Submission: Enhancing information collected in police use of force reports

April 23, 2026

Introduction

The OHRC welcomes the opportunity to provide this submission in response to the engagement on enhancing information collected in police use of force reports.

The Ministry of Solicitor General (the Ministry) is seeking input on potential additions or revisions to the content and structure of the Use of Force (UOF) Report form. To support their engagement, the Ministry identified a number of questions to guide feedback, which include:

• How individuals, organizations and communities currently use the information in the UOF Report.
   
• What additional information could be included to better capture incident context.
   
• What revisions could enhance the UOF Report’s value for policy, research, or reporting needs.
   
• How the information collected could be better used or analyzed to support training, policy and procedures, community needs, transparency, and accountability.

The OHRC welcomes the Ministry’s efforts to strengthen the UOF reporting framework. The OHRC’s submission identifies gaps and information needs and offers recommendations to improve the Ministry and police services’ ability to monitor and analyze data from the UOF Reports in accordance with the objectives of the Anti-Racism Act (ARA) and the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code).

The OHRC’s submission outlines the following recommendations:

1. Address gaps in the analysis of use of force data available by:
    
   1. Reporting and analyzing data on all fatal encounters
       
   2. Using the best available data to identify benchmarks and conduct a disproportionality and disparity analysis
       
2. Expand the scope of data collected by use of force forms by:
    
   1. Including the full range of lower-level use of force data
       
   2. Advancing efforts to capture intersectional data regarding race and mental health 
       
3. Address the format of use of force reports to align with the purpose of the ARA by:
    
   1. Modernizing the data strategy of the UOF reporting framework
       
   2. Updating the Provincial guide to enhance standardization

Advancing Human Rights in Policing

The OHRC is an independent human rights body established under the Code. Its functions include promoting and advancing respect for human rights in Ontario, and recognising that is in the public interest to do so, and the Commission’s duty to protect public interest, to identify and promote the elimination of systemic discriminatory practices in Ontario. 

Addressing discrimination in policing has been an important part of the OHRC’s work. The OHRC has collaborated with police services to create resources to help police services identify, monitor and reduce discrimination.¹  It has made submissions to the government and independent reviewers about how to address systemic discrimination in policing.² 

The OHRC uses information collected in the UOF data to support research, policy development, and recommendations. For example, in the OHRC’s work on the inquiry into anti-Black racism by the Toronto Police Service (Inquiry), the OHRC relied on UOF data, along with other data sources, to identify patterns of racial discrimination in police use of force. ³ This work informed recommendations for procedural and policy changes, including improvements to data collection and analysis practices.⁴ 

Additionally, in the OHRC’s A Collective Impact,⁵ A Disparate Impact,⁶ and From Impact to Action,⁷ the OHRC used the findings from UOF data to examine the intersection between race and mental health in use of force and provided recommendations to identify and address intersectional disparities.

At the provincial level, the OHRC uses the UOF data to provide advice regarding enhanced data collection and reporting. In our Framework for change to address systemic racism in policing (Framework), the OHRC recommends that all Ontario police services be required to collect race-based data across the full spectrum of policing interactions with civilians.⁸ Additionally, in our Policy on Eliminating Racial Profiling in Law Enforcement (Racial Profiling Policy), the OHRC states that appropriate data collection by law enforcement is necessary to effectively monitor racial profiling, and to identify and remove systemic biases.⁹ 

The OHRC also uses UOF data to identify whether policing practices are consistent with human rights principles. In the Racial Profiling Policy, the OHRC notes that the data cannot be interpreted without relevant contextual factors. Where the data discloses a problem, law enforcement organizations have a positive obligation to act to reduce discrimination.¹⁰

Information Needs and Data Gaps

Under the Use of Force and Weapons Regulation (Regulation 391/23) made under the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 (CSPA) police services are required to collect race-based data on specified use of force incidents. ¹¹ Under the ARA, and its associated regulation (Regulation267/18),¹² the Ministry further requires the collection, analysis, and public reporting of race-based data on instances of police use of force to identify and address systemic inequities. ¹³ 

