Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader Doug Ford's speech on policing: if he becomes Premier of Ontario in June 2018 he will pump more money into The Toronto Anti-Violence Intervention Strategy (TAVIS). Tavis was a unit that collected personal information on mostly Black and Brown males. It was feared and hated for criminalizing a community based on racial stereotypes.
A blog that is organized around the lawyering experience of Criminal and Human Rights Lawyer Selwyn Pieters and things that interest him!!!!!
Showing posts with label RACISM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RACISM. Show all posts
Sunday, April 08, 2018
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 2018
International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Racial Minorities, particularly Blacks, have little to nothing to cheer about or celebrate.
Racial Profiling is rampant. We are still faces at the bottom of the well.
In Canada and the United States, racist rallies that were a thing of the past has publicly emerged and politics is moving to the far right.
Black kids are still profiled in school as requiring special education or having some form of exceptionality.
Black kids and their parents are increasingly stressed by Children Aid Societies and Black kids are more likely to be taken into care, sometimes for the least infractions or allegations.
Prisons are overpopulated with Black men who should be in Universities. The criminal justice system remains systemically racist.
Black men are in distress numbers are disproportionately arrested, charged, assaulted, seriously injured or killed by police in the United States, Ontario, Canada, Guyana, the United Kingdom, and Trinidad. Extra-judicial killing by state agents that are troubling but justice for the victims remain illusory.
Whether its dressed as implicit bias, implicit racism, systemic racism, institutionalized racism or personal racism: it is racism.
Our justice system participants still don't get it on what is racial profiling.
Consumer racial profiling remains prevalent.
Black people are excluded in large numbers from corporate Canada's boardrooms and large law firms. One can still count the numbers because they are so low.
Discrimination in employment, whether it is in the public service or private sector remains the second highest grounds for applications under the Human Rights Code.
Access to justice remains illusory. On March 21, 2000, I wrote:
The truth hurts but it must be told.
While I remain hopeful. I have little to celebrate in 2018.
March 21, 2018
Selwyn A. Pieters
Barrister, Solicitor & Notary Public
of the Bars of Guyana, Trinidad and Ontario.
Racial Profiling is rampant. We are still faces at the bottom of the well.
In Canada and the United States, racist rallies that were a thing of the past has publicly emerged and politics is moving to the far right.
Black kids are still profiled in school as requiring special education or having some form of exceptionality.
Black kids and their parents are increasingly stressed by Children Aid Societies and Black kids are more likely to be taken into care, sometimes for the least infractions or allegations.
Prisons are overpopulated with Black men who should be in Universities. The criminal justice system remains systemically racist.
Black men are in distress numbers are disproportionately arrested, charged, assaulted, seriously injured or killed by police in the United States, Ontario, Canada, Guyana, the United Kingdom, and Trinidad. Extra-judicial killing by state agents that are troubling but justice for the victims remain illusory.
Whether its dressed as implicit bias, implicit racism, systemic racism, institutionalized racism or personal racism: it is racism.
Our justice system participants still don't get it on what is racial profiling.
Consumer racial profiling remains prevalent.
Black people are excluded in large numbers from corporate Canada's boardrooms and large law firms. One can still count the numbers because they are so low.
Discrimination in employment, whether it is in the public service or private sector remains the second highest grounds for applications under the Human Rights Code.
Access to justice remains illusory. On March 21, 2000, I wrote:
For those of us who are true, committed anti-racist, we must continue to fight against all of the evils of racism which evident within our society. We are not the first to fight this battle. We do not want the next generation to have to fight this battle again.
March 21 is a time for us to re-dedicate and re-commit ourselves to fight any and all social injustices that isn't beneficial to the society in which we were brought up [and in which some of us has adopted as our home].
Our continued fight has reinforced the meaning of moral courage, humility and integrity. We hope that the Government of Canada, the Government of Ontario and the Ontario Human Rights Commission can learn the meaning of moral courage, humility and integrity from us.
The truth hurts but it must be told.
While I remain hopeful. I have little to celebrate in 2018.
March 21, 2018
Selwyn A. Pieters
Barrister, Solicitor & Notary Public
of the Bars of Guyana, Trinidad and Ontario.
Friday, February 17, 2017
Discussion of Racial Profiling decision in Victor Whyte c. Ville de Montréal (SPVM) -et- Mathieu Hypolite
Commentary (in English) on the Human Rights decision in Centre d’action-recherche sur les relations raciales (CRARR) pour Heather Johnson alors tutrice de son fils mineur Victor Whyte c. Ville de Montréal (SPVM) -et- Mathieu Hypolite - racial profiling decision rendered today $17,000.00 in damages awarded to thew victim - Victor Whyte.... <https://www.facebook.com/DistinguishedRadical/videos/10155058362070799/>
Sunday, December 18, 2016
Questions and Answers from Selwyn Pieters in Andrew Pfeifer first appearance at Police Disciplinary Hearing
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)
Pieters Law Office
Created December 17, 2016
1. Can you describe where this matter is in the process.
Constable Andrew Pfeifer of Hamilton Police Service face one count of discreditable conduct in that he acted in a disorderly manner or in a manner prejudicial to discipline or likely to bring discredit to the reputation of the Hamilton Police Service by engaging in an unjustified and arbitrarily street check contrary to section 2 (i)(a)(xi) of the Code of Conduct, as set out in O. Reg. 268/10 of the Police Services Act. This matter has been brought to hearing following an investigation conducted by Independent Police Review Director (the "OIPRD").
The first appearance was on December 15, 2016. A hearing by telephone conference is scheduled for January 31, 2017 to permit counsel for the complainant and police officer to review disclosure and be in a position to set a date for trial.
2. Have the facts been established or is part of your role to draw out the facts?
There were facts established during the investigation that brought the matter to a hearing. However, any facts that are acceptable by the hearing officer can be established by the parties agreeing as to the facts (Agreed Statement of Facts or ASF) or alternatively a full blown hearing on the merits of the charge in the Notice of Hearing in which examination in chief, cross-examinations and re-examinations take place. At this point no facts have been established for the purpose of the hearing as we only made a first appearance. Any established facts are what the Tribunal accepts as credible and trustworthy.
.
3. What would an appropriate outcome look like. In other words, what result is being sought by going through the hearing process?
The prosecutor would be seeking to establish misconduct on the part of the officer.
Mr. Green is a complainant and a witness in the proceeding with standing he is there to ensure that his version of the evidence is found to be credible. As well, on a broader level since this is an officer misconduct complaint that raises racial profiling as an issue, Mr. Green has an interest in ensuring the Hearing Officer adjudicate this case in a manner that recognizes its subtle, pervasive and unconscious nature of racism and that his decision is consistent with human rights principles set out in numerous Court of Appeal decisions.
4. In your estimation, how clear is this case? Is this unquestionably a case of police carding based on race? What challenges, if any, do you anticipate?
