Traveller wins Customs fight

This is a blast from the past. I was one of the first set of litigants to deal with racial profiling frontally.

Traveller wins Customs fight By JOHN SAUNDERS Wednesday, February 6, 2002 – Print Edition, Page A1 TORONTO -- In an unprecedented settlement with an indignant black traveller, Canada Customs has pledged to hire an antiracism expert to train its officers and to collect race-based statistics on those chosen for luggage searches or other special attention. The deal, which heads off what could have been a five-week Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing, also includes an apology and undisclosed cash payment to Selwyn Pieters, the Toronto man who launched the case after a student Customs officer decided to search his bags as he returned by train from a weekend in New York in May of 1999. Mr. Pieters, a federal employee and part-time law student who has more than once complained of official racism, ended up in a tense exchange on the train with a Customs supervisor. The supervisor called him "Billy Jack," the title of a 1971 movie in which a half-white, half-native karate expert avenges bigotry with his feet. Although Customs admitted the name-calling was wrong, Mr. Pieters pressed for a public hearing, asserting that he was picked for the search because of the colour of his skin. After an investigation, the Canadian Human Rights Commission decided last spring that a hearing was warranted. The settlement, signed on Jan. 18 and approved by the commission last week, was not made public until now. In it, Canada Customs pledges to: Order its officers to tell everyone picked for secondary inspection (luggage searches, body searches and other steps beyond initial questioning) the reason for the inspection. Ensure that decision-making criteria used by the officers do not unlawfully discriminate on racial or other grounds. Hire an outside expert by March 1 to provide antiracism and cultural diversity training to student Customs officers during their orientation, new officers within 180 days of hire and all others as regular refreshers. Hire an outside contractor for a pilot project to collect statistics by race, colour, national or ethic origin and gender on travellers chosen for secondary inspections and to analyze the criteria used in choosing them. Consider making the statistical project permanent, with a public report each year to the human-rights commission. Meet with representatives of minority groups each year to hear what they think about Customs practices. Mr. Pieters, now 34, is a refugee claim officer with the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada and volunteer operator of an antiracism Web site. He has also pursued racial-harassment complaints at the provincial level against the Toronto Police and the former Toronto board of education. He had set out to make the federal hearing a public examination of racial profiling -- the use of race, consciously or otherwise, in official guesses about which individuals are likely to break the law. Even so, he is happy with the settlement, he said last night. "Now we have something saying that Customs isn't going to target people based on irrelevant characteristics such as race. . . . We now have antiracism training that each and every officer is going to get within 180 days of their hiring, and they're going to be continually upgraded. "We now have Customs [promising] to provide an explanation to each and every person as to why they're being referred to secondary search. "I mean, that's significant, because at least it's going to cure the arbitrariness." Michel Proulx, a Customs media-relations officer, said the agency admits no wrongdoing but decided it was best to settle without a hearing. Customs employees already undergo what is called sensitivity training, he said, but "to ensure that we don't have any problems, additional training will be given to our Customs officers."

---

Copyright © 2002 Bell Globemedia Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. 

JAVED LATIF / COMMISSION DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DES DROITS DE LA JEUNESSE,. v . BOMBARDIER INC., ET AL.

By Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)

Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)

Posted on January 24, 2015

On Friday January 23, 2015, a mild Winter day in the National Capital Region of Canada, the  racial profiling case of Mr. Latif was argued at the Supreme Court of Canada. This was the first time in the Supreme Court's history that it was hearing a case of racial profiling. The Court heard legal arguments from the Appellants, Respondents and several interveners including the Center for Research-Action on Race Relations, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, and the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario. It has reserved its decision and shall issue a written decision sometime in the future.

Representing the interest of the Center for Research-Action on Race Relations were Selwyn A. Pieters and Aymar Missikala. Fo Niemi the Executive Director was present in Court.