However, the OHRC is concerned that the current UOF Reporting framework limits the Ministry’s ability to meet its obligation under the ARA and the Code due to gaps in the information and data captured by use of force reports.¹⁴

1. Address gaps in the analysis of use of force data by:

a. Reporting and analyzing data on all fatal encounters

Despite clear requirements prescribed by the ARA and Regulation 391/23,¹⁵ the 2025 Technical Report¹⁶ states that use of force reports are not available for all fatal encounters between members of the public and the police. Use of force data collection and reporting plays a key role in the systemic oversight of these incidents. As such, police services must be transparent and strictly follow the ARA and Regulation 391/23 when addressing fatal encounters.

The ARA and Regulation 391/23 require officers, supervisors, or an officer designated by a supervisor, to report all instances where an officer discharges a firearm, uses a weapon, or uses force on another that results in an injury requiring the services of a physician, nurse or paramedic.¹⁷   The 2025 Technical Report further explains that officers are required to report whether physical injuries occurred as a result of their use of force.¹⁸  This framework makes it clear that  reports should be completed where the injury caused by the police encounter results in death, with limited exceptions.¹⁹   

Despite these requirements, the 2025 Technical Report notes that use of force reports are not available for four (4) of the twelve (12) individuals who were fatally injured because of police use of force in 2024.  This gap undermines the objectives of the ARA and Ontario’s Data Standards in an area where robust data analysis is vital to inform the development of tangible solutions which can save lives.  The absence of a clear explanation for the gaps in this area prevents stakeholders, and the public generally, from determining whether officers are failing to complete use of force reports for fatal encounters, or whether these reports are not being submitted to the Ministry after they are completed by the officer. 

Failure to comply with the data collection and reporting requirements should be explained to members of the public, and/or addressed through appropriate disciplinary procedures to promote accountability, subject to any legal exceptions.²⁰  Gaps in use of force data collection and reporting undermines the reliability of the data that is collected. According to Regulation 391/23, this data must be used to inform annual reviews of use of force procedures and annual reports to police services boards or the Ministry.²¹

b. Using the best available data to identify benchmarks and conduct a disproportionality and disparity analysis

Data Standard 29 requires public sector organizations, including police, to produce racial disproportionality or disparity calculations for each unit of analysis, using an appropriate benchmark.²²   A benchmark population provides a standard against which use of force data can be compared, assessed or measured. This analysis is part of the minimum requirements for race-based data collected pursuant to the ARA. 

In response to this requirement, the 2025 Technical Report notes that the Ministry calculated indices required by the Data Standards where possible, however, “…the Ministry still cannot calculate racial disproportionality for police use of force that accounts for how often members of different racial groups come into contact with police.” According to the 2025 Technical Report, the absence of an appropriate benchmark²³ population is a key limitation which prevents the Ministry from producing the disproportionality indices for police use of force required by the data standards. 

Data Standard 30 requires the selection of appropriate benchmarks that reflect “the most relevant eligible population to which the outcome is applicable.”²⁴ Data Standard 30 also guides public sector organizations to select “the best available data sets” which may include Statistics Canada data sets as benchmarks for population groups in Ontario.²⁵ 

The 2025 Technical Report acknowledges that it is “common for researchers to use resident population data from the Census as a benchmark population for calculating disproportionalities”, and notes that this approach can provide “valuable insights”.²⁶ Nonetheless, the Report does not employ this approach, due to limitations²⁷ associated with the use of population benchmarks. 

Despite the limitations identified in the 2025 Technical Report, census population benchmarks have been identified as a useful starting point. They can provide important context for additional benchmarks that can be added to the analysis, once available.  General population or census benchmarks can be beneficial as they are arguably less likely to be tainted by systemic racial bias in policing. Other benchmarks, such as ‘individuals who interact with the police’, may be tainted by over policing or systemic bias as police often determine who they interact with.²⁸ Proponents of general population benchmarks note that these benchmarks: capture the overall impact of police use of force on racialized communities;²⁹ and effectively document the extent to which different racial groups experience different types of police contact.³⁰ It is argued that  “census benchmarking is likely the best method for documenting racial disparities over time.”³¹

