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:

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.

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.

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:

[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

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 1472
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

M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board was settled to the satisfaction of all parties and the terms of settlement reached remain confidential.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.)
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.

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.

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!

Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry - Charles Rishiram Ramson on Guyana Police Force

A retired Judge enlightened view on the Guyana Police Force

A 1986 picture of Tactical Services Unit members
some of whom served in 1979.
The member circled in red is very special

"Mr. Pieters: You see that is the problem with stereotyping...
Justice Ramson: That is not stereotyping. You do not know that in this country in order to relieve
the country of the crime rate in those days Mr. Burnham took all the people who were known criminals and made them Policemen.
Mr. Pieters: You see again that is the problem …
Justice Ramson: You do not know that, I am telling you.
Mr. Pieters: You see that is the problem. You are now denigrating the character of people who served this country...."


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 November 05, 2014
Updated on November 07, 2014

As a lawyer with significant experience in human rights, civil rights and non-adversarial matters, I was retained to represent its interest of the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC) at the Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry. I am currently co-counsel representing the Guyana Trades Union Congress in the Walter Anthony Rodney Commission of Inquiry in Georgetown, Guyana.

Whether as Judicial Officers or Information Commissioner, lawyer or ordinary Joe Public. stereotyping is simply wrong. That was the point to which I took on Charles Ramson on November 03, 2014. Part of Charles Ramson examination in Chief before the Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry comes to mind when providing evidence on the predominantly Black, Afro-Guyanese, Tactical Services Unit of the Guyana Police Force:

Justice Ramson: Correct. He did not had a car at the time so wanted a lift home from the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP)’s place and I offered to drop him home, but we wanted to go and see this… have a look and see what is going on at this meeting because the political temperature was rising, the thermostat was bursting at the seams. So we wanted to see what was going on, not to be participants that is why we stood so far away about 500 yards away from the meeting and if you know Mr. Chang, Justice Chang is not a man who likes to be involved at a political level. So while we were there, we noticed a squad of Policemen or people who were dressed in Pplice clothing. In those days we used to call it the riot squad. I do not know it is the same as the TSU now, but the Riot Squad had a particular set of clothes that you know when they are coming and they were big hunky, five foot, six foot and six foot four people, the mere presence use to frighten them.
Mr. Hanoman: They used to make you as well afraid Justice Ramson?
Justice Ramson: Of course, what happen to me, I do not look like six foot, four. I may have a very strong mind and personality, I do not ever believe I can be described as a coward, but I can tell you I was no match physically for those… some of them said they were not Policemen, that is evidence in the case. The defense in the case was these people were thugs from the House of Israel and the Court of Appeal gave them short shrift it is all part of the evidence. When you read the case you will see it.
Mr. Hanoman: So this group of Police who you identified as Riot Police were approaching yourself and Justice Ian Chang…
Justice Ramson: And as they were coming, they were clearing the streets people who were standing on the road, hanging around, going into the people’s yard and pulled them out. So Justice Chang and I were standing and watching and seeing what they were doing not knowing we were going to be the last victims. Well when I say “we” not him. So when they approached, I knew the man who was the Officer in charge because I interacted, I did a lot of criminal works in those days and I had to interact with most of the Policemen they even used to call me “Al Pacino” and “Serpico”. They had a big film called “Justice for All” or something and “Serpico”. So the Policemen who got to know me they gave me that moniker.

Cross-examination by Pieters - part of my aim here was to expose the absurdity  of the testimony, particularly in so far as members of the Tactical Services Services Unit are concerned. He you will see when challenged on his height desgription, it changed from 6'4", to 6'2" or 6'3":

