Port Hope Police Service Board member suspended six months for conflict of interest

Jason Wooland, Port Hope Police Services Board Member. Photo courtesy of LinkedIn.

By: Dan Jones, Northumberland 89.7 FM News, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter.

The Inspector General of Policing in Ontario has suspended a Port Hope Police Services Board member six months for violating conflict of interest requirements. 

In a decision and findings report issued Thursday, Inspector General Ryan Techner concluded that Jason Wooland violated two sections of conflict of interest provisions, while as a member of the police board and under his employment with Ontario Power Generation as head of security.

He “is alleged to have twice requested confidential information from the Port Hope Police Service, in his role as a police service board member, to assist with his work at the OPG,” the report states.

“Furthermore, he is alleged to have improperly involved himself in OPG efforts to have the PHPS and the Board purchase firearms on behalf of OPG so as to expedite OPG’s acquisition of the firearms.”

Techner found that on April 25, 2025, Woodland tabled the original motion to the police board to consider the firearms purchase and the eventual transfer to OPG. 

On September 25, 2025 police services meeting, Woodland proceeded to address the issue, despite already declaring a conflict of interest. It was only after an Inspector of Policing Advisor intervention, which stopped Wooland from discussing the matter further and he left the meeting.

One month later, Woodland raised the issue with senior leadership within the police service and with another board member, following a tour of a proposed OPG site in Port Hope. Woodland canvassed the possibility of six percent administrative fee be paid to OPG as compensation for the police board’s efforts in the procuring and transferring of the firearms. This despite already declaring a conflict of interest.

On October 28, 2026, Wooland emailed the Police Board Chair requesting a response to the firearm acquisition request.

“Mr. Wooland’s employment with OPG is the private interest at issue in this case. Mr. Wooland was clearly approaching the firearms acquisition request as a representative of OPG – but, also in his capacity as a board member, bringing a motion on the initial request forward to the Board in April 2025, and then continuing to repeatedly raise the matter with the Board thereafter,” explained the report.

“Mr. Wooland suggests that the request he was attempting to move forward would, if agreed to, not have resulted in any private benefit to him. But that is not the test under the Code of Conduct.”

Techner wrote that Wooland was unable to distinguish between his two roles as head of security at OPG and on the Port Hope Police Services Board, instead merging the roles to one, because in his mind he saw the mutual benefits for both entities.

On July 24, 2026, Woodland was advised by Techner of the report's findings and was asked to present his own submissions. Woodland stated that there was no personal benefit by engaging in the firearms acquisition discussion and he was not notified in writing of the conflict of interest, but only advised verbally of a potential conflict.

“I continue to be concerned that Mr. Wooland does not appreciate how conflict of interest principles operate or are applied in this context through the Code of Conduct. Based on my interpretation of the Code of Conduct, Mr. Wooland was clearly “over the line”, and continued to stray “over that line” even after (based on his own admissions) he was alerted to the potential conflict,” Techner found. 

“This is simply backwards. Those that govern retain responsibility for complying with applicable conduct rules. That responsibility was Mr. Wooland’s alone.”

Wooland is arguing that his suspension should be for “time served” as the investigation was ongoing for 10 months. Yet, Techner says Wooland does not appear to have improved his understanding of conflict of interest requirements that he must abide by.

“Mr. Wooland should have simply advised his employer and the Board of the conflict at the outset, and taken steps to not participate or seek to influence the decision in any way. The OPG and the Board would then have been left to work through the matter without Mr. Wooland’s involvement,” wrote Techner.

“In addition, the Chair of the Board should have engaged in earlier discussions with Mr. Wooland as soon as the item was first raised, back in April 2025. At that time, the conflict of interest should have been identified, properly documented and put on the record at the first available opportunity. The Board should have then taken steps to ensure that the safeguards that needed to be in place to ensure no conflict contaminated the decision-making process were adhered to.”

George Kallonakis, Chair of the Port Hope Police Service Board said the board respects the Inspector’s decision and report, but that Kallonakis does not believe Wooland acted in bad faith.

“As Board Chair, I can say that throughout this matter I understood Mr. Wooland to be acting with what he believed were the best interests of both organizations in mind. I do not at any time believe he approached the matter with an intention to personally profit, undermine the Port Hope Police Service, or compromise the integrity of the Board,” he said in a statement.

The proposed firearms acquisition was not ultimately pursued by the Police Board.

“Mr. Wooland’s suspension will be respected, and the Board will continue its work on behalf of the community during his absence.”

Wooland will serve an additional six months without pay from the police board.