Significant to this case is the need for a clear and consistent test for victims and respondents, and for a harmonized and coherent national approach for discrimination. The two questions in issue that require an affirmative answer:
1) Does the requirement of a “causal link” between a challenged discriminatory act or practice and a prohibited ground of discrimination, especially discrimination based on race or ethnicity, effectively constitute the requirement of proving an intent to discriminate and direct discrimination?

L-R  Preet K. Bell, Ranjan K. Agarwal, Selwyn A. Pieters,  Faisal
Bhabha, Khalid M. Elgazzar, Faisal Mirza, Aymar Missikala

2) Is the requirement of such a “causal link” inconsistent with prevailing contemporary standards of evidence of discrimination in Canada whereby it is only necessary to prove that a prohibited ground of discrimination is a factor in the challenge act or practice?

There was strong showing of Black, Muslim, Arab and South Asian Lawyers that appeared before the seven member bench of Judges to ensure that a large, liberal and purposive approach to the test for a prima facie case is upheld by the Court.

In the Factum of the Center for Research-Action on Race Relations we set out an overview of the Latif v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center) case as follows:

Javed Latif is a naturalized Canadian citizen of Pakistani origin and Muslim. He retains his dual citizenship. He has been a pilot with both American and Canadian licenses for over 25 years. In 2004, he applied to Bombardier for a pilot training program that would allow him to operate a Challenger 604 aircraft. Bombardier’s Aerospace Training Center has two training facilities, one located in Montreal and the other, in Dallas, Texas. Despite his previous training in the U.S., Mr. Latif was denied security clearance by U.S. authorities this time, which denied him training by the U.S. Federal Aviation Agency, on the grounds that he constituted a national security threat. Mr. Latif could not appeal the denial as there was no procedure for non-U.S.citizens and was therefore denied training by Bombardier under his Canadian pilot’s license as he was also considered as a threat to aviation in Canada.

He filed a complaint with the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse for discrimination in employment based on ethnic or national origin.  The Commission brought the case before the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal which ruled that there was a prima facie case of discrimination as Bombardier’s denial of Mr. Latif’s application relied solely on U.S. authorities’ national security-based decision and in part, on business considerations, including the possible revocation of its U.S. training certification, and one particular manager’s opinion.  The Tribunal ordered compensation for lost salaries, moral and punitive damages, and the cessation of the company’s discriminatory practice. 

Bombardier appealed to the Court of Appeal, which struck down the Tribunal decision on several grounds.[1] The Court found no clear evidence of differential treatment directed at Mr. Latif since Bombardier relied on official and legitimate information from U.S. authorities to reach its decision.  The Court also ruled that while there was no need to establish an intent to discriminate, a “causal link” (“lien causal”) between the challenged exclusionary practice and a prohibited ground of discrimination is an “essential ingredient to a conclusion of discrimination”[2], which was not made in this case.[3]  More specifically, the Court noted that the U.S. security clearance applies to all non-U.S. citizens and did not “specifically target” Arabs and Muslims.[4] In the Court’s opinion, the Tribunal erred by relying on circumstantial evidence of discrimination or racial profiling, because the evidence in the case did not include facts that are “serious, precise and concordant”, as required by Quebec civil law.[5] In fact, the Court clearly states that evidence can not result from suspicions or speculations[6] and that the expert testimony in support of the plaintiffs’ claim lacked “pertinence and probative value.”  In other words, the circumstantial evidence to allow for an inference of discrimination and profiling in this case does not hold.[7]

---

[1] Bombardier inc. c. Latif, 2011 QCCA 1611 (CanLII)

[2] At para. 98 and 100.

[3] At para. 103 and 142.

[4] At para. 125.

[5] At para. 141 and 142.

[6] At para. 106.

[7] At para. 139.