This is a case based on the circumstantial evidence. Importantly however that the only Black City Councillor would have this experience in his own city is illustrative of the fact that a Black person’s status, education, wealth or privilege does not immune him/or her from being targeted, arbitrarily stopped, questioned and sometimes detained by law enforcement officials, particularly police.
We will make the case that this was an unjustified and arbitrary street check and that it based in part on the race of Matthew Green.
5. Is there anything else you would like Hamiltonians to know about this matter or the issue of carding in general?
The “declaration of principles” in section 1 of the Police Services Act, proclaim the importance of the Human Rights Code and Charter in this statutory scheme. One of the enumerated principles of the provision of police services is:
Racial profiling is a serious issue of great concern to the public particularly racialized residents of Ontario, including residents of Hamilton. Regulations come into force in January 2017 that prohibits such action. Hamilton Police Service enacted a policy in December 15, 2016. Statistics shows Blacks are four times as likely to be unjustifiably and arbitrarily stopped by police in Hamilton.
In a case where racial profiling is alleged:
Once the police discipline proceeding is engaged, whether by a complaint about officer misconduct by a member of the public, or by an “internally” generated complaint about officer conduct, the Part V PSA proceeding must proceed in accordance with the statute, including situations where the complaint raises a Code issue. The decision-makers at various stages in the PSA Part V process have no power to decline to deal with the Code issue on the basis that another more appropriate forum exists – they are not permitted to decline and defer to some other tribunal.
6. Other issues
It appears that a larger room and venue would be necessary for this hearing. It is a public hearing and I am concerned with the comments reported in the Hamilton Spectator and CBC that HPS Union Boss Client Twolan called the case a "circus" and claimed that Councillor Green is making a spectacle “to further his own political agenda.” See, Samantha Craggs, Police union says Matthew Green creating spectacle over carding complaint CBC Hamilton, December 15, 2016 and Molly Hayes, Police union boss calls Hamilton councillor’s carding case political theatre, Hamilton Spectator, December 15, 2016
I have already written to all concerned stating “I would suggest a venue that is not a police building. Comments like this can poison the atmosphere.”
Obviously, I will have to obtain instructions from the client on motions to be brought including for additional disclosure, change of venue etc.
Resources
CBC Hamilton Report, December 12, 2016
Matthew Green Complaint, April 2016
African Canadian Legal Clinic, Anti-Racial Profiling Toolkit, online: An ACLC Public Legal Education Resource
Ontario Human Rights Commission, Paying the Price: The Human Cost of Racial Profiling, online: Ontario Human Rights Commission
Ontario Human Rights Commission, Human rights and policing: creating and sustaining organizational change Online (Toronto: Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2011)
Ontario Human Rights Commission, eLearning module “Human Rights 101"
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(Ont. C.A). Test for Proving racial profiling
Toronto Police Association v Ontario (Civilian Commission on Police Services), 2010 ONSC 246 (CanLII), <>
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Pieters Law Office
Created December 17, 2016
Human Rights lawyer Selwyn Pieters who represents Councillor Matthew Green at the Police Services Act hearing related to the substantiated OIPRD finding of the April 26th, 2016 carding complaint issued by Councillor Green against Constable Andrew Pfeifer #406 of Hamilton Police Service answers some question in respect to the hearing that commenced in Hamilton, Ontario.
Constable Andrew Pfeifer of Hamilton Police Service face one count of discreditable conduct in that he acted in a disorderly manner or in a manner prejudicial to discipline or likely to bring discredit to the reputation of the Hamilton Police Service by engaging in an unjustified and arbitrarily street check contrary to section 2 (i)(a)(xi) of the Code of Conduct, as set out in O. Reg. 268/10 of the Police Services Act. This matter has been brought to hearing following an investigation conducted by Independent Police Review Director (the "OIPRD").
- A hearing officer Deputy Chief Terence Kelly, York Regional Police (Retired), will preside.
- Brian Duxbury and T. David Marshall are the Prosecutors appointed by the Chief of Police.
- Bernard Cummins and Ben Jeffries will be representing the Police Constable
- I am representing Councillor Matthew Green.
The first appearance was on December 15, 2016. A hearing by telephone conference is scheduled for January 31, 2017 to permit counsel for the complainant and police officer to review disclosure and be in a position to set a date for trial.
2. Have the facts been established or is part of your role to draw out the facts?
There were facts established during the investigation that brought the matter to a hearing. However, any facts that are acceptable by the hearing officer can be established by the parties agreeing as to the facts (Agreed Statement of Facts or ASF) or alternatively a full blown hearing on the merits of the charge in the Notice of Hearing in which examination in chief, cross-examinations and re-examinations take place. At this point no facts have been established for the purpose of the hearing as we only made a first appearance. Any established facts are what the Tribunal accepts as credible and trustworthy.
.
3. What would an appropriate outcome look like. In other words, what result is being sought by going through the hearing process?
The prosecutor would be seeking to establish misconduct on the part of the officer.
Mr. Green is a complainant and a witness in the proceeding with standing he is there to ensure that his version of the evidence is found to be credible. As well, on a broader level since this is an officer misconduct complaint that raises racial profiling as an issue, Mr. Green has an interest in ensuring the Hearing Officer adjudicate this case in a manner that recognizes its subtle, pervasive and unconscious nature of racism and that his decision is consistent with human rights principles set out in numerous Court of Appeal decisions.
4. In your estimation, how clear is this case? Is this unquestionably a case of police carding based on race? What challenges, if any, do you anticipate?
This is a case based on the circumstantial evidence. Importantly however that the only Black City Councillor would have this experience in his own city is illustrative of the fact that a Black person’s status, education, wealth or privilege does not immune him/or her from being targeted, arbitrarily stopped, questioned and sometimes detained by law enforcement officials, particularly police.
We will make the case that this was an unjustified and arbitrary street check and that it based in part on the race of Matthew Green.
5. Is there anything else you would like Hamiltonians to know about this matter or the issue of carding in general?
The “declaration of principles” in section 1 of the Police Services Act, proclaim the importance of the Human Rights Code and Charter in this statutory scheme. One of the enumerated principles of the provision of police services is:
2. The importance of safeguarding the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code.
Racial profiling is a serious issue of great concern to the public particularly racialized residents of Ontario, including residents of Hamilton. Regulations come into force in January 2017 that prohibits such action. Hamilton Police Service enacted a policy in December 15, 2016. Statistics shows Blacks are four times as likely to be unjustifiably and arbitrarily stopped by police in Hamilton.
