Demotion of B.C. officer who leaked documents to media was ‘incorrect,’ review finds

A Victoria police cruiser is seen in a file image. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chad Hipolito)

The discipline handed to a former officer with the Victoria Police Department was too harsh and came after a misconduct probe tainted by “apparent bias,” a review of the case has found.

In 2024, Peter Gill – a sergeant and decades-long veteran of the force – was found to have committed misconduct amounting to “neglect of duty” when he provided confidential, unredacted documents to the media.

• Read more: Demotion of VicPD officer who leaked documents to media will be reviewed: OPCC

Gill sought a review of the decision on two grounds, according to a report from a retired judge published online earlier this year.

“Mr. Gill asks that the discipline authority’s decision be set aside, arguing that the discipline process was biased and discriminatory and the outcome disproportionate and punitive,” Judge John James Threlfall wrote.

The penalty was a reduction in rank, which the review decision notes is “relatively rare” and generally imposed in cases of “very serious forms of misconduct involving drug or alcohol use, inappropriate sexualized behaviour, toxic workplace bullying or harassment, and deceit.”

Threlfall issued two separate decisions, the first of which addressed the allegation of bias.

“The damage created by apprehension of bias cannot be remedied. The hearing, and any subsequent order resulting from it must be void,” Threlfall wrote.

The original complaint was submitted to B.C.’s Office of the Police Commissioner Insp. Colin Brown – a senior member of VicPD.

Under the Police Act, the chief constable of a municipal department has the authority to delegate a “discipline authority” to oversee misconduct investigations. In this case, Brown – the person who made the complaint – was appointed.

The documents leaked to the media resulted in an article in the Capital Daily that the review decision describes as “containing serious allegations of dysfunction” within the Victoria Police Department and was “particularly critical of the senior leadership in that department.”

In it, Gill – who describes himself as a whistleblower – was quoted extensively.

The review decision noted that it is “impossible to determine the precise state of mind of an adjudicator” and to therefore determine “actual bias.” Instead, what the review sought to determine was whether there was the “appearance of bias,” meaning, “whether a reasonably informed bystander would perceive bias.”

The fact that Brown was both the person who made the complaint and the discipline authority was enough to satisfy the judge that apparent bias existed.

“A reasonably informed bystander would perceive bias on the part of the adjudicator in circumstances where the adjudicator was also the de facto complainant who initiated the investigation that resulted in the disciplinary proceedings,” Threlfall wrote.

The decision to keep the investigation in house instead of assigning an external agency was also one that raised the spectre of apparent bias, the judge wrote.

“Mr. Gill was public in his criticism of senior leadership in the VicPD, and that would include Insp. Brown.

Given Mr. Gill’s troubled relationship with the VicPD, it would have been difficult indeed for that department to have conducted a disciplinary proceeding that would ensure the necessary procedural fairness,” the review decision said.

Finding apparent bias undermined the procedural fairness of the decision, Threlfall next turned to the discipline imposed.

Gill did not participate in the disciplinary process. He did, however, admit to the misconduct and apologize.

“He indicated that he had exhausted every effort within the organization to make some powerful change to what he perceived was institutional bias and felt he had no option but to be a whistleblower,” Threlfall wrote.

The judge characterized Gill’s misconduct as serious, despite the motive.

“Although Mr. Gill perceived himself as a whistleblower and released the information in an effort to effect change within his department, his actions cannot be condoned,” Threlfall wrote.

Gill retired just days after Brown was appointed as the discipline authority in the case, the decision said, adding that any discipline imposed would be largely symbolic at this point.

“There appears little question but that Mr. Gill’s perception of bias and unfairness and his futile attempts to affect change within the VicPD were factors that led to his retirement,” Threlfall wrote.

One of the factors to consider when deciding on appropriate discipline is whether the department, its policies and its leadership “contributed” to the misconduct.

In this case, the judge found the chief constable’s decision to appoint Brown had a significant impact on all that followed.

“In my view, the case should have been referred to an outside policing agency,” Threlfall wrote.

“The fact that a decision was made to keep the case ‘in house’ coloured all that occurred thereafter. Mr. Gill may not have decided to retire. He may have chosen to participate in the disciplinary process and advance evidence to establish why he chose to be a whistleblower. Unfortunately, we will never know.”

Finding a demotion was “incorrect,” the judge determined a written reprimand to be the appropriate disciplinary measure.

“I take into consideration the fact that he has retired from active policing after 27 years of stellar service and significant contribution to his community,” the decision on discipline concluded.