As an applicant in the Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 ONCA 396 I was uniquely situated to argue issues that arose from that case and provide an insider-outsider view on the issue of racial profiling and its interpretative principles. En effet, Me Pieters, étant unilingue anglais, est celui qui a plaidé la cause dans l’affaire Peel Law Association de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario.  Cet arrêt est éminemment pertinent puisqu’il provient de la plus haute Cour de l’Ontario d’une part, et d’autre part, il est en contradiction  flagrante avec l’arrêt de la Cour d’appel du Québec dans la présente affaire ayant mené les parties devant la Cour suprême.  En effet, les deux arrêts édictent une norme différente en matière de fardeau de preuve de discrimination.  Tandis que la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario estime qu’il suffit à une victime de prouver que l’un des motifs interdits a été un facteur dans l’acte reproché pour qu’il y ait discrimination, la Cour d’appel du Québec exige un lien de causalité entre le motif et l’acte reproché.  Me Pieters sera le mieux placé pour expliquer la perspective de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario dans une province de tradition de Common Law et dans la langue qu’il maîtrise.

My oral arguments to a seven member panel of the Supreme Court of Canada on behalf of the Center for Research-Action on Race Relations were very to the point in relation to the issue of why the use of causal nexus has no place in human rights law.

Thank you Chief Justice and Justices for allowing us to orally present today on the very important matter to human rights litigants nationally.

The Center for Research-Action on Race Relations (CRARR) supports the arguments made by the Appellant and other intervenors in this case of the need for a clear and consistent test for victims and respondents in Human rights matters, and for a harmonized and coherent national approach for discrimination.

In Peel Law Association  v. Pieters, a racial profiling case involving two Black lawyers and a student, two of whom had dreadlocks, the Court of Appeal reject the requirement of a “causal nexus” or causal link instead holding that:

 [60]   I do not think it acceptable, however, to attach the modifier "causal" to "nexus".  Doing so seems to me to elevate the test beyond what the law requires.  The Divisional Court's requirement of a "causal nexus" or a "causal link" between the adverse treatment and a prohibited ground seems counter to the evolution of human rights jurisprudence, which focuses on the discriminatory effects of conduct, rather than on intention and direct cause." 

In McGill University Health Centre (Montreal General Hospital) v. Syndicat des employé de L'Hopital général de Montréal, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 161, 2007 SCC 4 at para. 181, Justice Abella was interpreting section 10 of the Quebec Charter and found only a link was necessary.

We respectfully submit that the requirement of a “causal link” between a challenged discriminatory act or practice and a prohibited ground of discrimination, especially discrimination based on race or ethnicity, effectively constitute the requirement of proving an intent to discriminate and direct discrimination.

The requirement of such a “causal link” is inconsistent with prevailing contemporary burden of proof in discrimination in Canada whereby it is only necessary to prove that a prohibited ground of discrimination is a factor in the challenge act or practice  (O’Malley v. Simpson-Sears, [1985] 2 SCR 536 at 28; Saskatchewan HRC v. Whatcott [2013] 1 SCR 467 at 54; Moore v. British Columbia [2012] 3 SCR 360 at 33).

It is our position that given the fact that discrimination, especially racism and racial profiling is subconscious, sometimes indirect and sometimes systemic,“so far as possible [human rights legislation whose object is to remedy discrimination must] be interpreted in a congruent manner": Ontario (Human Rights Commission) v. Ontario (1994), 19 O.R. (3d) 387 (ON CA)

Thank you. My colleague Aymar Missikala will continue the arguments on behalf of CRARR.

Part of Mr. Missikala's arguments touched on the thin line between the restrictive “causal link” and intent and direct discrimination that effectively creates a double burden of proving the causal nexus first between the “act of exclusion and the prohibited ground,” and then between said act and the damage.

Mr. Missikala also addressed the Court on the compelling goal to create a more perfect harmony between the two dominant legal cultures in Canada in order to provide more effective and equal protection to victims of race and other discrimination, be they in Quebec or in the rest of Canada.

“It is a rare opportunity for the Supreme Court, and for our country as a whole, to address racial profiling and discrimination in this decade. We are very honored and grateful to have as co-counsel Mr. Selwyn Pieters, who has made significant contributions to the advancement of racial equality in our Canadian justice system and beyond,” said CRARR's Executive Director Fo Niemi.