In a case where racial profiling is alleged:
a. There is no need to prove intention or motivation to racially profile;See, for example, R. v. Brown (2003), 2003 CanLII 52142 (ON CA), 64 O.R. 161 at paras. 7 to 9; Peart v. Peel Regional Police Services, 2006 CanLII 37566 (ON CA), <http://canlii.ca/t/1pz1n>; Phipps v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1604 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/2608k>; Nassiah v. Peel (Regional Municipality) Services Board, 2007 HRTO 14 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/1rgcm>, Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 ONCA 396 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/fz590> and Naraine v. Ford Motor Co. [1996] O.H.R.B.I.D. No. 23 and R. v. Steele, 2015 ONCA 169 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/ggpng>
b. Racial profiling can rarely be proved by direct evidence;
c. Racial profiling will usually be the product of subtle, unconscious beliefs, biases and prejudices;
d. Race need only be a factor in the adverse treatment to constitute racial discrimination;
e. Racial profiling is a systemic practice;
f. Racial profiling is not limited to initial stops;
g. African Canadians may, because of their background and experience, feel especially unable to disregard police directions, and feel that assertion of their right to walk away will itself be taken as being evasive;
h. A person may experience racial profiling based on several overlapping and intersecting aspects of their identity; and
i. The use of abusive language by an individual who has experienced racial profiling at the hands of police cannot justify further differential treatment
Once the police discipline proceeding is engaged, whether by a complaint about officer misconduct by a member of the public, or by an “internally” generated complaint about officer conduct, the Part V PSA proceeding must proceed in accordance with the statute, including situations where the complaint raises a Code issue. The decision-makers at various stages in the PSA Part V process have no power to decline to deal with the Code issue on the basis that another more appropriate forum exists – they are not permitted to decline and defer to some other tribunal.
6. Other issues
It appears that a larger room and venue would be necessary for this hearing. It is a public hearing and I am concerned with the comments reported in the Hamilton Spectator and CBC that HPS Union Boss Client Twolan called the case a "circus" and claimed that Councillor Green is making a spectacle “to further his own political agenda.” See, Samantha Craggs, Police union says Matthew Green creating spectacle over carding complaint CBC Hamilton, December 15, 2016 and Molly Hayes, Police union boss calls Hamilton councillor’s carding case political theatre, Hamilton Spectator, December 15, 2016
I have already written to all concerned stating “I would suggest a venue that is not a police building. Comments like this can poison the atmosphere.”
Obviously, I will have to obtain instructions from the client on motions to be brought including for additional disclosure, change of venue etc.
Resources
CBC Hamilton Report, December 12, 2016
Matthew Green Complaint, April 2016
African Canadian Legal Clinic, Anti-Racial Profiling Toolkit, online: An ACLC Public Legal Education Resource
Ontario Human Rights Commission, Paying the Price: The Human Cost of Racial Profiling, online: Ontario Human Rights Commission
Ontario Human Rights Commission, Human rights and policing: creating and sustaining organizational change Online (Toronto: Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2011)
Ontario Human Rights Commission, eLearning module “Human Rights 101"
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(Ont. C.A). Test for Proving racial profiling
Toronto Police Association v Ontario (Civilian Commission on Police Services), 2010 ONSC 246 (CanLII), <>
Monday, December 12, 2016
Selwyn Pieters to Represent Councillor Matthew Green at Police Disciplinary Hearing
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Selwyn Pieters to Represent Councillor Matthew
Green at Hearing of
Constable Andrew Pfeifer Badge # 408
Hamilton, ON – December 12,
2016 – Civil rights lawyer Selwyn Pieters will represent Councillor Matthew
Green at the upcoming December 15th Police Services Act hearing related to the
substantiated OIPRD finding of the April 26th carding complaint issued by
Councillor Green against Constable Andrew Pfeifer of Hamilton Police Service.
“Given the unique structure
of the Police Services Act hearing process, I felt it important to retain the
nation’s foremost expert on matters related to my complaint. I am grateful to
have Mr. Pieters’ counsel throughout this process. I am confident that with his
support, the facts of the case will bear out,” says Councillor Matthew Green.
Selwyn Pieters has appeared
at all levels of court up to the Supreme Court of Canada. He has been counsel
in arguing numerous cases of racial
profiling, including carding, and discriminatory use of force including
successfully representing himself, citizens, and police officers before the
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and other administrative Tribunals. Selwyn is
also a member of the Bar of the Republic of Guyana and the Island of Trinidad.
The Police Services Act
Hearing is scheduled for 10:00 am December 15, 2016 at the Hamilton Central
Police Station at 155 King William St.
-30-
For Media Inquiries:
Selwyn A. Pieters,
B.A.,LL.B., L.E.C.
Email:
selwyn@selwynpieters.com
Phone: 1-416-787-5928
Resources
CBC Hamilton Report, December 12, 2016
Matthew Green Complaint, April 2016
African Canadian Legal Clinic, Anti-Racial Profiling Toolkit, online: An ACLC Public Legal Education Resource
Ontario Human Rights Commission, Paying the Price: The Human Cost of Racial Profiling, online: Ontario Human Rights Commission
Ontario Human Rights Commission, Human rights and policing: creating and sustaining organizational change Online (Toronto: Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2011)
Ontario Human Rights Commission, eLearning module “Human Rights 101"
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(Ont. C.A). Test for Proving racial profiling
Toronto Police Association v Ontario (Civilian Commission on Police Services), 2010 ONSC 246 (CanLII), <>
Resources
CBC Hamilton Report, December 12, 2016
Matthew Green Complaint, April 2016
African Canadian Legal Clinic, Anti-Racial Profiling Toolkit, online: An ACLC Public Legal Education Resource
Ontario Human Rights Commission, Paying the Price: The Human Cost of Racial Profiling, online: Ontario Human Rights Commission
Ontario Human Rights Commission, Human rights and policing: creating and sustaining organizational change Online (Toronto: Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2011)
Ontario Human Rights Commission, eLearning module “Human Rights 101"
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(Ont. C.A). Test for Proving racial profiling
Toronto Police Association v Ontario (Civilian Commission on Police Services), 2010 ONSC 246 (CanLII), <>
Friday, October 21, 2016
The Canadian Bar Association : What's New in Employment Remedies and Damages at the Human Rights Tribunal?
On November 02, 2016, I presented a paper at the Ontario Bar Association: Selwyn A. Pieters, "Using Public Interest Remedies to Impact Cultural Change" Online: <http://www.selwynpieters.com/documents/HumaRights_Ontario_PublicInterestRemedies_PietersPaper.pdf> See, bio for subject matter expertise.
Please read, like, share and comment.
Please read, like, share and comment.
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Supreme Court of Canada Releases Significant Decision on Proving Discrimination based on Race/Ethnicity (CDPDJ AND LATIF V. BOMBARDIER)
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)
Created July 23, 2015
“Discrimination can take a variety of forms. Although some of them are easy to identify, others are less obvious, such as those that result from unconscious prejudices and stereotypes or from standards that are neutral on their face but have adverse effects on certain persons. The Charter of human rights and freedoms, CQLR, c. C‑12 (“Charter”), prohibits the various forms of discrimination and creates a remedy for victims of discrimination.” Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, et al. v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center), et al. 2015 SCC 39, para. 1.