Mr. Pieters: Let me quote the passage to you Justice Ramson. It says, “It is quite evident that the Police following their directive from the Divisional Headquarters went to the venue of the proposed meeting prepared for and ready to deal with such preaches as might occur. Even the Riot Squad was there, but they did not go into action nor did in support of his viva voce evidence speak to any incidence whatsoever involved in the preach of the peace”. Do you recall that passage from your case?
Justice Ramson: I am accepting you reading verbatim, I do not recall it, but they obviously are referring to where the actual venue was, not where I was. I was 500 yards away from there.
Mr. Pieters: I appreciate that you were …
Justice Ramson: I accept Counsel’s word, I do not …
Mr. Pieters: So the Riot Squad, you say that it was member of the Riot Squad that attacked you.
Justice Ramson: That is how I know them; I see it marked on their helmet and I am telling you again I know about the different in physical attributes of different departments of the Police Force. They got certain people who are traffic people and they would be of a certain kind of stature. When it comes to the resisting any encroachments on the right of the State, they have these very large fellas and they belong to Special Squads. The Special Branch of this country, you do not even know that they are Special Branch; some of them look like market people.
Mr. Pieters: Let us deal with the size of Police Officers because you seem to be sort of misrepresenting or seem to be portraying that protest, misrepresentation of what Police Officers were at that material time. Any Police Officers that were hired by the Guyana Police Force came through the Felix Austin Police College before they were just dispersed to any specific unit.
Justice Ramson: That College came long after the time I am talking about.
Mr. Pieters: So you are saying that Eve Leary did not exist in 19 …
Justice Ramson: But it was not called Felix Austin …
Mr. Pieters: … well, but it was there.
Justice Ramson: … they must have gone to some kind preliminary training school. I do not know where, but I can tell you Felix Austin was a distinguished Police and he, the name …
Mr. Pieters: I am not concerned who Felix Austin was, I am concerned about where Police Officers were hired and where they were trained so you just answer the questions I asked you and nothing else.
Justice Ramson: Yes well, I can try that.
Mr. Pieters: Let me ask you this, you would know that the Guyana Police Force has any other Police organisation at least until, let us say the 1980’s, they had a height requirement for example, for people who want to be members of their organisations.
Justice Ramson: That was a requirement and it was always the case that you need to be of a certain height before you were able to qualify to be admitted to the Police Force.
Mr. Pieters: So it would be that any member of the Guyana Police Force would have been over 5’ 11”?
Justice Ramson: I do not think 5’ 11’; I think about 5’ 6”.
Mr. Pieters: I am telling you what their height requirement was, 5’ 11” and over.
Justice Ramson: If that is what the record is, I would accept that.
Mr. Pieters: So when you saw people and they were around 6 feet tall or over, that would have been consistent with the hiring practice at the time across the board?
Justice Ramson: I am speaking about 6’ 4”.
Mr. Pieters: And how many people that you say would have been about 6’ 4” that would have been in the Tactical Service Unit on 22nd August, 1979?
Justice Ramson: The people who I saw on that day, none of them were less than 6’ 2”; 6’ 3”.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: I am sorry to interrupt your flow Counsel; could you tell me the source of the height per commendation that you just put forward, the height requirement, Counsel? You said it is 5’ 11” …
Mr. Pieters: 5’ 11”.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: … where is this source of that?
Mr. Pieters: It is in the Guyana Police Force recruitment material. I will have it laid over to the Commission …
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: It is in the Guyana Police Force, what?
Mr. Pieters: … recruitment material. I would have it laid over to the Commission.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman: Counsel, I am concerned about relevance. How is that likely to be helpful?
Mr. Pieters: Sorry, I just missed what you just said, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: I was saying I was beginning to get concerned about relevance. How is it likely to be helpful to us?
Mr. Pieters: How is what, relevant or helpful to you?
Mr. Chairman: The questions that you are opposing and the evidence that you are trying to extract.
Mr. Pieters: The Witness is being cross-examined on the evidence he gave this morning. He gave that evidence and he is being cross-examined. Let me ask you this, going to the meat of …
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: I think you are saying that you are not as menacing he made them out to be or they were not a Special Squad of menaces?
Mr. Pieters: Well, yes, he tried sort to have us to a stereotypical image what Tactical Services Unit Officers would look like.
Mr. Chairman: I thought he was referring to conduct rather than appearance.
Mr. Pieters: No, he was referring to appearance. You look at the transcripts. I was here and I heard it. He is trying to stereotype Officers in a way that is inappropriate.