              ********
Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A. (Toronto), LL.B. (Osgoode), L.E.C. (U.W.I). Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario). Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana and Republic of Trinidad and Tobago).

Selwyn has appeared at all levels of courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada in Attorney General of Ontario v. Michael J. Fraser, et al., 2011 SCC 20, Ontario Court of Appeal in Freeman-Maloy v. Marsden 267 D.L.R. (4th) 37, 208 O.A.C. 307 (C.A.); Bangoura v. Washington Post (2005) 202 O.A.C. 76, (2005) 17 C.P.C. (6th) 30 (Ont.C.A.), the Federal Court of Appeal in The Honourable Sinclair Stevens v. The Conservative Party of Canada, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1890, 2005 FCA 383. He represented Correctional Manager Mariann Taylor-Baptiste in the ground-breaking competing rights case of Taylor-Baptiste v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 2012 CarswellOnt 8965, 2012 HRTO 1393, 2012 C.L.L.C. 230-022 reconsideration denied in 2013 CarswellOnt 1033, 2013 HRTO 180, 2013 C.L.L.C. 230-019 at the HRTO; Civil Rights lawyer Charles Roach in the Oath cases of McAteer, Topey, Dror-Natan v. Canada (Attorney General) 2013 CarswellOnt 13165, 2013 ONSC 5895 (ON S.C.) and Roach et al. v. Canada 2012 CarswellOnt 7799, 2012 ONSC 352 (ON S.C.) which is a constitutional challenge to the oath in the Citizenship Act.

Selwyn has provided representation to persons charged with various criminal offenses including Drugs: Selling and Possessing, Shoplifting, Serious Offences of Violence: Aggravated Assault, Assault with a Weapon and Robbery, Gun Offences, sexual assault, robbery, theft, extortion, HIV/AIDS litigation; fraud, break & enter, attempted murder, murder, regulatory offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, professional disciplinary offences, and conspiracy offences.

Selwyn has also been involved in drugs, guns and gang trials including "Project Green Apple", "Project XXX" and "Project Kryptic", "Project Corral" which are some of Canada's largest Criminal Organization prosecutions. Selwyn is currently counsel for an accused in "Project Feline" and Project Revival" drug sting operations. In Project Corral, Selwyn's advocacy resulted in the "gang expert" evidence being discredited and the Criminal Organization charges against his client and others being tossed out by the Court: R. v. Agil, Chambers, Fullerton, Jimale and Brown 2011 CarswellOnt 18099 (Ont. CJ. July 14, 2011, Khawley J.)

Selwyn recently obtained an extraordinary remedy of costs agains the Crown for failure to provide disclosure of police officer memo book notes in R. v. W.(J.), [2013] O.J. No. 2284, 2013 CarswellOnt 6322, 2013 ONCJ 270 (Ont. CJ.).

Selwyn is the successful litigant in the recent racial profiling case involving carding of three Black men: Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 CarswellOnt 7881, 2013 ONCA 396, 228 A.C.W.S. (3d) 204, 116 O.R. (3d) 81, 306 O.A.C. 314, 9 C.C.E.L. (4th) 233, [2013] O.J. No. 2695.

Selwyn has provided crucial legal advise to clients duringhigh risk situations such as gun calls, hostage taking, barricaded persons, mentally disturbed persons, high risk arrests and public order control in situations where there is significant public disorder, lawlessness, personal injury and property damage. Charges of cause disturbance and assault police can be pretextual racial profiling charges: R. v. Roach, 2005 O.J. No. 5278 (Ont. C.J.) (Criminal Law - Causing a Disturbance); R. v. Ramsaroop, 2009 CarswellOnt 5281, 2009 ONCJ 406 (Ont. CJ.); R. v. Taylor, 2010 CarswellOnt 6584, 2010 ONCJ 396, [2010] O.J. No. 3794 (Ont. CJ.)

Selwyn was co-counsel in the world's first-ever sexual HIV transmission murder trial of Johnson Aziga in Hamilton, Ontario. See, for example, R. v. Aziga, 2008 CanLII 39222 (ON S.C.); R. v. Aziga; 2008 CarswellOnt 4300 (ON S.C.) and R. v. Aziga, 2008 CanLII 29780 (ON S.C.)

