The London Police Service failed to convince the Ontario Labour Relations Board to suspend a workplace safety order requiring it to take reasonable precautions to protect officers from physical injury during use-of-force training.
The board dismissed the police service’s application to suspend the order pending its appeal, finding that compliance would not endanger worker safety or cause undue prejudice to the employer.
The dispute stems from a critical injury suffered by a police officer during use-of-force training at the London Police Services Training facility on March 6, 2025. The incident occurred during a period when there had been a significant increase in reported training-related incidents compared to the previous year.
Following an investigation, Inspector Angela Johnson issued an order on May 7, 2025, under section 25(2)(h) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The order required the employer to “take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker by protecting workers from physical injury while participating in use of force training at Westminster training centre.”
The order did not specify particular measures the police service must implement. However, the field report confirmed the inspector discussed two basic steps: assessing the risks involved in use-of-force training and considering the hierarchy of controls when choosing control methods.
Police service argues training necessity
The London Police Service argued the order ignored the legitimate purpose of use-of-force training and failed to recognize its obligation to ensure employees receive adequate training to prevent serious harm while performing their duties.
The police service emphasized its role as an agency tasked with enforcing federal and provincial legislation, including the Criminal Code and the Highway Traffic Act. It submitted that proper training must include annual use-of-force training with a degree of force and physicality to simulate circumstances officers encounter in their duties.
The employer cited section 5 of Ontario Regulation 87/24 under the Community Safety and Policing Act, which specifically requires police officers to complete “Use of Force Requalification.”
The police service argued suspension of the order would not endanger worker safety because it would permit the agency to ensure officers are appropriately trained to handle dangerous circumstances they often face.
It claimed severe prejudice if the order was not suspended, arguing its officers would not receive effective training and would therefore be exposed to situations they were not properly trained to handle. The employer concluded there was a strong prima facie case for a successful appeal.
Board applies three-factor test
The board applied the established three-factor test from The Regional Municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth for determining whether to suspend an order: whether suspension would endanger worker safety; the prejudice to parties if the order is or is not suspended; and whether there is a strong prima facie case for successful appeal.
The board noted that the party seeking suspension bears the onus of establishing that such an order should issue. It also referenced the principle that a certain degree of deference must be afforded to inspector decisions when considering suspension pending appeal.
The tribunal found that declining to suspend the order would not endanger worker safety. It noted the order does not require the police service to discontinue use-of-force training or ignore risks associated with police duties.
“To the contrary, the Order requires the applicant to take reasonable precautions in the circumstances,” the board stated. “Those circumstances include the situations commonly faced by police officers in the course of their duties and take into account the practical requirement of ensuring that training is sufficiently realistic so that police officers are adequately prepared.”
Limited prejudice found
The board determined it was doubtful that an order essentially requiring compliance with section 25(2)(h) of the Act, without specifying particular measures, would cause undue prejudice to the police service.
The tribunal noted the employer had not alleged that compliance would result in significant, unrecoverable financial costs. It found the “basic steps” described by the inspector did not appear onerous, and use-of-force training could continue pending the appeal outcome.
The board emphasized that the appeal would ultimately be decided based on evidence concerning the order’s impact.
In a letter filed with the board on June 17, 2025, the Director under the Occupational Health and Safety Act confirmed it would take no position with respect to the suspension request.
The board dismissed the police service’s suspension application but confirmed the appeal would proceed. The tribunal noted it was not seized with the matter going forward.
For more information, see London Police Service v A Director under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 2025 CanLII 86619 (ON LRB).