......
Mr. Pieters: You would admit or agree that you are pretty litigious. You already had the experience with in respect to the Persaud Case so you had already access the Courts successfully and you know how to access the Court?
Justice Ramson: Yes, but I do not like the word “pretty litigious”; if a man beat me up tomorrow I will take the State to Court.
Mr. Pieters: And that is acceptable. You would also agree that under the Police Act, they were disciplined and employment consequences for Officers who misused their authority as Police Officers?
Justice Ramson: There is a Police Disciplinary Act, I think is Chapter 16:02 and it creates the framework for disciplining the Policemen, but before you discipline the Policeman you have to know who the Policeman is. You cannot go and say Mr. Doe, like you can do in America, I think, Mr. Doe. You got to know the man name and all of them look alike. They do not look like Mr. Williams different from Mr. Hanoman.
Mr. Pieters: You see that is the problem with stereotyping Mr. …
Justice Ramson: That is not stereotyping. You do not know that in this country in order to relieve the country of the crime rate in those days Mr. Burnham took all the people who were known criminals and made them Policemen.
Mr. Pieters: You see again that is the problem …
Justice Ramson: You do not know that, I am telling you.
Mr. Pieters: You see that is the problem. You are now denigrating the character of people who served this country, but that is not …
Justice Ramson: That is not nothing denigrating.
Mr. Pieters: … excuse me, just let me finish, but I am not here to debate that point. I am just here to ask you questions and have you answered them.
Justice Ramson: But when you tell me I am stereotyping them, you do not know what the context is. I live through the time.
Mr. Pieters: And you say that, well I am not going to repeat your defamatory remarks about Officers.
12:57hrs
Justice Ramson: Defamatory? I never defamed anybody. I am telling you the truth; I am like Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.
Mr. Pieters: So you, well … anyway. You did not…
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Sorry, I am going to dwell on this a little. Justice Ramson, as a private practitioner and as a Judge, you did find that there were honourable persons in the Police Force?
Justice Ramson: Oh yes, on to now.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: From 1979 up to now?
Justice Ramson: On to now.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Thank you.
Justice Ramson: Not every person in the barrel was rotten.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: I thought that is what you meant.
Justice Ramson: No.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: That it was everybody.
Justice Ramson: No, no.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: I just wanted to give you the opportunity to clarify.

 Mr. Pieters: Very well and you testified earlier this morning that there were members of the Death Squad or the Tactical Services Unit (TSU) present?
Justice Ramson: I did not know them as the Tactical Services Unit (TSU) at the time. Maybe that name was given afterwards. I know them as the Riot Squad from Eve Leary.
Mr. Pieters: Well let me suggest this to you about the Tactical Services Unit. Riot control is just one aspect of the functions that the Tactical Services Unit would be performing?
Justice Ramson: Well, if they were so named at that time. I knew them as the Riot Squad.
Mr. Pieters: Right because when you saw them outside of Police Headquarters, you would see them on riot control duties?
Justice Ramson: I did not see them outside Police Headquarters.
Mr. Pieters: I thought you testified that you did on 22nd August, 1979.
Justice Ramson: No, they were running down the road on Sheriff Street. That is not Police Headquarters.
Mr. Pieters: Right that is outside of Police Headquarters?
Justice Ramson: No that is not outside of. Outside of means that there is a proximity issue. You mean when they are not at their home base and they are doing duties outside. But not outside of the office itself or the department.
Mr. Pieters: Outside part of their duties, you would have seen them guarding the police compounds, for example Police Headquarters you would see them protecting that compound?
Justice Ramson: I have no recollection ever going there to see whether they are protecting the compound.
Mr. Pieters: Very well. But what you do know and that is in your decision at page 224 is that the Riot Squad, as you call it, they were not put into action on 22nd August, 1979?
Justice Ramson: They were not?
Mr. Pieters: That is right. That is what your decisions say.
Justice Ramson: Well I do not know. The people I know who were coming down Sheriff Street, I recognised them from their uniform and the helmets they were wearing and it was marked Riot Squad.
Mr. Pieters: There is not a debate that the Riot Squad or the Tactical Services Unit was or was not present. They were present, but they did not go into action in terms of the dispersal of people who were assembled?