Guided by Ontario’s Data Standards, several police services have used census population benchmarks as part of their analysis of race data.  Hamilton Police Service’s Use of Force Report states, “Census population serves as a starting benchmark population to identify whether disproportionalities or disparities exist.”³² Using census data, Waterloo Regional Police Service found that in 2023, Black and Middle Eastern people were overrepresented in Use of Force Reports (ratios of 3.72 and 2.75 respectively)³³, and Durham Police Service’s 2020 report found that Black civilians were over-represented in police use of force interactions³⁴. Ottawa Police Services 2020 Report concluded that that Black, Middle Eastern and Indigenous people were subject to disproportionately high incidences of use of force.³⁵    

General population benchmarking is not the only useful measure for the analysis of use of force outcomes. Where possible, it should be combined with other benchmarks that capture racial differences in police contact. For example, benchmarks based on police   stops or arrests have been used to determine whether there are disparities in police use of force data. The OHRC’s TPS Inquiry used multiple benchmarks to paint a comprehensive picture of TPS use of force practices and inform evidence-based recommendations.  After starting with general population benchmarks to identify areas of concern, the OHRC’s TPS Inquiry found that compared to their presence in the general Toronto population, Black people are 6.99 times more likely to be involved in a TPS use of force incident that resulted in civilian death, and 7.95 times more likely to be involved in a TPS shooting-related death.³⁶  Using TPS arrest data as the benchmark, the Inquiry found that Black people were still significantly over-represented in TPS shooting deaths (Odds Ratio=2.82), and over-represented in TPS shootings (Odds Ratio=1.45).³⁷ In addition, Toronto Police Services analysis of use of force data used resident population benchmarks and other benchmarks as part of its race-based data analysis.³⁸

The use of multiple benchmarks informs data driven findings, analysis and recommendations.  For example, expert analysis for the TPS inquiry found that the over-representation of Black people in use of force data was reduced but not eliminated when analyzed across multiple benchmarks. The sustained over-representation of Black people in this data supports the conclusion that racial bias is a factor in the overrepresentation of Black communities in the data examined during the inquiry.³⁹   Findings of this nature are consistent with the purpose of the ARA and the Data Standards.   

The OHRC submits that the data collected to date must be analysed using the benchmarks presently available, to determine whether similar trends exist. This analysis can be augmented if or when additional benchmarks become available.   

2. Expand the scope of data collected by use of force forms by:

a. Including the full range of lower-level use of force data 

Lower-level use of force data provides useful context for use of force incidents subject to mandatory reporting and can provide valuable insights when it is the focus of the analysis.

b. Lower-level use of force as contextual data

To fully comprehend police use of force incidents and the potential influence that race has on these interactions, data on the full range of lower-level uses of force should be collected.  The OHRC welcomes the Ministry’s decision to include physical control as part of the contextual evidence that is captured. However, the physical control options included on the current use of force form (grounding, joint locks, and strikes) do not include the full-range of lower-level use of force incidents.   The OHRC recommends that the use of force report should explicitly capture data on chokeholds, handcuffing that occurs outside of an arrest⁴⁰ and other lower-level uses of force that do not result in injury or require medical attention. 

Data on lower-level use of force provides vital contextual information for use of force encounters. For example, officers are required to capture data when a weapon is used, or when force is applied on another person that results in injury that requires medical attention.   The current use of force form guides officers to capture contextual information about use of force incidents, which includes whether a police challenge was issued, reasons why the force was used, and factors that influenced the officers’ responses. The form also requires officers to record whether de-escalation techniques were used or attempted. If de-escalation was used, officers are required to identify the technique they used, which may include communication, repositioning, or containment and to indicate whether these techniques assisted with controlling the subject’s behaviour.  While this contextual information is helpful, the absence of detailed data regarding lower-level uses of force which may have been used before or after officers used reportable force, limits the quality of any analysis that can be produced using this data. It overlooks potential trends and obscures the potential influence of race, mental health, and addictions disabilities on these interactions.   

c. Lower-level use of force should be used as a focal point of analysis.

