Toronto cop allegedly initiated off-duty ‘road rage’ incident, threatened criminal investigation


Diamond Member
Aug 6, 2012
If you want to understand how the RCMP, OPP, TPS, DRPS et al pretend to be operating as "police officers" when they are in fact, nothing more than Soviet-style abusers;, read this full story. I post it in full for those of you who can't read it online.

Consider, he has had multiple complaints already, he still has another active complaint and, read closely on how he views himself, as a cop. he flashes his badge at the young man who swore at him, it is a sign "I am your superior and I can ruin your life".

He then alters the story once he realizes that a complaint has been made to add, out of the blue, that the guy was "stunt driving" on the highway. A serious charge.

This is just one isolated issue of 10s of thousands a year in which Canadians aren't dealing with "fellow citizens" in the police. The police view themselves as our overlords, an occupying force.

I want to be clear, I don't enjoy posting these types of stories, but it is vital that Americans understand our differences. The lack of self-awareness and evolution of policing in Canada. This isn't progress, we have regressed and we rely solely on good, informed and yes, even brave judges.

We simply don't have enough Mensches to find.

At a recent virtual appearance before the Toronto police disciplinary tribunal, Const. Michael Kiproff had some trouble turning on his camera. After a few seconds, the veteran officer appeared on screen, and apologized.
It wasn’t the first time he’d had trouble with a camera.

Kiproff is now facing 17 charges before the tribunal stemming, according to a tribunal document, from an alleged off-duty “road rage” incident — caught in part on a dash cam — and subsequent “intimidating” and “abusive and/or insulting and/or uncivil” exchanges with the motorist’s parents, also recorded.

The tribunal document and the recordings themselves detail how an encounter on the QEW started after Kiproff allegedly “chose to suddenly brake” his personal vehicle, forcing another driver to take evasive action. The officer is accused of then improperly flashing his badge before engaging in what the document called “a clear conflict of interest” — allegedly making a series of “false, misleading, or inaccurate” phone calls to threatening an escalating series of criminal charges when it was his duty to hand off the investigation to the OPP, who have jurisdiction over the highway.

That is “not how the law is supposed to be enforced,” said lawyer Thoby King, who represents the other driver in the complaint that led to the tribunal proceeding. Kiproff’s actions were those of “someone who’s trying to bully and intimidate and harass you because he doesn’t like the way you communicated with him on the highway,” the lawyer said.

And in a rare situation, the incident is not the veteran officer’s only case currently before the tribunal. Aside from the “road rage” case, Kiproff was facing another misconduct hearing for allegedly threatening a security manager at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) with arrest for refusing to turn over security footage without a formal request.

A lengthy hearing into the CAMH investigation was scheduled to begin Tuesday, May 21, but a “compromise” has been reached that involves no hearing and an agreement that Kiproff was in the wrong.

Responding to the Star’s questions on Kiproff’s behalf, lawyer Peter Brauti, who has represented the officer on all of his discipline matters, said Kiproff has “never been the subject of a formal discipline penalty because he has either been cleared of the allegations or because the transgressions were minor in nature and only worthy of an informal sanction.”

As for the pending “road rage” disciplinary case, Brauti said Kiproff is “presumed to be innocent and will be challenging the allegations.”
Join the conversation about this story

Kiproff is listed on the Toronto police website as a Neighbourhood Community Officer, working out of downtown’s busy 51 Division. He has also worked out of 14 Division, another of the city’s busiest police stations.

Front-line officers like Kiproff see plenty of action, and, to be sure, public complaints.

Speaking generally, Toronto Police Association president Jon Reid said in a statement that officers have around 700,000 interactions with the public each year, with about one in every thousand resulting in a complaint. More than half of complaints are not investigated for numerous reasons, with not being in the “public interest” or being “frivolous” as two of the most common.
In 2022, only eight of 859 public complaints were ultimately classified as being related to “serious” conduct by officers. Complaints about Kiproff have fallen into that category two years in a row.

‘Have I made myself crystal clear?’
Cole Schneider was on his way to work as an Air Canada station attendant on the morning of Jan. 28, 2023; ahead of him on the Queen Elizabeth Way was Michael Kiproff, off-duty and driving a black BMW with heavily tinted windows and a tinted licence plate cover.
As Schneider, then 23, gets closer to Kiproff, dash cam video from Schneider’s vehicle — registered to his father — shows Kiproff, with room in front of his car, slow without braking; as Schneider gets closer still, Kiproff taps his brakes.
Schneider quickly steers into an inside lane, honking his horn.
“F—- you,” Schneider is heard saying in the video as he passes to Kiproff’s left; “You f—-ing brake-checked me, man,” he says.

In an interview, Schneider explains he flipped his middle finger at Kiproff, to which he said Kiproff flashed his police badge. Schneider said Kiproff then drove alongside him, appearing to be recording Schneider through an open window with his phone.
After this, Schneider said he took an early exit off the highway, waited a few minutes, then returned on his route to work, “just to see if he followed me.”
Later that day, Kiproff called Schneider’s father and left a message, saying he needed to speak with him about one of his sons and threatening to issue an arrest warrant.
The father recorded his call back to Kiproff at the 51 Division station. Within seconds, the officer accuses the father of being rude before saying Schneider is facing criminal charges for driving in a “dangerous fashion today … he almost crashed into me, probably six inches from my bumper.”
“The offence is dangerous driving and it’s in the criminal code,” Kiproff said, explaining he is “composing the paperwork” for an arrest.
“I’m the police officer and I’m investigating it,” Kiproff interrupts Schneider’s father at one point, demanding he bring his son to “my station by tomorrow … that’s your one and only shot.”
Call to Toronto police constable Michael Kiproff

140 plays140

SoundCloud privacy policyPrivacy policy
TorontoStar · Call to Toronto police constable Michael Kiproff
In the recording, Kiproff can be heard accusing Schneider’s father, who speaks calmly throughout, of rudely interrupting him — “You’re not to be barking at me or making efforts to intimidate me,” the officer says, adding: “Have I made myself crystal clear?”
Schneider didn’t go to the station, and in a series of follow-up calls, his mother can be heard trying to talk Kiproff down — asking if her son needs a lawyer, and what can be done to resolve the situation. “You see, ma’am, this all the police ask, a little bit of co-operation,” Kiproff tells her at one point.