The Supreme Court has release its decision in Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, et al. v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center), et al. 2015 SCC 39 a case of racial/ethnic discrimination in employment that will have national ramifications for all discrimination cases. The significant issue of importance to human rights practitioners and litigants is "whether Court of Appeal erred in requiring proof of causal connection between ethnic origin and exclusion?" In other word, do the modified "causal" which is imported from the Civil Code makes it virtually impossible to prove discrimiantion by importing a standard that has no place in human rights law?
The facts in this case revolves around a Canadian pilot of Pakistani background, Mr. Javed Latif, who in 2004 was offered a job to pilot Bombardier Challenger aircrafts and was denied training (which took place in Quebec, Canada and Texas, U.S.A) by Bombardier due his being listed as a security threat by U.S. authorities. (In order to access training under a U.S. Federal Aviation Authority license, he had to pass a security check required by the U.S. government’s Alien Flight Students Program given that part of the training was to be offered in the U.S.).
As a result, Mr. Latif was denied employment and had problems finding work as a pilot. He filed a complaint of ethnic discrimination with the Quebec Human Rights and Youth Rights Commission, which upheld his case and brought it before the Human Rights Tribunal. In 2009, the Tribunal ruled in his favour and ordered Bombardier to pay him $385,000 in damages and to cease using U.S. national security screening criteria when dealing with Canadian applications for a pilot training license.
Bombardier appealed the ruling to the Quebec Court of Appeal, which quashed the Tribunal's decision in the fall of 2013. The Human Rights Commission obtained leave to appeal the Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court, seeking the latter’s clarification on a number of issues.
One of these issues is whether the Quebec Court of Appeal erred in requiring proof of a “causal connection” between the prohibited ground of ethnic origin and the discrimination experienced by the victim. Canadian jurisprudence on discrimination usually merely requires evidence that a prohibited ground, such as race or gender, was one of the factors in a discriminatory action or practice; this is a lower threshold to prove discrimination than that of “causal connection”.
In 2013, the Ontario Court of Appeal rejected a similar test in the ground-breaking racial profiling case of 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(Ont. C.A.). In that case, which involved the racial profiling of two Black lawyers (one of whom was prominent human rights lawyer Selwyn Pieters) and a student, two of whom had dreadlocks, the Ontario Court unanimously maintained a more liberal position and ruled against the lower Court’s requirement of a “causal nexus between the arbitrary distinction based on a prohibited ground and the disadvantage suffered.”
As the only Quebec intervener in the Bombardier case, Center for Research-Action on Race Relations (CRARR) called for a “consistent, uniform and unequivocal evidentiary requirement for assessing discrimination claims … to guide all equality-seeking individuals and groups as well as all courts and tribunals in Quebec (and) in the rest of Canada.”
In upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada cited with approval Mr. Justice Juriansz's reasoning in Peel Law Association v. Pieters as well as the reasoning in Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 (SCC), as the appropriate test required to prove discrimination:
On the issue of social context evidence, the Supreme Court of Canada held that:
Unfortunately for Mr. Latif the Court held that he had not discharged the legal burden of proving discrimination on a balance of probabilities, and that a prohibited ground of discrimination is one factor involved in the decisions or actions on the part of the employer that are alleged to constitute a violation of the Quebec's Charter.
Mr. Selwyn Pieters, co-counsel for CRARR, and CRARR's Executive Director Fo Niemi will be available for comment on the Supreme Court decision.
Information: Selwyn Pieters: (416) 787-5928
Fo Niemi: (416) 808-6119
CRARR
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Created July 23, 2015
“Discrimination can take a variety of forms. Although some of them are easy to identify, others are less obvious, such as those that result from unconscious prejudices and stereotypes or from standards that are neutral on their face but have adverse effects on certain persons. The Charter of human rights and freedoms, CQLR, c. C‑12 (“Charter”), prohibits the various forms of discrimination and creates a remedy for victims of discrimination.” Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, et al. v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center), et al. 2015 SCC 39, para. 1.
The Supreme Court has release its decision in Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, et al. v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center), et al. 2015 SCC 39 a case of racial/ethnic discrimination in employment that will have national ramifications for all discrimination cases. The significant issue of importance to human rights practitioners and litigants is "whether Court of Appeal erred in requiring proof of causal connection between ethnic origin and exclusion?" In other word, do the modified "causal" which is imported from the Civil Code makes it virtually impossible to prove discrimiantion by importing a standard that has no place in human rights law?
The facts in this case revolves around a Canadian pilot of Pakistani background, Mr. Javed Latif, who in 2004 was offered a job to pilot Bombardier Challenger aircrafts and was denied training (which took place in Quebec, Canada and Texas, U.S.A) by Bombardier due his being listed as a security threat by U.S. authorities. (In order to access training under a U.S. Federal Aviation Authority license, he had to pass a security check required by the U.S. government’s Alien Flight Students Program given that part of the training was to be offered in the U.S.).
As a result, Mr. Latif was denied employment and had problems finding work as a pilot. He filed a complaint of ethnic discrimination with the Quebec Human Rights and Youth Rights Commission, which upheld his case and brought it before the Human Rights Tribunal. In 2009, the Tribunal ruled in his favour and ordered Bombardier to pay him $385,000 in damages and to cease using U.S. national security screening criteria when dealing with Canadian applications for a pilot training license.
Bombardier appealed the ruling to the Quebec Court of Appeal, which quashed the Tribunal's decision in the fall of 2013. The Human Rights Commission obtained leave to appeal the Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court, seeking the latter’s clarification on a number of issues.
One of these issues is whether the Quebec Court of Appeal erred in requiring proof of a “causal connection” between the prohibited ground of ethnic origin and the discrimination experienced by the victim. Canadian jurisprudence on discrimination usually merely requires evidence that a prohibited ground, such as race or gender, was one of the factors in a discriminatory action or practice; this is a lower threshold to prove discrimination than that of “causal connection”.
In 2013, the Ontario Court of Appeal rejected a similar test in the ground-breaking racial profiling case of 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(Ont. C.A.). In that case, which involved the racial profiling of two Black lawyers (one of whom was prominent human rights lawyer Selwyn Pieters) and a student, two of whom had dreadlocks, the Ontario Court unanimously maintained a more liberal position and ruled against the lower Court’s requirement of a “causal nexus between the arbitrary distinction based on a prohibited ground and the disadvantage suffered.”
As the only Quebec intervener in the Bombardier case, Center for Research-Action on Race Relations (CRARR) called for a “consistent, uniform and unequivocal evidentiary requirement for assessing discrimination claims … to guide all equality-seeking individuals and groups as well as all courts and tribunals in Quebec (and) in the rest of Canada.”
In upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada cited with approval Mr. Justice Juriansz's reasoning in Peel Law Association v. Pieters as well as the reasoning in Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 (SCC), as the appropriate test required to prove discrimination:
[49] In a recent decision concerning the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that it is preferable to use the terms commonly used by the courts in dealing with discrimination, such as “connection” and “factor”: Peel Law Assn. v. Pieters, 2013 ONCA 396, 116 O.R. (3d) 80, at para. 59. In that court’s opinion, the use of the modifier “causal” elevates the test beyond what is required, since human rights jurisprudence focuses on the discriminatory effects of conduct rather than on the existence of an intention to discriminate or of direct causes: para. 60. We agree with the Ontario Court of Appeal’s reasoning on this point. Moreover, this Court used the term “factor” in a recent decision concerning British Columbia’s human rights code: Moore, at para. 33.
[50] It is more appropriate to use the terms “connection” and “factor” in relation to discrimination, especially since the expression “lien causal” has a specific meaning in the civil law of Quebec. In civil liability matters, the plaintiff must establish on a balance of probabilities that there is a causal relationship between the defendant’s fault and the injury suffered by the plaintiff: J.‑C. Royer and S. Lavallée, La preuve civile (4th ed. 2008), at para. 158. The Quebec courts have defined this causal relationship as requiring that the damage be a logical, direct and immediate consequence of the fault. This rule therefore means that the cause must have a [translation] “close” relationship with the injury suffered by the victim: J.‑L. Baudouin, P. Deslauriers and B. Moore, La responsabilité civile (8th ed. 2014), at para. 1‑683.
[51] A close relationship is not required in a discrimination case under the Charter, however. To hold otherwise would be to disregard the fact that, since there may be many different reasons for a defendant’s acts, proof of such a relationship could impose too heavy a burden on the plaintiff. Some of those reasons may, of course, provide a justification for the defendant’s acts, but the burden is on the defendant to prove this. It is therefore neither appropriate nor accurate to use the expression “causal connection” in the discrimination context.
[52] In short, as regards the second element of prima facie discrimination, the plaintiff has the burden of showing that there is a connection between a prohibited ground of discrimination and the distinction, exclusion or preference of which he or she complains or, in other words, that the ground in question was a factor in the distinction, exclusion or preference. Finally, it should be noted that the list of prohibited grounds in s. 10 of the Charter is exhaustive, unlike the one in the Canadian Charter : City of Montréal, at para. 69.
On the issue of social context evidence, the Supreme Court of Canada held that:
It cannot be presumed solely on the basis of a social context of discrimination against a group that a specific decision against a member of that group is necessarily based on a prohibited ground under the Charter. In practice, this would amount to reversing the burden of proof in discrimination matters. Evidence of discrimination, even if it is circumstantial, must be tangibly related to the impugned decision or conduct. As a result, it was not open to the Tribunal in this case to conclude that B’s decision constituted prima facie discrimination under the Charter. The conclusion in this case does not mean that a company can blindly comply with a discriminatory decision of a foreign authority without exposing itself to liability under the Charter. This conclusion flows from the fact that there is simply no evidence of a connection between a prohibited ground and the foreign decision in question.This again was emphasized in Pieters as well:
[121] In this case, I am not persuaded that any unfairness resulted from the Vice-Chair’s reference to Nassiah. The reference did not affect his disposition of what I regard to be the main issue in the case—whether the appellants’ race and colour were factors in their selection for questioning. At most they played a minor role in his finding that their race and colour were factors in the manner in which they were questioned. After referring to Nassiah, the Vice-Chair was careful to point out he had “already” made findings about the manner in which the librarian had questioned the appellants. The librarian had “interrupted [the first appellant] while he was on the telephone and, it appears, did not introduce herself to the applicants and [the articling student]”. Furthermore, “[f]rom all the evidence, including the personal respondent's testimony of how she generally carried out this function”, the Vice-Chair concluded that “the blunt and demanding manner in which she asked her questions was not how she would approach and question persons that she imagined were lawyers and had a right to be in the lounge”. These findings of fact relate to the particular encounter in this case; they are not based on generalizations drawn from social science.
Unfortunately for Mr. Latif the Court held that he had not discharged the legal burden of proving discrimination on a balance of probabilities, and that a prohibited ground of discrimination is one factor involved in the decisions or actions on the part of the employer that are alleged to constitute a violation of the Quebec's Charter.
Mr. Selwyn Pieters, co-counsel for CRARR, and CRARR's Executive Director Fo Niemi will be available for comment on the Supreme Court decision.
- 30 -
Information: Selwyn Pieters: (416) 787-5928
Fo Niemi: (416) 808-6119
CRARR
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Case history of racial profiling and carding in Ontario: Selwyn Pieters
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)
Created June 17, 2015
“Racism, and in particular anti-Black racism, is a part of our community’s psyche. A significant segment of our community holds overtly racist views. A much larger segment subconsciously operates on the basis of negative racial stereotypes. Furthermore, our institutions, including the criminal justice system, reflect and perpetuate those negative stereotypes.” R. v. Parks, (1993) 15 OR (3d) 324; 24 CR (4th) 81; 84 CCC (3d) 353; [1993] OJ No 2157 (QL); 21 WCB (2d) 121; 65 OAC 122 (Ont. C.A.), p. 369.
I am one of the leading lawyers in Ontario on the carding and racial profiling file. I therefore take this opportunity to chart my own journey in the quest for a juster justice system and the elimination of lawless law enforcement. Twenty three years after Carlton Parks decision very little has changed in respect to the lot of Black males in Toronto and Ontario in respect to our interactions with law enforcement, Courts and Tribunals. I recently litigated a carding incident of lawyering whilst Black arising out of a carding incident in a lawyers' lounge up to the Court of Appeal: 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(Ont. C.A.) and most recently R. v. Steele 2015 CarswellOnt 3334, 2015 ONCA 169, [2015] O.J. No. 1253 (Ont. C.A.). Leave to the Supreme Court of Canada denied: R. v. Steele, 2015 CanLII 43092 (SCC).
Selwyn argued numerous case of racial profiling in Criminal Courts including: R. v. Agil, Chambers, Fullerton, Jimale and Brown 2011 CarswellOnt 18099 (Ont. CJ. July 14, 2011, Khawley J.) [Carding led to a big gun, drugs and gang case that I successfully litigated in Toronto... Project Threadbare the Judge called it because of the lack of evidence]; 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. 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.).
M. (R.) was a case involving a youth 14 years old who was arrested four time by Toronto Police all based on racial profiling and improperly targeted him for arrest and detention based on Code-related grounds. He has no convictions yet was targetted, carded, arrested, detained, on several occassions. His case was fiercely litigated by Toronto Police and the reported decisions stand as a monument to the challenges litigants face in litigating racial profiling:
M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 CarswellOnt 12134, 2013 HRTO 1472M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board was settled to the satisfaction of all parties and the terms of settlement reached remain confidential.
