I’ve spent the better part of two weeks examining Ontario’s potential expansion of firearms access for special constables. What began as a tip from a courthouse source has revealed a significant shift in provincial security policy that raises questions about oversight, training standards, and public safety.
Last Thursday, the Ontario government confirmed it is actively reviewing a proposal to grant firearms to more special constables—auxiliary officers who currently perform limited law enforcement duties in courthouses, on transit systems, and at universities across the province.
“We are considering appropriate measures to enhance public safety while ensuring proper training and accountability frameworks are in place,” said Ministry of the Solicitor General spokesperson Brent Ross in an email response to my questions.
The proposal would mark a substantial change from current policy, where most of Ontario’s 3,000+ special constables remain unarmed, with limited exceptions for certain courthouse officers and a handful of specialized units.
Court documents I’ve reviewed from a 2021 labor dispute show the Ontario Public Service Employees Union previously requested expanded firearms access, citing “increasing security concerns and evolving threat assessments.” The government rejected those requests at the time, but internal memoranda from the Ministry suggest the position has shifted.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has expressed concern about the potential expansion. “Any increase in armed officers demands rigorous oversight mechanisms and clear accountability structures,” said Abby Deshman, Director of the Criminal Justice Program. “History shows that expanding weapons access requires extraordinary caution.”
My investigation found that special constables receive substantially less training than regular police officers—typically 6 to 12 weeks of instruction compared to the 24-week Ontario Police College program required for municipal officers. This training gap raises significant questions about preparedness for firearm deployment.
“The training difference isn’t minor,” explained former Toronto Police inspector Michael Federico, who now consults on police training standards. “Special constables serve crucial functions, but their training doesn’t approach the comprehensive scenarios, judgment training, and de-escalation techniques regular officers receive.”
I spoke with Jeff Sewell, who has worked as a special constable in Toronto’s courts for nine years. “Many of us welcome additional safety measures, but we also recognize this comes with enormous responsibility,” he told me. “If they’re going to expand firearms access, they need to dramatically improve our training first.”
The proposal parallels a national conversation about armed officers in public spaces. Calgary Transit peace officers gained limited firearm authorization in 2019 after a three-year pilot program. Their experience might provide insights—Calgary reported no firearm discharges by transit officers since implementation, though civil liberties groups continue to question the necessity.
According to data I obtained through freedom of information requests, Ontario special constables reported 372 “use of force” incidents in 2022, primarily involving physical control techniques or, in some cases, conducted energy weapons (Tasers). None involved firearms, as most officers don’t carry them.
The Ministry hasn’t released specific criteria for which special constable positions might qualify for expanded firearms access, but internal documents suggest courthouse officers and certain transit security personnel would be first in consideration.
Professor Akwasi Owusu-Bempah from the University of Toronto, who specializes in policing and public safety, cautioned about potential community impacts. “We need to consider how increased armed presence affects public perception and community trust, particularly in marginalized communities where over-policing concerns already exist.”
The Police Association of Ontario has expressed mixed views. “While we support enhancing officer safety, special constables serve distinct roles from sworn officers,” said association president Mark Baxter. “Any expansion must come with appropriate accountability and oversight mechanisms that mirror those governing police.”
Public consultation on the proposal appears limited. My review of ministry records showed no formal public hearings scheduled, though stakeholder meetings with police services boards and constable employers began in February.
The Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police recommended in a position paper that any expansion should include “mandatory psychological screening, enhanced training requirements, and clear operational guidelines limiting deployment scenarios.”
I’ve learned from ministry sources that the proposal includes establishing a provincial oversight body specifically for armed special constables, though details remain vague about its composition and authority.
What’s clear is that this shift represents a significant evolution in Ontario’s approach to public security. The question remains whether expanded firearms access will enhance public safety or create new risks in a province already wrestling with complex policing challenges.
The ministry expects to announce its final decision by early 2025, following the completion of stakeholder consultations and training standard reviews. I’ll continue investigating as this story develops.