Selwyn argued on racial profiling includes: R. v. Steele, 2010 ONSC 233 (ON S.C.) and R. v. Egonu, 2007 CanLII 30475 (ON SC) - Driving while black and R. v. Bramwell-Cole [2010] O.J. No. 5838 (ON S.C.) - walking while black.

Selwyn has acted in exclusion cases at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada: See, Song Dae Ri (Re) 2003 CarswellNat 4527; (2004) 36 Imm. L.R. (3d) 203; Liang (Re) 2002 CarswellNat 4719; 33 Imm. L.R. (3d) 251.

Selwyn has appeared in  Coroners' Inquest including: Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Negus Topey (May 02, 2005, Coroners' Court, Dr. K.A. Acheson) Ruling on Application for Standing; Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Dwight Haughton (Coroners' Court, Dr. Evans) Ruling on Application for Standing; Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Jeffrey Reodica(May 04, 2006, Coroners' Court, Dr. B. Porter) Ruling on Application for Standing

Selwyn also acted as co-counsel with C. Nigel Hughes for the families of three deceased persons killed during a civil demonstration in Linden, Guyana, at the Linden Commission of Inquiry. Selwyn is currently co-counsel with Brian M. Clarke representing the Guyana Trades Union Congress in the Walter Anthony Rodney Commission of Inquiry in Georgetown, Guyana.

ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL HEARING OF DRIVING WHILE BLACK CASE OF R. V. STEELE

By Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)
Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Posted on January 13, 2015
Updated on January 14, 2015

"Racial profiling is one of the significant issues that continue to weigh us down and hinder us from  arriving at our many destinations on time." Valerie Steele

On Tuesday January 13, 2015 the long-standing racial profiling case of R. v.Steele, 2010 ONSC 5397 was argued at the Court of Appeal for Ontario in Toronto before Justice Kathryn Feldman, Justice Janet Simmons and Justice Gladys Pardu. The Court heard argument from the Crown and Defense Counsel. It has reserved its decision and shall issue a written decision sometime in the future.

This is a case where four Black men were driving in the City of Hamilton, Ontario, in Richard mother’s car when they were stopped by Hamilton Police Officer Yvonne Stephens.  Richard Steele was a passenger

Valerie Steele, Richard Steele and  Selwyn Pieters

in the vehicle.  The officer followed the vehicle for at least three minutes. Ran the licence plates. There was no evidence provided that there was any traffic violation or reasonable grounds to stop the vehicle other than it was occupied by four black men. The officer testified that Max Sterling removed Steele from the vehicle. By the time Officer Sterling arrived – there are at least 6 other officers on the scene including three tactical officers. This cannot be characterized as simply a traffic stop. Why Tactical Officers for routine traffic offence?

Judge Flynn dismissed a Charter application because of a Black officer’s opinion about whether the arresting officer was racially biased.  Flynn J. wrote "[45] But on the evidence before me, there are no grounds to find racial profiling on the part of P.C. Stephens. There is simply no evidence of it and none from which I can infer it.The evidence of P.C. Sterling, a black man, that P.C. Stephens never exhibited racial bias in the 10 years he knew her, gives me comfort for my conclusion."

What Flynn J. ignored is the culture of policing and the thin blue line or code of silence that make speaking out against discriminatory treatment, racially biased policing or racial profiling, career suicide. Thus officer Sterling's evidence on whether or not he believe officer Stephens to be racially biased or not should not have been used to assist her credibility.