Ultimately, the family decided instead to file a formal complaint with the Office of the Independent Police Review Director.
When he learned that a complaint investigation was underway, Kiproff allegedly “retaliated” by swearing out a stunt driving charge against Schneider, according to the tribunal notice of hearing document.
According to the document before Kiproff’s disciplinary tribunal, police have a duty to report any major investigation outside their jurisdiction to police in that jurisdiction (the QEW is OPP territory) and officers must “avoid” conflicts of interest — neither of which Kiproff did, the document says.

In all, Kiproff faces three counts of professional misconduct for neglect of duty; two for discreditable conduct; three for deceit; two for breach of confidence; three for corrupt practice; and four for insubordination.
The allegations, detailed in a 35-page police “Notice of Hearing” document, have not yet been tested at the tribunal.

Addressing Kiproff, the document outlines: “It was you who was driving in a manner that was dangerous to the public,” resulting in an incident of “road rage and or improper behaviour occurring between you and the complainant.” It continues to allege Kiproff “had no grounds” to flash his badge and itemizes the steps the officer allegedly took to make “false, misleading, or inaccurate” statements to Schneider’s parents.
“Your communications with the Complainant’s family were abusive and/or insulting and/or uncivil,” reads another of the charges.
In an interview, Schneider’s lawyer Thoby King said that instead of notifying the OPP, Kiproff undertook “this vendetta” on Schneider and his family unless he came to the station and “bends the knee personally to him.”

These were “not the actions of someone who cares about enforcing the law,” he said.
Kiproff, through his lawyer, told the Star that after viewing the dash cam footage as part of the complaint investigation, he found the brief road encounter “not as bad” as he remembered it being.

Officers found guilty of professional misconduct can face a range of penalties, from reprimands and demotion, up to dismissal — which is very rare. Some of the alleged misconduct from the “road rage” complaint — including charges of breach of confidence, corrupt practice and deceit — are serious and rarely laid in public complaint cases, according to police statistics.

In the other case before the tribunal, a police notice of hearing document outlines that Kiproff was called to CAMH on June 1, 2022, where he spoke to a female victim and her mother about an assault that had occurred in the waiting room.

Believing that “an examination of the internal CCTV was vital,” the officer allegedly confronted a security manager, who wouldn’t let him view the footage without “proper paperwork.” The disagreement escalated to the point where Kiproff “threatened the security manager that his failure to co-operate would result in his arrest and the seizure of his computer,” the document alleges.
Kiproff committed misconduct by acting “in a disorderly manner” likely to bring “discredit upon the reputation” of the service, the notice alleges.
Kiproff, again through his lawyer Brauti, told the Star that a senior person at CAMH did eventually share the video and what it depicted resulted in a sexual assault charge.

On Friday, Brauti said in an email to the Star that the hearing on that matter, set to begin Tuesday, is now moot.
Kiproff, said Bauti, “always had the option of taking informal punishment in relation to these allegations” but “chose not to do so because he believed that everything that he did was in the interest of the victim and the protection of society. The victim and her family consider his actions to be heroic.

“Unfortunately, now that the public hearing is quickly approaching it has become clear that the young victim in this case would have to testify. Const. Kiproff does not want the victim to have to publicly relive the sexual assault occurrence. As such, a compromise was reached where it has been agreed that while he was acting in the best interest of the victim, his approach to the investigation was not in accordance with the expectations of the Service.”

These cases are not the first time Kiproff’s conduct has been the subject of public complaints.
They come more than 20 years after the officer made headlines for arresting a supervisor at a youth detention centre in 2002 in a case Crown prosecutors later dropped as a “miscarriage of justice.” (A lawsuit was settled with no public admissions of wrongdoing; a related professional misconduct case was resolved provided Kiproff apologize “for being profane and verbally abusive.”)

And Kiproff was one of several officers at the centre of high-profile complaints over the police clearings of homeless encampments over two days in July 2022. Toronto resident Connor Engels filed a detailed complaint about police behaviour he witnessed over those days, but only Kiproff’s action resulted in a misconduct investigation, which was handled at the divisional level. Kiproff was “found to be condescending and demeaning towards Mr. Engels,” said Engels’ lawyer David Shellnutt.

Kiproff was also a named defendant in a lawsuit brought by five people injured by police at the Lamport Stadium Park clearing. Those claims were “resolved to the satisfaction of all parties well before trial,” said Shellnutt, whose law firm represented the plaintiffs.
Schneider, in an interview, said he was “dumbfounded” and “really taken aback” when he read the police charging document for the first time, and learned the ways Kiproff had allegedly investigated him and his family.

“I’m glad that I haven’t had any sort of unjust repercussions from it,” he said, adding he’d “love to see the guy not be a cop anymore.”
Kiproff is scheduled to appear before the police tribunal again in June in the “road rage” case.
In what will likely bring the sex assault investigation misconduct case to a formal conclusion, Kiproff will appear before the tribunal May 28.

Forum List