Talk Suicide Canada: 988|Crisis Services: 1-833-456-4566

Suspended With Pay or Left Without Income: The Employment Cost of an Accusation

Presumption of Innocence Canada · Public legal education · 12 min read

This article explains general Canadian legal processes for public education. It is not legal advice and does not address any specific case. For advice about your situation, consult a lawyer licensed in your province or territory.

PIC In the News | Educational draft

An accusation is not a conviction. That principle is easy to state, but much harder to maintain in daily life.

In a courtroom, the presumption of innocence places the burden on the Crown to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Outside the courtroom, an accusation can have immediate consequences. Employment, licences, contracts, clients, and business relationships may be placed at risk long before evidence is tested at trial.

Two recent reports involving Ontario police officers bring this problem into focus. The cases are different and establish no general rule about police conduct. They do invite a broader question: what happens to a person's income between accusation and outcome?

This article does not argue that police officers should automatically lose their pay when charged. In fact, taking away a person's livelihood before guilt has been established can itself undermine the values associated with the presumption of innocence. The more useful question is why some accused people have meaningful employment protection while many others do not.

Two reports and two important qualifications

In May 2026, CBC reported on three off-duty Toronto police officers who had been charged in Barcelona while on vacation. Other reporting said Spanish authorities were investigating allegations of sexual assault and assault involving a sex worker. The allegations had not been proven. Toronto Police Chief Myron Demkiw said Ontario law did not allow him to suspend the officers without pay because the alleged offences occurred outside Canada. The officers returned to Canada and were suspended with pay while the Spanish process continued.

Ontario Solicitor General Michael Kerzner said the province would consider the chief's request to review the law. The public discussion that followed focused largely on police accountability and public confidence. Those are legitimate concerns, particularly because police officers hold positions of public trust. Still, the presumption of innocence also remains relevant. A charge is an allegation, not a finding of guilt, whether the accused person is a police officer or anyone else.

A September 2026 TorontoToday report involved a different situation. Toronto police officer Mustafa Safari had been arrested in March 2024 and charged with assault and forcible confinement. The Crown withdrew the charges in August 2024 because there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. Safari and his wife later filed a civil claim against the Toronto Police Services Board and two officers. The allegations in that lawsuit have not been tested in court, and Toronto police told the publication that they could not comment because the matter was before the courts.

According to the report, Safari was suspended with pay until January 2, 2025. The lawsuit alleges that he nevertheless suffered reputational damage, psychological injuries, lost promotional opportunities, and reduced income because he could not work overtime or paid duties. His first day back at work was followed by a medical emergency, and the claim says he later remained on medical leave for several months.

These qualifications matter. Paid suspension is not the same as suffering no consequences. A person may continue receiving base salary while losing overtime, advancement, professional standing, privacy, health, or relationships. The TorontoToday report illustrates how serious those secondary consequences may be, even where charges are eventually withdrawn.

At the same time, continued base pay can prevent an accusation from immediately becoming a financial emergency. Rent or mortgage payments can still be made. Food, utilities, transportation, and family expenses remain more manageable. The accused person may be better able to retain counsel, participate in the defence, and withstand a process that could continue for months or years.

That protection is significant, even when it is incomplete.

What Ontario law provides for police officers

Ontario's Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 came into force in 2024. It gives a police chief authority to suspend an officer without pay in specified circumstances, but that authority is limited.

Among other situations, section 210 permits unpaid suspension where an officer is charged with a "serious offence" and a multi-part statutory test is met. The alleged offence must not have been committed in relation to the performance of the officer's duties. The chief must have started, or given notice of an intention to start, a proceeding seeking the officer's termination. Termination must be the likely outcome if the charge is proven. The chief must also conclude that failing to suspend without pay would bring discredit to the reputation of the police service.

Ontario Regulation 406/23 defines a serious offence for this purpose by reference to indictable offences under the Criminal Code or the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, including hybrid offences where the Crown proceeds by indictment. The legislation contains other grounds for unpaid suspension, including certain circumstances involving custody, restrictive legal conditions, or imprisonment after conviction. A charge by itself does not automatically result in unpaid suspension.

