Port Hope Police Board Member Suspended Six Months Without Pay Over Conflict of Interest

Pete Fisher
2 hours ago
• Categories: Editor Choice, Local, Police Blotter

Inspector General says Jason Wooland crossed the line — and kept crossing it after being warned

---

A Port Hope Police Service Board member has been suspended for six months without pay after Ontario’s Inspector General of Policing found he committed misconduct by using his position on the Board while pursuing the interests of his employer, Ontario Power Generation.

Jason Wooland, who was appointed to the Port Hope Police Service Board in August 2024, was found to have breached the Code of Conduct for Police Service Board Members.

Inspector General Ryan Teschner released his decision on August 27, 2026, following an investigation into Wooland’s conduct.

The investigation centred largely on Wooland’s involvement in an effort by OPG to have the Port Hope Police Service purchase firearms on behalf of the corporation.

The Inspector General found Wooland breached subsection 21(a) of the Code of Conduct, which prohibits a board member from using their position to benefit themselves, as well as Section 22, which prohibits a member from participating in discussions or voting on matters where they have a conflict of interest.

The decision states Wooland was employed as head of security for OPG while serving on the Police Service Board.

“In short,” Teschner wrote, Wooland had requested confidential information from the Port Hope Police Service in his capacity as a Board member to assist with his work at OPG.

The investigation also found Wooland became involved in OPG’s efforts to have the Port Hope Police Service and Board purchase firearms for OPG.

THE FIREARMS DEAL

The issue first surfaced publicly at a Police Service Board meeting on April 24, 2025.

According to the investigation, Wooland introduced a motion concerning a potential weapons acquisition by OPG. The motion allowed the Board to explore the legal and regulatory framework surrounding the proposed procurement. The motion passed.

OPG subsequently submitted a formal request seeking approval for the Port Hope Police Service to acquire Glock sidearms that would ultimately be transferred to support OPG and Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission operations.

The proposal was driven in part by OPG’s difficulties obtaining firearms through federal procurement channels.

The OPG request stated that the corporation would reimburse the Police Service for administrative fees and costs associated with the transaction.

But the Inspector General found Wooland’s employment with OPG created an indirect pecuniary interest.

“Mr. Wooland, as head of the OPG security division, was an employee of the corporation,” Teschner wrote, noting OPG had a financial interest in the proposed purchase of firearms.

The problem, according to the decision, was that Wooland was wearing two hats — one as a Police Service Board member and another as an OPG executive.

BOARD MEMBER WAS WARNED

The investigation found concerns had already been raised about Wooland seeking police information for OPG-related purposes.

A Police Service Advisor told investigators that during a Board discussion involving a violent offender relocating to the Port Hope area, Wooland asked for information about the individual so he could run the person through an OPG database.

The information was not provided.

In another instance, Wooland reportedly asked about misconduct within the Port Hope Police Service and the penalties imposed, with the Police Service Advisor believing he intended to use the information in his OPG responsibilities.

The advisor considered both requests inappropriate.

The Police Service Advisor raised the concerns with the Board Chair following the June 2025 meeting.

The Chair subsequently spoke with Wooland about the need to separate his OPG responsibilities from his Board duties.

That conversation, however, was not documented.

THE SEPTEMBER MEETING

The conflict came into sharp focus at the Board’s September 25, 2025 meeting.

By then, Wooland had declared a conflict of interest regarding OPG’s firearms request.

But during the closed meeting, Wooland began attempting to introduce and explain the firearms proposal.

The Police Service Advisor intervened and advised him that he could not participate in the discussion or vote.

Wooland left the meeting.

The investigation found that the Board continued discussing the matter without him and that it had been made clear that he was not to be involved in discussions relating to OPG.

THEN CAME THE SIX-PER-CENT FEE

Despite being warned, the Inspector General found Wooland continued pursuing the matter.

On October 24, 2025, after an OPG tour attended by senior Port Hope police officials and a Board member, Wooland approached the group and raised the firearms acquisition again.

According to the investigation, he characterized the matter as urgent, said OPG would provide a six-per-cent administrative fee and indicated that another police service could complete the transaction, but that he preferred the Port Hope Police Service to receive the money.

He also pushed for an ad hoc Board meeting.

The investigation described the approach as a high-pressure sales tactic, with those present reportedly feeling uncomfortable.

The Port Hope Police Service Director of Finance told investigators the six-per-cent figure was the first specific percentage discussed and described the conversation as awkward and inappropriate for a public setting.

Wooland followed up again by email on October 28, asking the Board for a response to OPG’s firearms request and offering to provide further information.

INSPECTOR GENERAL: “OVER THE LINE”

Wooland disputed the misconduct allegations.