The extracts of the November 07, 2014 hearing at the Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry on the above noted subject matter is below. Please note the Commission's statement and Pieters statement on behalf of the GTUC:

Mr. Chairman [Sir. Richard L. Cheltenham, K.A., Q.C., Ph.D.]: We are back in session, and I wish to begin by indicating to those present as well as to those public that we apologise for the delay in resuming; but we took the opportunity of the break with all present: Commission Counsel, and the Secretariat, to set dates for the New Year, to the extent that this is our last sitting for this year. We had to make sure we were all armed with our 2015 diaries. I did promise before the break that I would make a statement in relation to a complaint made by our Retired Justice Ramson, in relation to two articles that appeared in the Stabroek News, as well as the Kaieteur News. The statement reads as follows, “Retired Justice, Mr. Charles Ramson testified before the Commission on Monday, and Tuesday last. In a report of his testimony in the Stabroek News of Tuesday, November 04th, he is reported as having testified that he observed a team of policemen...” and the exact word here is, “...who he described as...” and I quote, “...as the red squad breaking up the WPA meeting that afternoon. He described the Policemen as “Big Monkey” 6.7” people, adding that their mere presence was intimidating.” In the Kaieteur News, dated Thursday, 06th of November, 2014; there is, at page 17, a headline “GTUC condemns Ramson’s “Monkey” reference to Policemen.” The Kaieteur News added in one paragraph, “While the statement was not met with any objections from those participating in the Commission of Inquiry (COI), it did not escape the attention of GTUC.”
13:13hrs
Mr. Chairman: The testimony given before the Commission is recorded and verbatim reports are provided every evening. The tape has been checked as well as the verbatim reports and the word “monkey” does not appear on the tape or in the verbatim reports. Put differently, there is no evidence before us that the word “monkey” was ever used in the course of his testimony by Justice of Appeal Ramson. In these circumstances, the Commission had nothing to object to and Mr. Ramson had been inaccurately reported. In the event described the Stabroek News may wish to take note of this statement which are making and to withdraw the statement and the make the appropriate amends to Mr. Ramson. We have the audio and will play it for the benefit of the public.
[Audio of the 03rd November, 2014 played for the benefit of the public]
“Justice Ramson: 1970 was the… the Act was passed in 1970 and no further appeals could be had but all appeals that were pending or in the system had to be finished by 1972. That Declaration of the Republic in 1970 had some significance as well because we no longer could access honours from the Queen and the last person to get on the last day of 1969 who received a Knight Wood, was and still and is extraordinary and distinguished Jurist, I am not going to call his name, you blow whistle and I will tell you if it is true.
Counsel to the Commission Mr. Hanoman: Could I now bring you to the case of Charles Rishi Ram Ramson against Lloyd Barker, Commissioner of Police and Attorney General.
Mr. Hanoman: That name is a reference to you, Justice Ramson?
Justice Ramson: Yes, that was inspired by a beating…” “…August in 1975…” “…but the Riot Squad had a particular set of clothes that you know when they are coming and they were big hunky, five foot, six foot and six foot four people, the mere presence use to frighten them.
Mr. Hanoman: They used to make you as well afraid Justice Ramson?
Mr. Ramson: Correct. “…but the riot squad had a particular set of clothes that you know when they are coming and they were big hunky, five foot, six foot and six foot four people, the mere presence use to frighten them.”
Mr. Chairman: In the transcript of the day’s proceeding Monday, the 03rd November, 2014 at page 18 this is the Verbatim Report. “While we were there we noticed a squad of Policemen or people who were dressed in police clothing. In those days we used to call it the riot squad. I do not know if it is the same as the TSU now, but the Riot Squad had a particular set of clothes so that you, but the Riot Squad had a particular set of clothes that you know when they are coming and they were big hunky, five foot, six foot and six foot four people, the mere presence used to frighten them.”