"At issue is what occurred during the minutes prior to the traffic stop and during the traffic stop, and whether it amounts to impermissible racial profiling would require in our submissions an assessment of the evidence in light of the case law, Charter, Police Services Act and Human Rights Code." Selwyn Pieters

The Hamilton Police claim that they stopped the car to investigate Highway Traffic Act violations–and not to do a criminal investigation because of racial profiling–is belied by the following:

a. In the three minutes of following the vehicle prior to the stop, the police clearly had an opportunity to observe the occupants of the vehicle were black and have lied in their denials of this fact.
b. The police officer did not provided the dispatcher with any reason at all for the stopping of the motor vehicle.
c. No Highway Traffic Act charges are laid and there is no evidence of even the  contemplation of such charges.
d. All occupants of the vehicle were investigated.
e. The nature of the questioning of the occupants, even as claimed, exceeded what would logically be part of merely a Highway Traffic Act.
f. The claim that Steele was nervous, fidgeting cannot be a reason for hightened suspicion.
g. Six officers including tactical officers raced to the scene of a routine traffic stop.
h. Removing the occupants from the vehicle for officer safety instead of simply giving the driver a tickets and sending the occupants of the vehicle on their way.

The arguments on standing of Richard Steele and the substantive issue of racial profiling came over very well and the three Judges were quite engaged. If we are successful on the arguments on racial profiling intersected with the arguments on privacy, this will be an important criminal law decision that adds to the growing jurisprudence throughout Canada on  racial profiling. n Canadian history.

Selwyn Pieters had previously argued the racial profiling issue on Mr. Steele's behalf but that decision was aborted due to a mistrial declared by the judge. See, R. v. Steele; 2010 CarswellOnt 50; 2010 ONSC 233 (ON S.C.)

Selwyn Pieters appeared with Anthony Moustacalis on the Appeal.

Racial profiling argued in gun conviction appeal, CHCH TV January 13, 2015

Bill Dunphy, Racial profiling behind Richard Steele's Hamilton bust, say lawyers
Hamilton Spectator‎, January 13, 2015

Colin Perkel, Hamilton police accused of racial profiling in conviction appeal Canadian Press, January 12, 2015

Holly Hayes, Toronto man says he was racially profiled by a Hamilton police officer, Hamilton Spectator 28, 2014

Racial bias runs surprisingly deep, Toronto Star, June 27, 2009

********
Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A. (Toronto), LL.B. (Osgoode), L.E.C. (U.W.I). Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario). Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana and Republic of Trinidad and Tobago).

Selwyn has appeared at all levels of courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada in Attorney General of Ontario v. Michael J. Fraser, et al., 2011 SCC 20, Ontario Court of Appeal in Freeman-Maloy v. Marsden 267 D.L.R. (4th) 37, 208 O.A.C. 307 (C.A.); Bangoura v. Washington Post (2005) 202 O.A.C. 76, (2005) 17 C.P.C. (6th) 30 (Ont.C.A.), the Federal Court of Appeal in The Honourable Sinclair Stevens v. The Conservative Party of Canada, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1890, 2005 FCA 383. He represented Correctional Manager Mariann Taylor-Baptiste in the ground-breaking competing rights case of Taylor-Baptiste v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 2012 CarswellOnt 8965, 2012 HRTO 1393, 2012 C.L.L.C. 230-022 reconsideration denied in 2013 CarswellOnt 1033, 2013 HRTO 180, 2013 C.L.L.C. 230-019 at the HRTO; Civil Rights lawyer Charles Roach in the Oath cases of McAteer, Topey, Dror-Natan v. Canada (Attorney General) 2013 CarswellOnt 13165, 2013 ONSC 5895 (ON S.C.) and Roach et al. v. Canada 2012 CarswellOnt 7799, 2012 ONSC 352 (ON S.C.) which is a constitutional challenge to the oath in the Citizenship Act.

Selwyn has provided representation to persons charged with various criminal offenses including Drugs: Selling and Possessing, Shoplifting, Serious Offences of Violence: Aggravated Assault, Assault with a Weapon and Robbery, Gun Offences, sexual assault, robbery, theft, extortion, HIV/AIDS litigation; fraud, break & enter, attempted murder, murder, regulatory offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, professional disciplinary offences, and conspiracy offences.

