Montreal police officer Alexis Voizard has received three eight-hour working days of suspension without pay after admitting that he used excessive force by pushing a handcuffed man against a wall during an escort through a corridor.
Quebec’s Tribunal administratif de déontologie policière accepted the jointly recommended sanction in Le Commissaire à la déontologie policière c. Bouffard et Voizard, file C-2024-5524-3, with written reasons dated July 16, 2026. Administrative Judge Isabelle Côté described the proposed sanction as lenient in view of the misconduct’s seriousness, but not unreasonable enough to justify rejecting the agreement.
The tribunal dismissed both disciplinary counts against the other officer, David Bouffard, after the commissioner said there was no evidence to offer against him. The decision therefore imposed no sanction on Bouffard.
A recorded use of force during a crisis response
The officers were called on December 7, 2021 to a Montreal community resource. Staff sought help for a resident in crisis.
After locating and handcuffing him, the officers escorted him through a narrow corridor. Voizard was behind him on the left and Bouffard on the right. Near the end of the corridor, Voizard pushed the man into the wall, with his head also striking it. The incident was captured on video.
The agreed account preserved differing descriptions of parts of the encounter. The man said he had not resisted; a police report said he was exerting force during the escort. Voizard said he had repeatedly told him to calm down near the stairs, while the man said no words had been exchanged before the push.
The tribunal assessed the silent video as well as the agreed facts. Côté found that the push was gratuitous and without justification in the absence of provocation. Even insulting remarks would not have justified it, she added, although such remarks did not appear to have occurred at that point.
The limits on rejecting a negotiated sanction
Voizard admitted both abusing his authority through more force than necessary, contrary to article 6 of the police code of ethics, and failing to preserve the confidence and regard required of his office, contrary to article 5. He acknowledged that a different communication or strategic approach should have been attempted.
The commissioner emphasized that the man was handcuffed, that the officers controlled the situation and that the push caused his head to strike the wall. Voizard’s side pointed to the difficult pandemic conditions, his lack of prior disciplinary entries and his admission of responsibility.
The parties said their agreement followed serious negotiations. His admission shortened the proceeding and avoided requiring civilian and police witnesses to testify.
Applying the joint-submission framework from the Supreme Court of Canada’s Anthony-Cook decision, the tribunal asked whether accepting the recommendation would be contrary to the public interest or bring the administration of justice into disrepute. That was a more limited inquiry than choosing the sanction the judge would independently prefer.
Although Côté regarded three days as lenient, the particular circumstances, the police-disciplinary setting and the case law supplied by both sides did not meet the threshold for refusing the agreement.
The tribunal entered misconduct findings against Voizard under both articles. It imposed the unpaid suspension on the excessive-force count and conditionally stayed proceedings on the second count because it concerned the same conduct. The outcome was a disciplinary disposition; the decision did not award compensation to the man.
