The Toronto Police enters the political realm with the blackmail of Jack Layton

By Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B.
Barrister, Solicitor and Notary Public

The hot topic on facebook, twitter and in the news media is the release of information in relation to the apparent encounter Mr. Jack Layton, Leader of the New Democratic Party, had with a member of the Toronto Police Service at a massage parlor in 1996. The information was leaked in an attempt to blackmail Mr. Layton, who is surging in the polls.

Today I wrote to the Chief of the Police Services Board stating, amongst other things that:

April 30, 2011                           416-808-8082 

Alok Mukherjee

Chair

Toronto Police Services Board

40 College Street 

Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2J3 

Dear Mr. Mukherjee:

Release of information regarding Jack Layton

I was appalled and distressed at the partisanship or the perception thereof of the Toronto Police Service entering the realm of the political sphere by releasing information quoted directly from a police officer’s memobook in the Toronto Sun that appears in the nature of attempting to blackmail a leader of a political party.

….

Disclosing personal information about a person who was not charged with a prostitution related offence challenges the presumption of innocence and stigmatizes the person in a way that is totally unacceptable in a society where the rule of law prevails.

There was no duty to warn in the circumstances here and Jack Layton was unfairly targeted.

Your civilian oversight agency is responsible for setting policy that guides the Toronto Police Service. Without attempting to be personal, this appears to be a failure on the part of the Toronto Police Services Board and the Toronto Police to preserve law enforcement information that should be confidential unless there is lawful authority for its release. Please point me to the authority the made releasing that information about Jack Layton in the public interest.

The conduct in question appears, in my view, to be unlawful.

An investigation should be launched, criminal charges should be laid against the person who improperly released that information and the supervisory officers who failed to ensure that the notebooks of Toronto Police Service, which is properly its property and not that of an officer should be held accountable.

Please confirm that you have a policy in place that is being enforced by the Chief of Police that all memobooks are turned in when it is no longer in use.

The Chief of Police, William Blair responded by email as follows:

From: William.Blair@torontopolice.on.ca [mailto:William.Blair@torontopolice.on.ca]
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: Jack Layton

Mr. Pieters.

Today, I made a formal request of the Ontario Provincial Police to conduct a Criminal Breach of Trust Investigation into this matter to determine if any offence has been committed.  They have assigned a Detective Inspector from their Criminal Investigative Branch to head up their investigation.We will of course, cooperate in every way.  It has been reported that the source of the information is a former Toronto Police Officer.

Thank you for your detailed explanation of those sections of the Police Services Act which pertain to the conduct of serving police officers, and to the release of information by a Police Service.  Although of limited relevance in this matter, as the source is apparently not a serving member

of our Service, they remain important.   We do, in fact ensure compliance by those over whom we retain jurisdiction under the Act.

William Blair

Chief of Police

Toronto Police Service

The Chair of the Police Services Board then wrote:

From: Alok.Mukherjee@tpsb.ca [mailto:Alok.Mukherjee@tpsb.ca]
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 5:11 PM
To: William.Blair@torontopolice.on.ca; selwyn
Cc: Lorrie Goldstein; Sam Pazzano
Subject: Re: Jack Layton

Chief,

Thank you for copying me on your reply to Mr Pieters.....

I am satisfied with the response provided by you. I will reply on Monday.

The issue of safe custody of records is a significant one in order to ensure they are not misused. I believe you have already acted appropriately to deal with it.

Chair Mukherjee

The fact remains that the information came from someone who was appointed as a peace officer while employed by the Toronto Police Service.

For the Chief of Police to say that the law on the release of information is of "limited relevance in this matter" goes to the lack of control that organization has over its members and the public release of information. Memobboks are the property of the Toronto Police Service and not the individual member. All memobooks of officers that are no longer in use must be turned over to the service.

The Chief of Police of the Toronto Police Service's response is disappointing but not surprising.

In any event, it should be an independent civilian entity that should be investigating the allegations not the Ontario Provincial Police.

My dialogue with the Toronto Police on the release of information on Jack Layton and the response is quintessential on how broken that organization is and its failure to properly supervise its officers and account for its property.

 Layton confident voters will dismiss massage parlour 'smear campaign', Globe and Mail, April 30, 2011

Ont. cops probe leak after Layton massage story breaks CANOE‎, April 30, 2011

Sun Media uses parlour tricks to feign credibility Rabble

 Police to Investigate Leak of Jack Layton's Massage Parlour Visit suite101, Arthur Weinrib

Law Society of Upper Canada Benchers' Elections

The bencher election is important so vote, let your voices be heard!!!!!!

Make the governing body that regulates lawyer diverse in terms of calls, age, race, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity and religious background. Make it also diverse in terms of the lawers who serve i.e sole practitioners, government, academics, mid-size firms, large firms. All voices need to be represented and heard.

 

My picks for LSUC Benchers - VOTE LAWYERS!!!!!!:
Mark Sandler
Basil Alexander
Avvy Go
Raj Anand

Constance Backhouse

John (Jack) Braithwaite
Julian Falconer
Dorette Pollard
Beth Symes
Paul Schabas
Dan Guttman
Tracey Wynne
Janet Leiper
Kimberly R. Murray

 

Lawyers as witness: when is a lawyer not a compellable witness

By Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B.
Barrister, Solicitor & Notary Public

Lawyers face the prospect of being summons as witnesses for various reasons including:

1. By the Crown, when an accused is attempting to have a guilty plea struck
2. By a Client, when that client or his/her counsel feels the lawyer or former lawyer has relevant evidence to give on a point in dispute.

The test is always relevant and even if relevant, whether the evidence is necessary.

On the issue of necessity is the solicitor-client privilege that exist or existed between solicitor and client. Clearly without an explicit waiver, such privilege is almost absolute.

In Smith v. Peel Regional Police Services Board, 2011 HRTO 628, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario was confronted with that very issue, involving an unrepresented litigant:

[5]               The applicant delivered a summons to her former lawyer compelling him to attend the hearing.  The lawyer applied to the Tribunal to have the summons quashed on the basis that it was not properly served (no conduct money was delivered), that he had no relevant evidence to give, and that any evidence he could give would be protected by solicitor client privilege.  The respondent agreed that the lawyer was not a compellable witness.  The applicant did not respond to the lawyer’s Request to quash the summons.

 [6]               The complainant has not given any indication what evidence she believes her former lawyer could provide in respect of this Application.  She has not responded to the Request to quash the summons, nor indicated that she would waive solicitor client privilege.  In these circumstances, the summons is quashed and the proposed witness need not attend the hearing.