The Barcelona report exposed a further limit. The police chief said the provisions did not allow unpaid suspension for the officers charged abroad because the alleged offences were not charges under Canadian law. That interpretation prompted a request for legislative review.

The framework reflects competing considerations. Police services must protect public confidence and manage risk. Officers retain employment rights and the presumption of innocence. The statute addresses those interests through defined criteria and review, showing that the choice is not simply between ignoring allegations and imposing immediate financial punishment.

A legal presumption and a practical reality

Section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that a person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

This rule governs the criminal process. It requires the Crown to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not generally guarantee that an accused person will keep a job, salary, customer base, professional opportunity, or reputation while a case is pending.

That distinction can be difficult in practical terms. A person may be presumed innocent at trial while experiencing consequences that feel punitive. An employer may impose unpaid leave or end the relationship. A self-employed person may see clients disappear. A regulated professional may face a separate process. Bail conditions may also make work impossible.

None of those outcomes necessarily decides criminal guilt. Employment decisions, professional regulation, bail proceedings, and criminal trials have different purposes, rules, and standards. Yet to the person living through them, the consequences arrive together.

This is where paid suspension has practical importance. It separates temporary removal from work from immediate loss of basic income. It allows an employer to manage safety, public confidence, or workplace concerns without treating an unresolved accusation as a final employment verdict.

The broader disparity remains. Many accused Canadians have no contractual or statutory protection that will maintain their income while a criminal case proceeds. For them, the presumption of innocence may be fully recognized in court but offer little protection against economic collapse outside it.

My experience of the gap

This issue is not abstract for me.

My own criminal proceeding lasted almost six years and ended with a not-guilty verdict. During that time, I lost my career and the revenue stream connected to it. The eventual verdict answered the criminal charge, but it could not recreate the years of income, professional momentum, and opportunity lost while the case remained unresolved.

But the length of a criminal proceeding matters. A temporary employment decision can become a long-term economic reality when a case continues for years. Savings may be exhausted. Debt may accumulate. A business may close. Skills and professional networks may become harder to maintain. Even after an acquittal or not-guilty verdict, returning to the same position may no longer be possible.

A verdict can confirm that the Crown did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It cannot make the preceding years disappear.

That was the contrast I saw in the reports about paid police suspensions. My response was not that the officers should have lost their salaries. It was that continued pay gave them a form of stability that many accused people never receive. It kept an allegation from automatically eliminating all employment income before the legal process reached an outcome.

The distinction is especially clear in Safari's reported case. His charges were withdrawn because the Crown concluded there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. The report describes serious consequences despite continued base pay. That should caution against assuming that paid suspension makes an accused person whole. It should also prompt recognition that those same harms may be compounded when base income disappears as well.

Why the comparison should not become anti-police

Public debate about suspended police officers often begins with taxpayer frustration. People may ask why an officer should continue to be paid while not performing regular duties, particularly when the allegations are serious. Because policing depends on public trust, that concern cannot simply be dismissed.

But the principle at stake should not change according to whether the accused person is popular, unpopular, or employed by the state. If loss of income before trial can cause severe and sometimes irreversible harm, the answer is not automatically to extend that harm to more people.

Recognizing those realities is consistent with a neutral discussion of the presumption of innocence. It is possible to support police accountability and fair process at the same time. It is also possible to question unequal employment protection without arguing that protected workers should lose what they have.

The comparison is therefore not police officers versus everyone else. It is one employment model versus another. Paid suspension shows that an employer can respond to an unresolved accusation while preserving at least part of the employee's economic security. The public policy question is whether similar principles, adapted to different workplaces, could reduce unnecessary harm elsewhere.

The uneven employment consequences of being accused

The financial effect of an accusation often depends on circumstances unrelated to guilt or innocence. A unionized employee may have a collective agreement and grievance process. A non-unionized employee may depend on a contract and the general law of the workplace. A self-employed person may have no mechanism to replace lost customers. A professional may face reporting obligations or interim restrictions from a regulator.

Two people charged with similar offences can therefore experience very different economic outcomes before either case is tried. One may remain employed on paid leave. Another may be dismissed. A third may technically keep a job but be unable to perform it because of bail conditions. A fourth may watch a small business fail after the accusation becomes public.