M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 CarswellOnt 11941
M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 1102
M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 73
M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2012 CarswellOnt 11158
M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, [2011] O.H.R.T.D. No. 618, 2011 HRTO 410
M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2011 ONCJ 143, 2011 CarswellOnt 1980, 2011 ONCJ 143, 274 C.C.C. (3d) 272 (Ont. CJ.)
M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2010 CarswellOnt 9121, 2010 HRTO 2349
Carding by Toronto Police killed Dwayne Manning: Manning v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2014 HRTO 1409 (CanLII). This became one of my most difficult and challenging case. As Dwayne Manning continued to be carded and harassed his confidence was shaken and his mental health declined. He took his life in 2014.
My most satisfaction came from my face-off with three police officers who shattered my confidence in Toronto Police as an entity that respects that rights of citizens. Pieters v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2014 HRTO 1729 (CanLII). In this case, I witnessed racialized violence against two Black males and intervened. I took this case to the HRTO with no regrets.
Tuesday, June 09, 2015
John Tory, Toronto Police Services Board, Elimination of Carding and Racial Profiling - A Critical Viewpoint on the Issue
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)
Created June 9, 2015
“Racism, and in particular anti-Black racism, is a part of our community’s psyche. A significant segment of our community holds overtly racist views. A much larger segment subconsciously operates on the basis of negative racial stereotypes. Furthermore, our institutions, including the criminal justice system, reflect and perpetuate those negative stereotypes.” R. v. Parks, (1993) 15 OR (3d) 324; 24 CR (4th) 81; 84 CCC (3d) 353; [1993] OJ No 2157 (QL); 21 WCB (2d) 121; 65 OAC 122 (Ont. C.A.), p. 369.
I am one of the leading lawyers in Ontario on the carding and racial profiling file. I therefore take this opportunity to chart my own journey in the quest for a juster justice system and the elimination of lawless law enforcement. Twenty three years after Carlton Parks decision very little has changed in respect to the lot of Black males in Toronto and Ontario in respect to our interactions with law enforcement, Courts and Tribunals. I recently litigated a carding incident of lawyering whilst Black arising out of a carding incident in a lawyers' lounge up to the Court of Appeal: 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(Ont. C.A.) and most recently R. v. Steele (2015) ONCA 169 (Ont. C.A.). As well, other lawyers have also felt the brunt of racial profiling in the Black/brown skin that we are in Shallow v. Toronto (Police Services Board), 2008-00492-I, a case that was before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, where a Black Crown Attorney complained about being belittled and falsely arrested because of his race: "The unspoken message to me was: lawyer, Crown, or whatever, you're still just a black guy so know your place, boy"; Bogle v. Toronto Police Services Board: On December 27, 2005, his birthdate, Jason Bogle, a 26 year old Black Lawyer, and his girlfriend, were surrounded in his Lexus vehicle shortly after he left a celebration of his birthday to take his girlfriend home. The excuse that the officers provided was that he fit the description of a suspect and that in the wake of the Boxing Day Jane Creba shooting they cannot be too careful. See also, Pieters v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2014 HRTO 1729 (CanLII). In this case, I witnessed racialized violence against two Black males and intervened. I took this case to the HRTO with no regrets.
On Sunday June 07, 2015, John Tory, Mayor of Toronto, announced that he has had a change of heart in respect to the carding of citizens by Toronto Police Service. This announcement on a Sunday evening was met with jubilation.
Obviously, the "all hand on deck" approach to this issue brought John Tory to a come to Jesus moment. However, on the ground for numerous years dealing with this issue were Jim Rankin, a reporter with the Toronto Star; Selwyn Pieters, the author, here who has litigated these case at every level of Courts in Ontario; David Tanovich who have written, taught and spoke out on this issue; the African Canadian Legal Clinic, whose advocacy and public relations on this file was sustained.
While Mayor John Tory pledge to eliminate carding, some system of accountability is required for police interactions with citizens. The provision of reasons for the stop, the issuing of receipts for police interactions and advising citizens that they are free to leave, would be a step forward.
Least we forget, the struggle to end carding involved numerous persons who paid a high price including me. Carding by Toronto Police killed my former client Dwayne Manning. I filed a Human Rights Application bases on the numerous instances Mr. Manning was carded. He continued to be harassed in Downtown Toronto by police officers. As Dwayne Manning continued to be carded and harassed his confidence was shaken and his mental health declined. Dwayne took his own life. See, Manning v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2014 HRTO 1409 (CanLII) where his case was deemed abandoned because of his death.
I am currently counsel for two men Rohan Roberts and Michael Duru in the Jane and Finch area who were racially profiled, carded, arrested and charged by Officers Ryan D'Sena and Andrew Keown. Rohan Roberts criminal charges were withdrawn on April 28, 2015 on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect for conviction. For coverage of Roberts case , See, Jeff Gray Toronto police face human-rights complaint over alleged beating Globe and Mail, June 05, 2015; Mark Carcasole, Reporter, Global News, Toronto man launches human rights complaint against police, Global TV, June 05, 2015; Greg Ross, Toronto man files human rights complaint after alleged police beating CBC TV, June 04, 2015; Tammie Sutherland, EXCLUSIVE: Charges dropped against man who alleged Toronto police brutality CityNews, April 28, 2015.
In a recent letter to Mark Saunders, Chief of Police, I wrote:
It is not a crime for a Black man in Jane and Finch to be in and around his neighbourhood. I live in Regent Park and I walk in my neighbourhood any hour of the day and night as that is my prerogative. I trust that you will, in your new role, reinforce to your officers that citizens have rights under The Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 (the "Charter"); Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”); Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15 as amended. This is not North Korea.Michael Duru's charges are set for a five day trial commencing in March 2016.
Michael Duru made a blurry video of the January 2015 interaction that went viral: http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/28/video-of-alleged-violent-takedown-by-officer-being-investigated-by-toronto-police/
Michael Duru video
This is my recollection of being locked out of police headquarters on November 14, 2012, when members of the African Canadian Community attended to make deputations and observe the Board's meeting on carding/racial profiling:
As a litigator who is involved in issues of racial profiling in criminal matters, civil matters and human rights applications, naturally I have an interest in the Toronto Police Service and how its policies in this area that touches on the fundamental rights of citizens in this City are shaped.In terms of this file, I have litigated carding and racial profiling before Courts and Tribunals on behalf of myself and numerous other people whose rights in my view were violated.
I attended the Toronto Police Services Board meeting on November 14, 2012, to be met by a wall of police officers who denied total access to persons interested in attending that meeting, most of whom were Black people. The claim the the meeting room was full was proven to be false by Televisions reports that showed empty seats. As well, it is the normal practice to stream the meeting into an overflow room.
The Chair of the Police Services Board Alok Mukerjee and the Chief of Police William Blair are responsible for this disrespectful treatment.
Lets see who were outside: John Sewell, a former mayor could not get in. African Canadian Legal Clinic Lawyer Roger Love could not get.