Selwyn has also been involved in drugs, guns and gang trials including "Project Green Apple", "Project XXX" and "Project Kryptic", "Project Corral" which are some of Canada's largest Criminal Organization prosecutions. Selwyn is currently counsel for an accused in "Project Feline" and Project Revival" drug sting operations. In Project Corral, Selwyn's advocacy resulted in the "gang expert" evidence being discredited and the Criminal Organization charges against his client and others being tossed out by the Court: R. v. Agil, Chambers, Fullerton, Jimale and Brown 2011 CarswellOnt 18099 (Ont. CJ. July 14, 2011, Khawley J.)

Selwyn recently obtained an extraordinary remedy of costs agains the Crown for failure to provide disclosure of police officer memo book notes in R. v. W.(J.), [2013] O.J. No. 2284, 2013 CarswellOnt 6322, 2013 ONCJ 270 (Ont. CJ.).

Selwyn is the successful litigant in the recent racial profiling case involving carding of three Black men: Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 CarswellOnt 7881, 2013 ONCA 396, 228 A.C.W.S. (3d) 204, 116 O.R. (3d) 81, 306 O.A.C. 314, 9 C.C.E.L. (4th) 233, [2013] O.J. No. 2695.

Selwyn has provided crucial legal advise to clients duringhigh risk situations such as gun calls, hostage taking, barricaded persons, mentally disturbed persons, high risk arrests and public order control in situations where there is significant public disorder, lawlessness, personal injury and property damage. Charges of cause disturbance and assault police can be pretextual racial profiling charges: R. v. Roach, 2005 O.J. No. 5278 (Ont. C.J.) (Criminal Law - Causing a Disturbance); R. v. Ramsaroop, 2009 CarswellOnt 5281, 2009 ONCJ 406 (Ont. CJ.); R. v. Taylor, 2010 CarswellOnt 6584, 2010 ONCJ 396, [2010] O.J. No. 3794 (Ont. CJ.)

Selwyn was co-counsel in the world's first-ever sexual HIV transmission murder trial of Johnson Aziga in Hamilton, Ontario. See, for example, R. v. Aziga, 2008 CanLII 39222 (ON S.C.); R. v. Aziga; 2008 CarswellOnt 4300 (ON S.C.) and R. v. Aziga, 2008 CanLII 29780 (ON S.C.)

Selwyn argued on racial profiling includes: R. v. Steele, 2010 ONSC 233 (ON S.C.) and R. v. Egonu, 2007 CanLII 30475 (ON SC) - Driving while black and R. v. Bramwell-Cole [2010] O.J. No. 5838 (ON S.C.) - walking while black.

Selwyn has acted in exclusion cases at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada: See, Song Dae Ri (Re) 2003 CarswellNat 4527; (2004) 36 Imm. L.R. (3d) 203; Liang (Re) 2002 CarswellNat 4719; 33 Imm. L.R. (3d) 251.

Selwyn has appeared in  Coroners' Inquest including: Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Negus Topey (May 02, 2005, Coroners' Court, Dr. K.A. Acheson) Ruling on Application for Standing; Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Dwight Haughton (Coroners' Court, Dr. Evans) Ruling on Application for Standing; Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Jeffrey Reodica(May 04, 2006, Coroners' Court, Dr. B. Porter) Ruling on Application for Standing

Selwyn also acted as co-counsel with C. Nigel Hughes for the families of three deceased persons killed during a civil demonstration in Linden, Guyana, at the Linden Commission of Inquiry. Selwyn is currently co-counsel with Brian M. Clarke representing the Guyana Trades Union Congress in the Walter Anthony Rodney Commission of Inquiry in Georgetown, Guyana.

Happy New Years - 2015 is Your Year

By Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)
Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Posted on January 01, 2015

Happy New Years to family, friends, acquaintances, clients, colleagues and everyone. I hope 2015 will be your year as you move forward in whatever goals and benchmarks you have set out to accomplish.

2015 will be an important year for me as it will mark 10 years since I have been in private practise as a lawyer and Notary Public. I am hoping to read more for pleasure. Work harder on my client files. Gym more.

Health, strength and wellness as we move forward!