In submissions to the Inspector General, he argued there was no evidence he personally benefited from the firearms discussions.

He also argued he had not been formally notified in writing of the conflict, that there was no evidence he participated after the conflict was identified and that simply asking about the status of the procurement was not a breach of conflict-of-interest rules.

Teschner rejected those arguments.

He said he remained concerned that Wooland did not understand how conflict-of-interest rules applied.

“Based on my interpretation of the Code of Conduct,” Teschner wrote, Wooland was clearly “over the line” and continued to cross that line even after being alerted to the potential conflict.

The Inspector General said responsibility for complying with the rules rested with Wooland — not the police service he was responsible for governing.

“GOOD FAITH” WAS NO DEFENCE

One of the most significant findings was that Wooland’s belief that he was helping both OPG and the Port Hope Police Service did not eliminate the conflict.

Teschner said Wooland appeared unable to distinguish between his two roles.

Once the firearms proposal became connected to both OPG and the Police Service Board, the two roles effectively merged.

The Inspector General concluded that a reasonable person could be concerned that Wooland might place OPG’s corporate interests — and his own employment interests — ahead of the interests of the Board and the Port Hope Police Service.

Teschner also rejected the argument that Wooland acted in good faith.

“There is no ‘good faith’ exemption for the conflict provisions of the Code of Conduct,” he wrote.

The Inspector General concluded that Wooland should have disclosed the conflict at the outset and removed himself completely from any attempt to influence the firearms decision.

SIX-MONTH SUSPENSION

Teschner considered the fact that Wooland had already effectively been suspended during the approximately 10-month investigation.

But that did not satisfy the Inspector General.

Wooland argued his time already served should count as the appropriate penalty.

Teschner disagreed.

The Inspector General noted Wooland had completed the mandatory training required of Ontario police service board members, including training dealing specifically with conflicts of interest.

He also pointed out that Wooland was an executive in the corporate world, where identifying and managing conflicts is expected.

Most significantly, Wooland had been advised in real time that a conflict existed — yet continued pursuing the firearms acquisition.

Teschner said what concerned him most was not simply the individual actions, but Wooland’s apparent continuing belief that his conduct was not problematic.

The Inspector General ordered Wooland suspended from his duties as a Port Hope Police Service Board member for six months without pay.

BOARD ALSO TAKES A HIT

The decision did not put all of the responsibility on Wooland.

Teschner said the Board Chair should have intervened much earlier when the firearms matter was first raised in April 2025.

The conflict should have been identified, documented and placed on the record at the earliest opportunity, he said.

The Board should also have put safeguards in place to ensure the conflict did not contaminate the decision-making process.

The firearms acquisition was ultimately cancelled and the Port Hope Police Service Board decided it would not proceed with the arrangement.

The investigation also notes that Wooland said he would pursue another avenue through OPG.

Wooland was appointed to the Port Hope Police Service Board on August 29, 2024. The investigation lists no previous substantiated misconduct against him.

But the Inspector General’s message in this case was unmistakable: members entrusted with overseeing a police service are expected to put their public responsibilities ahead of private employment interests.

As Teschner noted, police service board members are public stewards and are held to the highest standards of conduct.

For Wooland, that standard has now resulted in a six-month unpaid suspension.

 

Port Hope Police Services Board Chair George Kallonakis Released this statement to Today’s Northumberland

The Port Hope Police Services Board acknowledges the recent decision of the Inspector General of Policing concerning Mr. Jason Wooland and respects the statutory process through which that decision was reached.

As Board Chair, I can say that throughout this matter I understood Mr. Wooland to be acting with what he believed were the best interests of both organizations in mind. I do not believe at any time he approached the matter with an intention to personally profit, undermine the Port Hope Police Service, or compromise the integrity of the Board.

When I provided my comments during the investigation, I stated that I believed Mr. Wooland’s intentions were good. I continue to believe that his motivation was to find a solution that would benefit the PHPS and address a legitimate security requirement facing OPG, while setting a roadmap for future collaborations and relationships.

The firearms proposal was ultimately not pursued by the Port Hope Police Services Board.

The Inspector General has concluded that Mr. Wooland crossed those boundaries. We respect that finding and the suspension imposed as a consequence.

Public office carries a higher standard of responsibility, and members of Police Services Boards must understand that even well-intentioned actions can create serious governance and conflict-of-interest concerns. That is an important lesson from this matter.

Mr. Wooland has served the community as a member of the Port Hope Police Services Board for the past 3 years, and I believe his character and intentions should be considered alongside the findings regarding his conduct.

The Board remains committed to good governance, transparency, accountability and maintaining the duties as public officials.

Mr. Wooland’s suspension will be respected, and the Board will continue its work on behalf of the community during his absence.