I am told that officers fear the breach of trust charge more than anything since they all swore an oath to uphold the laws.
On occasion you will read of an officer who just acts very human. He or she makes serious mistakes for some personal pleasure or personal gain.
https://canlii.ca/t/grx7v THIS (click HERE) ...is a case from 2016 in Hamilton where Detective Robert Jansen was convicted of 3 charges:
- i. PERJURY, namely knowingly making a false statement under oath in an Information to Obtain a Warrant to Search, contrary to section 131(1)of the Criminal Code;
- ii. Attempt to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE by causing that same Information to Obtain to be considered by a judicial officer knowing that it contained material omissions and/or misleading statements and/or false statements, contrary to s.139(2) of the Criminal Code; and
- iii. Attempt to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE by encouraging an informant to place a firearm at a residence with the intent that it be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding, contrary to s.139(2) of the Criminal Code.
The Reasons for the findings of guilt are (click) HERE…
In the course of his duties as an officer in 2012, Hansen communicated by text messages with someone he believed to be a new informant.
he provided false information in his sworn Information to Obtain and thereby committed perjury
As part of his police duties, Hansen was issued a Blackberry smartphone. Hamilton Police obtained a production order for the records relating to that phone, from December 21, 2011 to June 12, 2012. Telus complied with the production order
This case is similar in many ways to several of mine. A “source” offered to Hansen that he wanted revenge against a guy who had bothered his girlfriend and if Det. Jansen would agree to arrest the guy the source would plant some drugs on him.
Det. Hansen then used his “undercover” source “C” and text messages to lie to get a warrant and an arrest. He got caught.
 The offence of perjury is contained in s.131 of the Criminal Code:
131(1) … every one commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes before a person who is authorized by law to permit it to be made before him a false statement under oath or solemn affirmation, by affidavit, solemn declaration or deposition or orally, knowing that the statement is false.
 It is admitted that Hansen drafted the Information to Obtain and swore it before a person who was authorized to commission it. An Information to Obtain is a form of affidavit.
In my arrests, police filled out the Informations with lies from witnesses who lied. That will all come out at my civil law suit trial in November 2023.
Then, police lied on the stand in court at my criminal trial while sworn to tell the truth. It was claimed that police had no idea who Daria Morgendorffer is. This pseudonym left a libellous review of my business in Google Maps. 3 other “related” pseudonyms were then used to taunt me on Twitter and to send information about me and my blog to others using Twitter. Everything from FOUR different pseudonyms was read by police and used to arrest and convict me.
In addition, a senior officer claimed to me ni an audio recording that no one on the entire force knew the employment history of the witness. In effect, this is “testimony” that police NEVER performed a background check on a complainant to find out if he or she was simply out for revenge for a previous charge made against him or her by that person. If police had done a background check back in 2017, they would have seen that revenge for an assault charge I filed was a very likely reason for the 7 arrests.
Normally, one person’s testimony is not enough to convict and “corroboration” is needed, UNLESS the case is circumstantial.
133 No person shall be convicted of an offence under section 132 on the evidence of only one witness unless the evidence of that witness is corroborated in a material particular by evidence that implicates the accused.
And it does not need to be proven that the police DID mislead the court, it only matter that they TRIED to mislead the court.
 The mens rea element of the offence of perjury only requires that the accused has intended to mislead, not that the court actually be misled (R. v. Buzeta,  O.J. No. 1547, at para 32 (Sup. Ct.)). An intent to mislead has been described as giving evidence which was “dishonest and deliberately asserted to prevent the Court from arriving at the decision upon credible evidence” (R. v. Wolf, 1974 CanLII 161 (SCC),  S.C.J. No. 88).
 It would be difficult to conceive of conduct that would more distinctly shock the community’s conscience than the police fabricating evidence. These were serious offences committed by a member of the justice system who has a duty to maintain the integrity of that system. The sentence must provide a message to potential offenders in similar circumstances.
 Police, in executing their duties, gain access to places and situations that ordinary citizens do not. In R. v. Leblanc, quoted in R. v. Cook, supra, the court stated:
Police officers have opportunities, practically on a daily basis, to cross the line and engage in prohibited conduct. The public trusts them to resist the temptation and relies upon the courts to deal firmly with those who stray.
 Officer Hansen, would you please stand?
 Having considered the case law and all of the relevant principles and sentencing factors, including the aggravating and mitigating factors, I am of the view that the appropriate sentence is one of 5 years. I therefore sentence you to five years in a penitentiary. The sentence shall be concurrent on all three counts.
 There will be the usual victim fine surcharge.
Check back later for more examples of breach of trust by police in Ontario.