So let's get this straight.
First of all, there is a statute (Section 22) under Alberta law which allows the province to expunge the disciplinary record of police officers after 5 years, earlier if the Chief of Police chooses out of personal discretion.
The Edmonton Police Service, its current Police Chief, and its former Police Chief (Dale McFee), all claim that this means a complete erasure of an officer's past misconducts, and they cannot even be disclosed in a criminal trial.
The courts say that this does not allow them to simply deny a past conviction ever happened, but our police chief disagrees, and claims that disallowing the entitlement and privilege of a police officer to simply have all past transgressions "disappear" from record will "cripple the justice system" and cause the entire system to "collapse".
Obviously, lawyers disagree and I sure hope the Supreme Court of Canada does as well. It's ridiculous that this is even going before them. They say that this expunging of records should only apply internally to clear them in the case of their career path, such as receiving a promotion, and NOT IN THE CASE OF A CRIMINAL TRIAL!
The only case which should be brought before the supreme court is the legitimacy of allowing this statute in Alberta in the first place.
Understand that for a police officer to receive "disciplinary measures" means that they've been caught completely red-handed committing a serious crime which would land a citizen in prison just on suspicion.
We're not talking about, "Joe took home a stapler from the office. He returned it, but we had to write him up. That sort of behavior is not acceptable, and he even tried to lie about it. But that was 5 years ago, and he's sold a lot of product since."
No, we're talking about "Joe decided one day to charge at a person and beat them to an inch of their life for no reason but that he felt like it. He's done this many times before, but this time somebody happened to catch his face and badge number clearly on video, and after the accusation was thrown out of court the first time, it was picked up by a news journalist and went viral, and so we were forced to put him on administrative leave."
THAT is the difference between "disciplinary action" for a police officer compared to a civilian, or in the words of the prosecutor in this case, they are “serious and have a realistic bearing on the credibility of Det. Ruecker.”
Note that these transgressions are also referred as "convictions", because they have gone through such a rigorous legal process to convict them, just to get an administrative action on their record.
The sheer enormity of this entitlement to shirk accountability is mind-boggling.
What the EPS is fighting against is the "Rule of Law", that pesky idea that all people should be subject to the law and accountable to it.
But now millions of our public tax dollars are about to go into a Supreme Court appeal to prevent police from losing this entitlement to be exposed to any kind of record of criminal transgressions, even though these records are only "administrative records" to them.
But hey, let's just focus on the wastefulness of our tax dollars being used for stuff like building safe infrastructure for active transportation users to get to work without dying, shall we?
https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/supreme-court-edmonton-police-misconduct-records-disclosure