Retired Quebec officers disqualified over police-branded pandemic protest

Two retired Sûreté du Québec officers have been disqualified from exercising peace-officer functions after Quebec’s police ethics tribunal sanctioned their use of police status at a protest against pandemic measures.

Administrative Judge Edith Crevier imposed an effective 19-month period on Marie-Claude Nadeau and four months on Stéphane Lamarre in the August 24, 2026 sanction decision in Le Commissaire à la déontologie policière c. Nadeau et Lamarre, files C-2024-5530-1 and C-2024-5531-1.

The tribunal drew an express distinction between taking an ideological position personally and publicly placing oneself in the exercise of police functions. It said nothing, from a strictly disciplinary perspective, had prevented the officers from expressing their views in a personal capacity. The misconduct concerned the different course they chose.

Police identity at a public rally

The sanctions followed an April 21 merits decision concerning a December 4, 2021 POLICE for freedom gathering while the COVID-19 public-health emergency was in force. The event was filmed and distributed on social media by its organizers.

The sanction reasons recounted that both officers wore clothing recalling their police role and a POLICE for freedom patch, supported opposition to measures they were responsible for enforcing, and failed to wear the required face covering. Nadeau also delivered a prepared public speech expressing disagreement with the measures and a conflict of loyalty over enforcing them.

The tribunal had found breaches of the police code’s duties to preserve public confidence, respect the law and avoid circumstances compromising impartiality, judgment or loyalty. A separate, duplicative conflict count against Nadeau had been conditionally stayed.

Crevier considered Nadeau’s misconduct more serious because of the speech. In the tribunal’s assessment, publicly lending their police identity to the partisan gathering endangered the neutrality and impartiality required of their functions. The public dissemination also affected the image and integrity of policing more broadly.

Experience, intent and the disciplinary process

Neither officer attended the sanction hearing. Their lawyer obtained permission to withdraw after advising the tribunal that they had been informed it could proceed without them and did not object. The tribunal then heard the matter in their absence.

At the time of the events, Nadeau had about 22 years of police experience and Lamarre about 27. Both had since retired. Neither had a prior disciplinary record, a circumstance Crevier treated as neutral rather than mitigating in this case.

The judge found that their conduct was deliberate, not inadvertent. Nadeau’s lengthy speech required preparation; Lamarre had described his public participation as a considered response to personal difficulties caused by pandemic measures. The tribunal nevertheless expressly found no bad faith.

The sanction analysis also considered the officers’ continued defence of their position during the merits hearing and the risk of repetition. Their experience should have informed greater judgment when acting publicly in a police capacity, the tribunal said.

Crevier explained that discipline aims to protect the public, deter the officer concerned and provide an example to others. Precedent-based ranges remain guides rather than rigid limits, and sanctions must account for both the misconduct’s seriousness and each officer’s circumstances.

Why the periods run differently

The tribunal accepted the commissioner’s proposed sanctions. For each officer, it imposed four months for displaying the patch, three months for not wearing a face covering, and three months for the conflict involving impartiality, judgment and loyalty. Those three periods run concurrently, producing a four-month total.

Nadeau received an additional 15 months for the speech, consecutive to the other sanctions. The tribunal reasoned that preparing and delivering it went beyond simply attending the gathering: it was distinct in time and purpose and sought a greater public impact.

The result was disqualification from peace-officer functions, not unpaid suspension from jobs the officers still held. In closing, Crevier emphasized that the misconduct should not eclipse their long careers of community service, describing them as officers who appeared to have been competent, dedicated and appreciated.