Mr. Williams: “Hunky”
Mr. Chairman: “Hunky” “…big hunky, five foot, six foot and six foot four people…” so that the word “monkey” was not appeared on the tape. We have no memory of it being used here. So in the circumstances the newspaper may wish to take note and I leave it to the party’s concern. Thanks.
Attorney for the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC) [Mr. Selwyn Pieters]: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, Selwyn Pieters for the GTUC that my client, Mr. Lincoln Lewis, is in the  room as well. When I heard Justice Ramson spoke at the Commission on Tuesday, I believe it was, I was anxious to see the Stabroek News to see what was reported and later listened to the rebroadcast of this hearing on NCN so I knew at that point that it was “hunky” as opposed to “monkey”. I was concerned at that point where the term “monkey” was used as to what the impact would have been on the reading public. And so, the GTUC did read the newspapers and took cognizance of what the newspaper reported as opposed to what the transcript would have been and I did not have the opportunity to review the press statement before it went, otherwise, I would have caught it and corrected it. So on behalf of GTUC, I am apologising that they took the word or the reporting of the Stabroek News as something that actually was the records of these proceedings when they were not. But I would say this as well we were concerned and the record illustrates it that we were concerned about how Justice Ramson described the Policemen of that era. He spoke of the Policemen being recruited by the Prime Minister of the day as criminals and thieves I felt that those were inappropriate stereotyping of police officers and the way he described as…
Mr. Chairman: One minute…
Mr. Pieters: Excuse me, let me finish.
Mr. Chairman: I thought I was giving you the opportunity to apologise now you want to go beyond the issue that we are dealing with?
Mr. Pieters: The issue that we are dealing with and I think the crux of what the Stabroek News Article meant to portray is the inappropriate stereotyping of people. We have apologise that the term “monkey” was used in the Stabroek News and in the Kaieteur News, but the issue of stereotyping is an issue that was alive and well during Justice Ramson's testimony here and that is an issue as a Human Rights Lawyer that I was alive to at the time.
Mr. Chairman: That is not an issue for us.
Mr. Pieters: I am simply using this opportunity to speak on it as well because it must be noted that there were stereotypes used in his evidence that was challenged.
Mr. Chairman: With respect, Mr. Pieters, there is no issue before us of stereotyping so why are you using the opportunity to speak on the issue of stereotyping there is no stereotyping before the Commission. Mr. Ramson made his comments, he testified. When the time comes for submission, you may say all of that, but that has no issue before us whether he used stereotyping or not.
Mr. Pieters: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Thank you too.
Attorney for the People’s National Congress (PNC) [Mr. Basil Williams]: Just to say Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, that if Mr. Ramson had used the term “monkey” in that box there, I surely would have invade against that term.
Mr. Chairman: I think all of us would have.
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: But there is no evidence at all that Justice used the expression.
Mr. Williams: I must, well I must say I did not hear any “monkey”.
Mr. Chairman: So I think from my view point we have put the matter to rest. What happens now between Justice Ramson and the newspaper is a different matter, no concerns of ours and I would like to indicate that indeed but I did not thank Mr. Pieters for the concession which he made on behalf of his client.
[Cheltenham's attempt to silence me on the nub of the issue has me concerned on the issue of stereotyping and adding a stamp of legitimacy to it - anyone can read the transcripts of the evidence of November 04, 2014 and form their own conclusion. I rely on the transcript, my life experience and the contextual analysis of racism and stereotyping rather than this abrogation of responsibility to deal with such issues where and when they arise.]

Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry Round 6, Day 10 Highlights,New Guyana Media,  November 03, 2014

GTUC apologises to Ramson over inaccurate statement, Stabroek News, November 08, 2014

Justice Ramson: I said “hunky” not “monkey” — Guyana Times, November 08, 2014

Apology by Stabroek News - Stabroek News, November 08, 2014

********
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.

Canada (Attorney General) v. Tam, 2014 FCA 220 how the Federal Court of Appeal missed the boat on a text-book case of racial profiling

Canada (Attorney General) v. Tam, 2014 FCA 220 how the Federal Court of Appeal missed the boat on a text-book case of racial profiling and Stereotyping in law enforcement investigative and decision-making processes

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 October 18, 2014

Setting the scene – My own experience of racial profiling at Canada’s Port of Entry

On the long Victoria Day weekend, between May 21 and May 24, 1999, I took a trip From Fort Erie, Canada to New York by way of a Amtrak Train to Grand Central Station in New York City.  The idea was to rest, sight-seeing and catch-up with family members in New York City.

On my return to Canada, I was the only Black male in a car with approximately 90 passengers. I presented my Customs Declaration Card (E311 ) and answered questions from the Customs Officer about the purpose of my trip out of Canada. I also had produced both my Canadian Citizenship Card and my Immigration and Refugee Board identification card identifying me as a middle level bureaucrat (Refugee Claim Officer [PM-04]) with the Federal Civil Service.

The Customs Officer, however, determined that he was searching my luggage. No reasons were given for the search. The search was conducted in a manner that humiliated me. I then requested to speak to a supervisor who made things worse by addressing me as "Billy Jack" in the face of my demands for answers for the search.

I filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC), against the Department of National Revenue (now the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) wherein I alleged that I was subject to differential treatment while crossing the Canada - U.S. border at Fort Erie on May 24, 1999. In particular, the substance of my complaint was I was singled out by a Customs Officer for a search of my luggage because of my race.^[1]

Student Customs Officer, Ryan Timmins stated that he proceeded with a routine inspection of my baggage for the purpose of verifying my declaration and to confirm that I did not have any contraband or improperly reported goods. Mr. Timmins listed the indicia that triggered the search as follows:

I conducted examination of Mr. Pieters' luggage under the authority of 99 (1) (a), (b), and (c) of the Customs Act, which do not mention reasonable grounds. However, I would like to elaborate on, what I am convinced is reasonable grounds for an examination of Mr. Pieters.

·         he was alone

·         had been away for only three days

·         was traveling from a drug source city

·         he was exhibiting behaviour which indicated he did not want his baggage to be examined

·         finally, he appeared abnormally agitated during primary examination

All of the indicia above can be explained away and in their totality does not give rise to reasonable suspicion of criminality.

The CHRC investigated the complaint and determined the matter warranted a public hearing before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.^[2] This was the first complaint alleging racial profiling^[3] by a law enforcement agency to get sent on by the CHRC for a public hearing before the CHRT.^[4] In this case, having regards, to the factors listed by Customs for the search and the failure of the Officer conducting the search to provide reasons at the material time, CBSA has in effect failed to provide a credible, non-discriminatory, reason for searching my luggage and/or suspecting that I fit the profile of a drug courier.

On January 30, 2002, on the eve of the commencement of a hearing into the matter, I settled the human rights complaint with Canada Border Services Agency, that amongst other remedies mandated the collection of demographic data on passengers referred to secondary inspection at Canada's Ports of Entry. This was one of the first human rights cases against a law enforcement agency that mandated such a process in Canada.^[5]

How is the Tam case instructive for lawyers on discrimination and racial profiling?

Racial profiling can be defined as:

                Criminal profiling based on race. Racial or colour profiling refers to that phenomenon  whereby certain criminal activity is attributed to an identified group in society on the  basis of race or colour resulting in the targeting of individual members of that group. In   this context, race is illegitimately used as a proxy for the criminality or general criminal     propensity of an entire racial group.^[6]

In Moorev. British Columbia 2012 SCC 61, the Supreme Court of Canada held that:

[33] As the Tribunal properly recognized, to demonstrate prima facie discrimination, complainants are required to show that they have a characteristic protected from discrimination under the Code; that they experienced an adverse impact with respect to the service; and that the protected characteristic was a factor in the adverse impact. Once a prima facie case has been established, the burden shifts to the respondent to justify the conduct or practice, within the framework of the exemptions available under human rights statutes. If it cannot be justified, discrimination will be found to occur.

In Canada(Attorney General) v. Tam, 2014 FCA 220 the Federal Court of Appeal conducted no meaningful examination of the test to be applied in cases of discrimination and racial profiling nor did it applied the test to the facts of Ms. Tam’s case.

To the extent that this case is instructive to lawyers on discrimination and racial profiling it reinforces to human rights lawyers to be eternally vigilant as a Court in one decision and without the proper context and/or analysis can render a decision that adds a judicial stamp to discrimination and racial profiling.

Any concerns regarding the extent to which customs officers can use their on-the-job experience to inform decisions about whom to stop and search?