These differences can also affect the ability to defend a case. Criminal proceedings demand time, transportation, communication with counsel, and court attendance. A person who loses income at the beginning may face greater difficulty participating effectively in the years that follow. Financial pressure can also extend to the entire household. These are not findings of guilt imposed by a court, but they are real consequences of an unresolved accusation.

The duration of the process magnifies each effect. Even where delay is not caused by misconduct and every participant is attempting to move the case forward, months can become years. Employment protections designed for a short investigation may not survive a lengthy prosecution.

What paid suspension actually demonstrates

Paid suspension is sometimes described as a special benefit. It can be that, particularly when compared with the position of workers who receive no income protection. But it can also be understood as a procedural safeguard.

It preserves the difference between an allegation and a conclusion. The employee is removed from active duties, which can address immediate workplace concerns, but base income continues while the facts remain unresolved. This does not declare the employee innocent in an employment-law sense, and it does not prevent investigation or discipline. It simply limits one of the harshest consequences until an appropriate decision can be made.

That approach has limits. Employers cannot ignore legitimate safety risks, statutory duties, public trust, or bail conditions. Small businesses may not have the resources to fund a lengthy paid absence. Some roles cannot be modified, and some allegations are directly connected to the work. No single rule can fit every situation. Still, paid suspension shows that immediate loss of livelihood is not an inevitable response. Depending on the circumstances, reassignment, modified duties, protected leave, benefits continuation, or periodic review may be possible.

The Ontario framework for police officers also shows the value of criteria, reasons, and review. Where unpaid suspension is permitted, the decision is tied to specific statutory conditions rather than the mere existence of an accusation. That does not eliminate hardship or controversy, but it creates a more structured process.

Better questions for public discussion

The two reports should not be used to decide whether any individual officer is guilty or blameworthy. The criminal proceedings, internal processes, and civil litigation must be left to the institutions responsible for them.

For public education, the reports support a different set of questions. When should an employer remove an accused person from active duties? When should pay and benefits continue? What safeguards and review should apply before income is stopped? How can employers manage safety and public confidence without treating a charge as a conviction? What support exists for self-employed people and others who cannot be placed on paid leave?

These questions involve criminal law, employment law, labour relations, professional regulation, and other legal duties. The answer in a specific case depends on the facts. Anyone facing an accusation or an employment consequence should obtain advice from a qualified legal professional.

Presuming innocence beyond the courtroom

The presumption of innocence does essential work inside the criminal justice system. It assigns the burden of proof to the Crown and protects against conviction unless guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Its influence outside the courtroom is less direct. It does not erase an employer's responsibilities or guarantee continued income. It does, however, offer a valuable principle for public discussion: an unresolved accusation should not be casually treated as a proven fact.

Paid suspension gives practical expression to that caution. It recognizes that temporary workplace action may be necessary while also recognizing that the outcome is unknown. The protection is imperfect, as the Safari report demonstrates, but it can prevent an allegation from producing immediate and total loss of employment income.

My own almost six-year proceeding ended in a not-guilty verdict, but the career and revenue lost during those years were not restored by the decision. That experience is why the comparison matters to me. It is not an argument for accused officers to lose their pay. It is an invitation to consider how quickly an accusation can take away the livelihood of someone who has not been found guilty.

A fair system must be able to investigate serious allegations, protect the public, and hold proven misconduct to account. It should also remain attentive to the damage that occurs before proof. The principle of innocence cannot prevent every consequence, but it should make us cautious about irreversible ones.

The central question is not why some accused people are protected from immediate financial collapse. It is why meaningful protection is so uncommon for everyone else.

Sources and educational notice

This article draws on reporting by CBC News and TorontoToday, the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, Ontario Regulation 406/23, and section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The civil allegations described in the TorontoToday report have not been proven in court. Criminal charges and allegations are not findings of guilt.

Presumption of Innocence Canada provides educational information only. It does not provide legal advice or legal representation and does not advocate for changes in law or public policy. Readers should review the original sources and seek advice from a qualified legal professional about individual circumstances.

Source links

Presumption of Innocence Canada provides educational information only. We do not provide legal advice or legal representation and do not advocate for changes in law or public policy. We are not a registered charity; donations are not tax-deductible and no official donation receipts are issued.