| Instrument | Durham Regional Police 60 decisions · 40 matters · 2009–2026 | Thunder Bay Police 57 decisions · 50 applications · 28 applicants · 2009–2026 |
|---|---|---|
| Who files — internal share | 14% internal (5 of 37 corpus matters are employment) | 62% internal (26 member + 5 board-chair applications of 50) |
| Merits hearings | 6 across the full record (2 in the fast early era) | 0 — in seventeen years |
| Remedies | 1 — a racial-profiling award, kept only through four courts | 0 |
| Largest ending | Dismissed as abandoned — 13 of 37 matters | No final outcome in the published record — 24 of 50 applications; dismissed — 20 |
| Top pleaded ground | Reprisal and race, tied — 11 matters each | Disability (37 applications), then reprisal (26) |
| Race-cluster share | 12 of 37 matters (32%) — includes the corpus's only remedy | 19 of 50 applications (38%) — none reached a merits hearing |
| The two clocks | Median filing→merits ≈ 3.9 yrs; matters filed ≥2020 die at paper gates in ≈ 1.1 yrs | Hanchuck: 4.1 yrs to a paper gate; DeBungie: 5.5 yrs to dismissal; June batch: 3–4 yrs to summary hearings |
| Representation | 76% of applicants never had any representative; 89% vs 18% all-gates survival gap | Employment cluster largely counsel-led; corpus-wide coding pending — not yet coded |
| Counsel concentration | One management firm in 68% of matters with recorded respondent counsel | One Vice-Chair decided the modern docket (aggregate, unnamed); respondent-counsel coding pending |
| Oversight context | Six-year OCPC investigation; ~$2M resistance spend; $65K costs order; report withheld | Two landmark 2018 systemic-racism findings; board dissolved; chief charged (unproven); sergeant convicted 2026 |
Units differ by design: Durham counts matters (file = matter holds); Thunder Bay counts applications (consolidated decisions break the file=matter convention). Every figure links to its case study, where its derivation and caveats live. This table extends by one column per completed case study.
Read together: the civilian-facing record (Durham) and the inward-facing record (Thunder Bay) fail differently — one by attrition of unrepresented civilians at paper gates, the other by never letting anyone, insider or civilian, reach a hearing at all. Same tribunal. Same instruments. Different failure modes.