie Mayor Matthew Shoemaker, who was accused of misconduct in the decision not to rehire former Sault police chief Hugh Stevenson. Stevenson made the complaint against Shoemaker, who was a member of the city’s police services board when Stevenson resigned in March 2025 to run for the Conservatives in the federal election. “At the time, the Sault Ste. Marie Police Service had run a $2.9 million deficit under the complainant’s command, which received widespread media coverage during the election campaign and led to tensions between himself, city officials and members of the board,” said the decision by Ryan Teschner, Ontario’s Inspector General of Policing. “Unsuccessful in his election bid, the complainant re-applied for his position as chief of police. He believed that there was an understanding between he and the board that he could return to his position if he was not elected as a Member of Parliament. Instead, the board chose to hold a competition for his position.” Stevenson asked the board to remove Shoemaker from the chief selection process because the mayor had made several critical public comments about the police budget deficit. The board and Shoemaker refused his request, and the former police chief was denied an interview in the selection process for a new chief. The analysis by the policing inspector said that while critical, Shoemaker’s comments on the $2.9 million budget overage “were within the bounds of his expressive rights.” “Shoemaker never publicly placed blame for the budget overage at the feet of the complainant,” Teschner said in his decision. “In fact, the published articles and podcasts that were reviewed as part of this investigation confirm that when Mayor Shoemaker referenced the overage, he linked it to a ‘failure of governance’ and a ‘broader oversight issue within the board,’ rather than the failures of an individual.” While there was conflicting evidence about whether Shoemaker was authorized to tell city council that there was a need for improved communication between the police services board and city council, the inspectorate ruled that “on a balance of probabilities, that discussions of the need for improved financial information-sharing took place, and that this represented the board’s position on the issue, and that Mayor Shoemaker was within his rights to express this position at city council.” Public comments The ruling also said that public comments by the mayor – including that there was “rot in the governance of the board” -- were not “unprofessional or disrespectful when taken in the proper context.” “While different people may have picked different descriptors, the role of the inspector general is not to use a thesaurus to armchair quarterback,” Teschner said. “In the circumstances, I find that the comments did not rise to a level that constitutes misconduct.” In terms of the hiring process of a new chief, Teschner said the board first sought legal advice on whether Shoemaker’s public comments constituted a conflict of interest when it came to the chief selection process. “The legal advice indicated that there was no conflict,” the decision said. “This is advice that I agree with, in the circumstances. So long as a chief of police selection process is fair, there is no inherent ‘right’ to be considered for candidacy. The complainant may not have agreed with Mayor Shoemaker’s reason for suggesting to the board hiring committee that his candidacy not be considered, but there was nothing unfair about what occurred.” In addition to the budget issue, Stevenson only gave one day’s notice when he resigned from his job to run in the federal election, instead of six months as required by his contract. “I can understand why this might result in some members of the board not being as open to the prospect of including the complainant as a candidate to return as chief of police,” Teschner said. “For these reasons, I find that Mayor Shoemaker has not committed misconduct, contrary to the Code of Conduct. I am also satisfied that the board did not (commit misconduct) nor act unfairly when it chose not to interview the complainant in the chief selection process.” Read the full decision here.
