Officer fired for assault on cyclist, other offences

Rare penalty comes after constable broke two of rider’s bones during traffic stop

A Toronto police constable has been fired from the force in a rare move after he pleaded guilty to repeated misconduct over four years, including a high-profile assault on a cyclist while on duty.

Insp. Susan Gomes, an adjudicator for the police tribunal that deals with non-criminal charges under the provincial Police Services Act, ruled on Tuesday that Const. Douglas (Jason) Holmes “violated the public trust by not living up to his oath of office on multiple occasions” and should be dismissed within seven days, unless he resigns first.

“There is no excuse for PC Holmes’ misconduct,” Gomes wrote.

According to Gomes’ ruling, a copy of which was provided to the Star, Holmes was working in the downtown 52 Division in 2017 when he stopped a cyclist for running a red light. When the cyclist refused to provide identification, Holmes moved to handcuff and arrest him, pushing him to the ground and breaking his collarbone and one of his big toes.

Holmes’ firing is a rare outcome in Ontario, where the laws around police discipline generally reserve firing for extreme cases and mandate that officers can’t be suspended without pay until they are sentenced to jail time, even while facing serious criminal charges.

The association representing police chiefs has long called for more flexibility to discipline officers.

Holmes was also found guilty of discreditable conduct for berating a different cyclist while off duty, declaring “all millennials are d-ks” and “this is a whole generation of f--k-ups,” according to Gomes’ ruling. The other charges he was found guilty of were misconduct and insubordination for using “profane, misogynistic and racist” language in “inappropriate” and at times “threatening” emails and texts to other members of the service.

Holmes pleaded guilty to all but one charge. Gomes ruled he was not guilty of a separate charge because of an error on the notice of hearing.

Holmes’ lawyer Sandy Khehra said Wednesday they are reviewing Gomes’ decision to determine if it merits an appeal.

The 73-page ruling outlines the events that led up to the tribunal dismissing Holmes, who was employed by the service for 10 years before claiming disability.

“The public must have confidence in the ability of the Service to deal with any misconduct on the part of its members and as such the public also has an interest in ensuring that Police Constable Holmes is held accountable for his actions,” Gomes’ ruling said.

Holmes began working for the service in 2008 as a cadet in training and was sworn in as an officer the following year.

At a tribunal hearing this May, Gomes heard the constable faced his first formal discipline in 2012, when he was found guilty of misconduct for posting a picture on Facebook that showed a police officer holding a baton with the words “I’m gonna kick your a-- and get away with it.” He was made to forfeit one day’s pay as penalty.

The newer charges before the tribunal were detailed extensively in Gomes’ written ruling.

In the 2017 case involving the cyclist, the Special Investigations Unit, a provincial watchdog that investigates incidents involving police where there is serious injury or death, charged Holmes with assault causing bodily harm. He was convicted in 2019 and sentenced to one year of probation. His appeal of the conviction was denied.

In 2018, while awaiting trial on the criminal charge and on restricted duties, Holmes was leaving a parking lot on Simcoe Street in his black Corvette when a cyclist travelling in the wrong direction forced him to come to a sudden stop. Identifying himself as a police officer, Holmes used “profane, abusive and insulting” language towards the man.

In November 2019, before appealing his criminal sentence, Holmes called in to work sick. He later filed a Workplace Safety and Insurance Board claim for disability.

As part of his claim for benefits, the tribunal saw, Holmes wrote to the board acknowledging the criminal charge and upcoming tribunal process.

“I already know the outcome will be a monetary loss,” he predicted about the tribunal.

Holmes’ other tribunal charges relate to messages sent to other members of the service, including calling a professional standards investigator assigned to several of his cases a “c--t” in an email. In another message he sent to a superior, he claimed an officer trying to serve him notice in his disciplinary hearings had trespassed in his backyard and was “lucky he did not get hurt.”

Holmes’ lawyer at the tribunal hearing, David Butt, agreed Holmes should never work as a police officer again but asked Gomes to consider demotion instead of dismissal, saying the case called for the tribunal to be “justly creative.”

He went on to say that the service was paying 15 per cent of Holmes’ salary while on leave as a top-up to disability payments, which he valued between $15,000 and $20,000 annually. He argued, Gomes wrote, that dismissing the officer for the “net benefit of saving $20,000 in this billion dollar budget is petty.”

A demotion, Butt said, would reduce the amount of top-up pay the service would need to contribute.

He told the tribunal that Holmes suffered serious illness, detailing diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder and alcohol use disorder he said were a result of Holmes’ police work, which the officer noted in his WSIB claim included attending suicides, death investigations and being exposed to HIV.

At Holmes’ discipline hearings, a police prosecutor argued that “disability is an explanation but not a defence.” Gomes agreed.

“His actions were a choice. He made many choices of which have consequences.”