The use of uniformed York Regional Police officers as stage props in election campaigns is more widespread than I thought.

This one from Tom Vegh looks innocent enough. Who would be against a Neighbourhood Watch scheme? No-one could possibly be against the idea of keeping residents safe.

But the photo showing Vegh with York Regional Police Officer Riczard Wojtulewicz explicitly promotes Vegh's re-election as Deputy Mayor and Regional Councillor.

I am left wondering if Constable Wojtulewicz

1. Was aware that the photograph was being used in Tom Vegh’s re-election campaign
2. Was asked by Vegh or anyone acting on his behalf for his permission to use the photograph for election campaign purposes
3. Consented to its use in this context

And, importantly, were York Regional Police aware of, or did they authorise, the use of this photo in Tom Vegh's campaign?

I am in touch with York Regional Police about this.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Update at 13.10 on 13 October 2026: This morning I received a reply from the Regional Solicitor which says the photo above is in order. 

I have now filed a complaint with the Inspector General of Policing in Ontario. (Click 'Read more" to see both.)

13 October 2026

Inspector General of Policing
Inspectorate of Policing, Ontario

Dear Inspector General,

Re: Complaint concerning the York Regional Police Service Board’s election policy and the use of uniformed officers in campaign materials

I wish to make a formal complaint about the York Regional Police Service Board’s Use of Board Resources for Election Purposes Policy, and its interpretation as permitting a photograph of a uniformed York Regional Police officer to be used in a candidate’s election materials.

The immediate example is an election flyer featuring Tom Vegh, who is seeking re-election as Newmarket’s Deputy Mayor and Regional Councillor, alongside uniformed Constable Riczard Wojtulewicz. The material carries the words “Re-elect Tom Vegh”.

After reviewing the flyer, the Regional Solicitor advised me:

“Based on that review, a photograph of a community member, including a municipal Councillor, interacting with a member of YRP does not fall under section 3(b) of the Use of Board Resources for Election Purposes Policy (the ‘Policy’). Rather, the Policy contemplates specific use of the Board or YRP logo, brand and other marks in a manner that would suggest an affiliation or endorsement. Accordingly, the Policy does not apply in these circumstances.”

This interpretation raises a serious concern about the protection of police political neutrality and the officers themselves.

A photograph taken during an ordinary community interaction acquires a different purpose when incorporated into material expressly urging voters to re-elect a candidate. Whatever the original circumstances, its subsequent campaign use may give voters the impression that the officer, or the police service, supports that candidate.

A police uniform is a recognisable symbol of public authority. I ask you to examine whether the policy adequately addresses the electoral use of that authority, including any police insignia or identifying marks visible in the photograph.

The published wording of section 3(b) prohibits the use of the Board’s and YRP’s logo, brand and other marks in campaigning. It does not expressly state the additional requirement, described in the Solicitor’s response, that their use must suggest affiliation or endorsement. I would welcome an explanation of the basis for that interpretation.

The wider policy also restricts campaign use of police resources and employees, the use of photographs produced for or owned by the Board or YRP, and employees identifying themselves as Board employees when engaging in political activity. I ask that these provisions be considered together, rather than treating section 3(b) as the sole relevant provision.

The officer’s consent

I do not know whether Constable Wojtulewicz knew about, or consented to, the use of his photograph in Mr Vegh’s campaign. I am not alleging misconduct by the constable.

However, the Solicitor’s response does not address consent or identify any safeguard against an officer’s image being repurposed for election campaigning without their knowledge. Agreeing to a photograph during a community interaction should not automatically be treated as agreeing to its subsequent use in a candidate’s campaign.

Even informed consent would leave a separate question: whether the use of a uniformed officer in campaign advertising is compatible with maintaining the police service’s actual and perceived political impartiality.

I therefore ask your office to:

1. Register this as a complaint about the Board’s policy and its application.
2. Examine whether the policy, as interpreted, adequately protects police political neutrality and meets the applicable requirements of Ontario’s policing legislation and regulations.
3. Establish whether the constable knew of and consented to the campaign use, and whether YRP or the Board authorised it.
4. Clarify how the policy applies to campaign photographs showing uniformed officers, including visible police insignia, and whether the photograph’s origin or ownership affects that assessment.
5. Consider what amendments or guidance are needed to prevent community policing photographs from being repurposed into election advertising without appropriate safeguards.
6. Advise whether any corrective action is warranted concerning this flyer.

Given the municipal election on 26 October 2026, I would appreciate prompt consideration, including advice on any interim steps available.

If you refer the complaint to the Board, please ask it to address these questions specifically and provide a reasoned written response. Simply repeating that section 3(b) does not apply would leave the underlying policy concern unanswered.

Please acknowledge receipt and advise how the complaint will be handled.

Yours sincerely,

Gordon Prentice