I could not get into police headquarters to attend this public meeting. Here I am being blocked along with Tidy Francis and Steven Mayers.
Three Black Deputants could not get in. To add injury to insult one was stopped, carded and denied access. The female Sargeant even recorded his personal information on her cellular telephone - a total violation of what a public meeting is supposedly about open access and possibly a violation of the man's privacy.
In fact even the media was prevented from entering the meeting, it took a lot of time and effort for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to gain entry to that public meeting. The Toronto Star also reported on the lock out of citizens who were there to make deputations.
Pieters v. Department of National Revenue, 2001 CanLII 38322 (CHRT), was one of the first cases to reach a Human Rights Tribunal where the allegations of racial profiling was central to the issue. That case was settled: Pieters v. Dept of National Revenue - Minutes of Settlement T650/3801, January 30, 2002. Amongst the terms of the settlement were:
3. The Respondent agrees to provide a letter of apology to the Complainant from the Commissioner of the CCRA with respect to the comment made to the Complainant by an employee of the Respondent on May 24, 1999.Selwyn argued numerous case of racial profiling in Criminal Courts including: R. v. Agil, Chambers, Fullerton, Jimale and Brown 2011 CarswellOnt 18099 (Ont. CJ. July 14, 2011, Khawley J.)
4. The Respondent undertakes that the criteria applied by Customs officers at ports of entry shall not include criteria that discriminate unlawfully on the basis of race, colour, national or ethnic origin or gender, or other prohibited grounds.
5. The Respondent, in consultation with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) and the ACLC, will request proposals and retain an external contractor to design and implement a pilot project intended to develop statistics on referrals to secondary examination, based on race, colour, national and ethnic origin and gender of referrals in the context of all passengers passing through ports of entry. The time frame and location(s) of the pilot project will be determined by the Respondent in consultation with the external contractor, the CHRC and the ACLC. The project will also analyze, on the basis of race, colour, national or ethnic origin and gender, the impact of the criteria applied by Customs officers at ports of entry and make appropriate recommendations. The result of the pilot project will be provided to the CHRC and the ACLC, and the Respondent will consult with the CHRC and the ACLC respecting the implementation of its recommendations.
6. The pilot project will consider the collection on a permanent basis of the data described in Article 5. The Respondent will consult with the CHRC on the general purposes of any measures that may be recommended from the pilot project prior to any decision on the further collection of such data. If these data are collected on a permanent basis, CCRA shall collect and analyze such data annually and prepare a report to the Minister of National Revenue and to the CHRC, which shall be made part of the public record.
7. On or before March 1, 2002, the Respondent shall retain an anti-racism expert, external to CCRA, to provide anti-racism and cultural diversity training to all Customs officers. Each new officer shall receive this anti-racism training within 180 days of hire, and all student officers shall receive anti-racism training as part of their orientation. Refresher anti-racism training will be provided to all customs officers on a regular basis.
8. The Respondent undertakes to ensure that CCRA policy directs Customs officers to advise each person directed to secondary inspection of the reason for conducting such inspection.
9. The Commissioner of CCRA, or the Assistant Commissioner, will meet with the ACLC on an annual basis to hear the perceptions and impacts of CCRA Customs practices on racialized groups. The ACLC will bring representatives of appropriate community groups to these meetings.
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. 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.).
At the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, I have litigated several significant cases, some of which I won, some of which I lost and some of which I settled through mediation.
Racial profiling and carding of Black, Brown and Aboriginal peoples in Canada makes society poor. It fosters distrust where mutual respect should exist. This observation was previous made by me on social media and attracted the following comment from Toronto criminal defence lawyer Jeffry House"
I loved yesterday's press conference in which many elite Canadians demanded an end to carding. But it raised a question in my mind: how come the head of the Human Rights Commission (for ten years) and the Chief Justice of Ontario (for 16 years) never managed to use their power to stop it? Instead, they wait till they are without official power, and resort to exhortations to others?
Copyright © 2015 Selwyn Pieters. All rights reserved. Please use citation if using or relying on my analysis.
Friday, April 24, 2015
Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users v. BCHRT, 2015 BCSC 534 - Causal Nexus Rejected
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 April 24, 2015
In Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users v. British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, 2015 BCSC 534, the Honourable Madam Justice Sharma had cause to consider the test for establishing discrimination.
Of course, in Moore v British Columbia (Education) 2012 SCC 61, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 360, Justice Abella stated that to demonstrate prima facie discrimination, claimants must show:
- That they have a protected or equivalent characteristic;
- That they experience an adverse impact, and
- That the characteristic was a factor.
In 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(Ont. C.A.), the Court of Appeal reject the requirement of a "causal nexus" or "Causal connection" or causal link instead holding that:
[54] The Court did not indicate from where it derived this test. The term "causal nexus" does not appear in Tranchemontagne, which the Divisional Court cited before setting out this test. The test is not one that human rights tribunals have traditionally applied. (...)
[59] While the word “nexus” is perfectly acceptable, I think it preferable to continue to use the terms more commonly used in the jurisprudence developed under the Code. All that is required is that there be a “connection” between the adverse treatment and the ground of discrimination. The ground of discrimination must somehow be a “factor” in the adverse treatment.
[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.
[61] I conclude that the Divisional Court erred in law by applying an incorrect and stricter test of discrimination in deciding this case (…)
This issue of causal link, causal connection or causal nexus was also recently argued on January 23, 2015 at the Supreme Court of Canada in Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, et al. v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center), et al. (decision reserved), as that is a requirement to prove discrimination under the civil law of Quebec.
I was therefore quite interested in reading the decision of Madam Justice Sharma, particularly paragraphs 59 and 60 that squares with Moore and Pieters:
[59] In my view, there is a significant difference between proving personal characteristics are “causally” connected to adverse treatment versus them being “a factor” in the adverse treatment. Requiring claimants to prove a causative connection elevates the legal burden on the claimant beyond what the SCC stated in Moore and would be inconsistent with the equality jurisprudence under the Charter.I am not sure where the the confusion lies with some courts and/or tribunals, however, the common law is settled 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).
[60] The essence of discrimination is the disproportionate impact of a law or activity and, therefore, the focus of the legal test must also be on effects. The definitions of the prima facie test in both Coast Mountain and Moore do require claimants to demonstrate a relationship between the personal characteristics and adverse treatment. But proving a causative connection imports a “cause and effect” analysis; the claimant would need to establish that the protected ground was the factor that caused the adverse treatment, rather than simply a factor. This neglects the practical reality of situations in which discrimination is found. Adverse impacts are often the result of a constellation of factors, where the protected grounds are but one factor, but a factor nonetheless. The test in Moore properly recognizes this distinction. Furthermore, undertaking a “cause and effect” analysis could improperly focus on the design or intention underlying the actions or system at issue. As discussed below, this would be a further source of potential error, as one does not need to prove an intention to discrimination to find a violation of the Code.