In addition to providing contextual data, the collection and analysis of lower-level use of force data can advance ongoing efforts to identify and monitor systemic racism and racial disparities when it is analyzed independently.  The importance of data collection and analysis in this area is demonstrated by findings from the OHRC’s TPS Inquiry.   The OHRC’s Final Inquiry Report, From Impact to Action, finds that, “Black people were grossly overrepresented in lower-level use-of-force incidents, even more than in incidents that resulted in an SIU investigation” and that “Lower-level use-of-force incidents can still have significant adverse physical and emotional impacts on the person subjected to that force.”⁴¹ In response to this data, From Impact to Action sets out a number of recommendations related to use of force practices and the scope of TPS data collection which seek to monitor and address this trend.⁴² 

d. Intersectional data regarding race and mental health should be captured 

The OHRC recommends that data regarding grounds that intersect with race should be captured by the use of force form. This includes data regarding mental health or persons in crisis.  The 2025 Technical Report echoes this concern and notes that further improvements to the data collected regarding individuals in crisis or under the influence of drugs or alcohol will advance efforts to  identify areas of concerns, and provide a more comprehensive analysis of use of force incidents.⁴³  Research, including findings from the OHRC’s interim report, A Collective Impact, identifies the interaction between race and mental health as a “socially significant” intersection that may affect officers’ decisions about use of force.⁴⁴  Based on SIU reports, A Collective Impact also notes that a large portion of use of force cases between 2013-2017 involved persons exhibiting mental health issues.⁴⁵   This supports calls for greater research and analysis in this area.   

3. Address the format of use of force reports to align with the purpose of the ARA by:

a. Modernizing the Data Strategy of the UOF Reporting Framework

A key limitation of the current UOF reporting framework is that it is primarily designed as an administrative tool rather than a research instrument.⁴⁶ While administrative data can address certain incidents, it lacks the depth, consistency and contextual detail required to support meaningful human rights-based analysis. In the 2025 Technical Report, the Ministry identified limitations within their current data strategy (e.g., gaps in data governance, data management, data stewardship and interoperability of data)⁴⁷. To the extent that these limitations interfere with the Ministry’s ability to comply with its obligations under the ARA and the Code, they should be addressed along with other enhancements to the use of force report form.

b. Updating the Provincial Guide to Enhance Standardization

Another limitation identified by the Ministry is the lack of standardization across police services. While there is provincial guidance on how to complete UOF reports, individual police services have developed supplementary guidance independently. This has resulted in inconsistent data collection practices across the province, which undermines provincial efforts to ensure quality data management for their analysis.

The OHRC recommends that the Ministry modernize the provincial guide to ensure that consistent, high-quality data collection is aligned with the purposes of the ARA. The modernization should include standardization for key variables essential for meaningful human rights-based analysis, including but not limited to:

• Service codes
   
• Incident number and police service division. 
   
• Incident type 
   
• Location 
   
• Rank category 
   
• Interpretations of definitions for all response options contained in the report. 
   

If the Ministry continues to collect and analyze UOF data without enhancing quality and standardization, it will continue to face challenges with accurately identifying and addressing systemic inequalities. As a result, patterns of discrimination may be underreported, distorted or missed entirely.

Conclusion

The OHRC’s recommendations are consistent with Ontario’s commitment to create an inclusive and equitable society by identifying and monitoring systemic racial disparities and establishing effective practices to produce reliable data. By improving the scope and quality of the data collected as recommended, the Ministry can begin the important work of implementing data driven solutions.

Summary of Recommendations
 

1. Address gaps in the analysis of use of force data available by:
    
   1. Reporting and analyzing data on all fatal encounters
       
   2. Using the best available data to identify benchmarks and conduct a disproportionality and disparity analysis
       
2. Expand the scope of data collected by use of force forms by:
    
   1. Including the full range of lower-level use of force data
       
   2. Advancing efforts to capture intersectional data regarding race and mental health 
       
3. Address the format of use of force reports to align with the purpose of the ARA by:
    
   1. Modernizing the data strategy of the UOF reporting framework
       
   2. Updating the Provincial guide to enhance standardization