Copyright © 2015 Selwyn Pieters. All rights reserved. Please use citation if using or relying on my analysis.
********
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 and Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, et al. v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center), et al. (2015 - decision reserved); 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.), McAteer v. Canada (Attorney General) 2014 CarswellOnt 10955, 2014 ONCA 578, 121 O.R. (3d) 1, 376 D.L.R. (4th) 258 (CA) and most recently R. v. Steele (2015) ONCA 169 (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(Ont. C.A.).
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 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 and Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, et al. v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center), et al. (2015 - decision reserved); 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.), McAteer v. Canada (Attorney General) 2014 CarswellOnt 10955, 2014 ONCA 578, 121 O.R. (3d) 1, 376 D.L.R. (4th) 258 (CA) and most recently R. v. Steele (2015) ONCA 169 (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(Ont. C.A.).
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.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
Monday, March 16, 2015
Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry - Propaganda Press of Guyana Chronicle
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 March 17, 2015
On January 07, 2015, I wrote to the Secretariat of the Walter Rodney Commission stating as follows:
Thank you for your correspondence in respect to the proposed resumption of the Commission which you advised may resume sitting on January 26, 2015. On November 07, 2014, that was the final day of the last round of hearings, Chairman Sir. Richard L. Cheltenham closed the hearing with this pronouncement “We will issue a notice well in advance as to when next we will be meeting, but the days and months ahead might be uncertain. Even though we have agreed on a date, we will let you know closer to the time because we may have to change depending on what is happening on the ground.” An uncertainty or more has arisen. Fundamentally, Parliament has been prorogued under Article 70 (1) of the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, Chapter 1:01. The President in his New Years message has announced that he will be calling elections within the first quarter of 2015. It appears premature to propose any schedule until the issues of state as mentioned above are settled. That is my respectful view having regard to the circumstances and Mr. Basil Williams email below that speaks to the election campaigning that is occurring in Guyana with the political parties.No formal response was received from the Commission as is the usual pattern of behavior when counsel send correspondence to the Commission Secretariat.
The Commission resumes its public hearings from March 23, 2015 to March 27, 2015. In the leadup to the resumption of the Commission the propaganda continues. On March 16, 2015, I wrote the following in response to an article in Guyana Chronicle:
On another note, I applaud freedom of the press and "responsible journalism". However, the propaganda in the Guyana Chronicle leaves much to be desired and does politicized the Commission in an unacceptable way. Today's online publication in its headline section alone illustrates the point:
"Our nation stands perplexed and puzzled that Opposition Leader, Brigadier David Granger, adamantly refuses to participate in this process. One would expect, not only as a former top leader of the Guyana Defense Force (GDF), but also given his current leadership role in our nation, that Brigadier Granger would want to solve the Dr Rodney cold case and see the ghost of the past put to rest." RODNEY’S DEATH: AN ENIGMA BEING ANSWERED Special Report on the Rodney Commission of Inquiry by Shaun Michael Samaroo : Rohee testifies to Commission of X13 <http://guyanachronicle.com/rodneys-death-an-enigma-being-answered-special-report-on-the-rodney-commission-of-inquiry-by-shaun-michael-samaroo-rohee-testifies-to-commission-of-x13/> retrieved on 2015-03-16
The Commission has yet to reach witnesses Lincoln Lewis, Cecil Skip Roberts, Norman McLean, Rupert Roopnarine. This process, unless Salmon Letters, were issued, is voluntary. So it is unclear why the taxpayer funded papers is carrying the line that Granger "adamantly refuses to participate in this process." In a meaningful way Granger is present in through his counsel Basil Williams.
"But the Opposition Leader refuses to acknowledge the Commission’s integrity, and even said that if his coalition wins the May 11 national elections, he would terminate the Commission’s work." It was repeated to the Commission more than once that a Presidential Commission survives irrespective of who is the President of the Republic of Guyana. How then does the Guyana Chronicle get away with the irresponsibility of stating that the Commission folds if a new government assumes power?
"The Commission vindicates the role of the Working People’s Alliance (WPA), and is writing the admirable history of this political party in the making of modern Guyana." The Commission has made no findings and has written nothing in respect to the WPA or any other political party.
"The Opposition uses the excuse that the Government is using the Commission as political currency, to opt out of facing the evidence the Commission unearths." As a Canadian based lawyer of Guyanese origin reading this said view that the Commission is being used as "political currency", the process of examination, cross-examination, re-examination and other built in mechanism such as impartiality, integrity and other tennets of the quasi-judicial system makes that difficult, in the hearing process. [For a discussion on challenges in the hearing process and the conduct of the Commission of Inquiry, please see, previous blog postings: A Revisiting of the Issue of Partiality or Impartiality of the Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry, Oct 22, 2014; Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry - Gerald "Gerry" Gouveia evidence - Does a Reasonable apprehension of bias exist?, June 26, 2014; and Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry - The Battle for Contemporaneous Documents June 13, 2014]
[......].
The witnesses up to the final moment of the Commission's hearing remains to be seen. However, purported blackmail of potential and/or prospective witnesses through unfounded and untested allegations splashed across the national newspapers are unhelpful.
In Canada, Leon Mugesera faced the music for his propaganda and speeches in the lead up to a genocide. Mugesera v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2005] 2 SCR 100, 2005 SCC 40 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/1l249> retrieved on 2015-03-16
I pull no punches in say[ing] that given the current situational context in Guyana such publications in the face of an election campaign is not only unhelpful but disgraceful.
See also, PPP calls for Granger, Harmon to appear before Rodney CoI –to account for missing army weapons <http://guyanachronicle.com/ppp-calls-for-granger-harmon-to-appear-before-rodney-coi-to-account-for-missing-army-weapons/> retrieved on 2015-03-16
Guyana Times, Last Chance <http://www.guyanatimesgy.com/2015/03/05/last-chance/> retrieved on 2015-03-16
Youtube <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TrTAt1u_dY> Post Cabinet press briefing by HPS Dr Roger Luncheon 4th March, 2015 starts at 20:39 retrieved on 2015-03-16
GINA <http://www.gina.gov.gy/home/index.php/home/all-news/item/1968-rodney-s-death-hps-queries-why-surviving-pnc-personalities-of-that-era-have-not-yet-volunteered-to-testify-before-coi> Rodney’s death… HPS queries why surviving PNC personalities of that era have not yet volunteered to testify before COI retrieved on 2015-03-16
********
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 and Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, et al. v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center), et al. (2015 - decision reserved); 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.), McAteer v. Canada (Attorney General) 2014 CarswellOnt 10955, 2014 ONCA 578, 121 O.R. (3d) 1, 376 D.L.R. (4th) 258 (CA) and most recently R. v. Steele (2015) ONCA 169 (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(Ont. C.A.).
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.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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)