Canada Border Services Agency has undertaken since 2002 “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.”

If that is the case then the Federal Court of Appeal missed the boat on the test for discrimination since it only requires “race, colour, national or ethnic origin” to be a factor in the investigative and/or enforcement action for a finding of discrimination to be made out. Thus when the Federal Court of Appeal accepted that “The officer simply asserted in his statement that in his experience it was not uncommon for Chinese persons to bring agricultural products with them upon returning from China” it put the judicial stamp of legitimacy on the stereotypical action of the Customs Officers that referred Ms. Tam to secondary examination.

That she “did bring into Canada pork products which she failed to declare upon entry” does not end the matter. The question is how many Chinese persons returning from China are referred to secondary examination on the basis of the “officer’s hunch, based on his experience and his observance of the respondent’s demeanour” that in the end turns out to be non-resultant.

Reliance of an “officer’s hunch” and “experience” interacting with travelers at Canada’s Port of Entry is precisely why in 2002, it was agreed that Customs would:

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.[7]

The Canadian Human Rights Commission, in its Departmental Performance Reports observed that the Pieters case against Canada Customs presented an opportunity to deal constructively with systemic problems:

In the Pieters case, a settlement agreement was reached between the complainant and the respondent, Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) which impacts on the treatment of visible minorities at Canadian ports of entry. Mr. Pieters alleged that CCRA discriminated against him when he was returning by train from a trip to New York City. Passengers on the train including Mr. Pieters were orally examined by Customs officers at Fort Erie, Ontario. Mr. Pieters alleged that unlike Caucasian passengers, he was asked questions about his citizenship status and his purchases and that his bags were searched. He alleged that when he objected to this behaviour believing it to be discriminatory, a Customs officers made a slur to him that he perceived to be racist.

Through the years, the Commission has received a number of complaints by visible minorities alleging that they have been unfairly singled out for secondary searches at Canadian ports of entry. However, such allegations are very difficult to confirm in light of the fact that the CCRA has not collected information with respect to the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of individuals subject to such searches. In settling the Pieters case, CCRA has agreed, among other things, to work with the Commission to develop and implement a special pilot project which will generate statistical information (race, colour, national/ethnic origin, and gender) on individuals entering the country who are referred to secondary examination, analyse the data and make appropriate recommendations.^[8]

The current lack of an efficient and effective means of collecting latitudinal and longitudinal data disserved both Canada Boarder Service Agency in measuring its efficiency in crime control and the citizens whose expectations are that Customs Officers exercising discretion would do so in a manner that does not in effect or impact discriminate based on race, sex, age or any other Code or Charter related grounds.

It is beneficial to collect, analyze, and disseminate data on stop, secondary examinations and searches by Customs Officers with the need to examine, re-evaluate and redefine the exercise of discretionary authority and its impact or effect on ethno-socio and racial minorities.

Perhaps if Mr. Justice Marc Nadon had statistical data or the analysis of counsel experienced in litigating racial profiling and discrimination cases he would have been forced to confront the assumptions of the Customs Officer and his own assumptions that led to the judgment in Tam.[9].

********

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 most recently litigated the racial profiling case of:

M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 CarswellOnt 12134, 2013 HRTO 1472

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

M. (R.)v. Toronto Police Services Board was recently settled to the satisfaction of all parties and the terms of settlement reached remain confidential

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 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 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.

---

[1] Pieters v. Canada (Department of National Revenue) [2001] C.H.R.D. No. 42 (Q.L.),

[2] Canadian Human Rights Commission, Press Release “Tribunal Will Hear Discrimination Complaint Against Canada Customs” (May 23, 2001), online: Canadian Human Rights Commission <http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/news-comm/2001/NewsComm230501.asp?l=e> (date accessed: January 02, 2003).

[3] Definition for “racial profiling” “investigative or enforcement action initiated against a member of an identifiable group by an individual officer based on his or her stereotypical prejudicial or racial perceptions of who they believe to be in wrong doing or crime”. Source: Association of Black Law Enforcers, Minutes of General Meeting - December 7, 2002,  p. 1.

[4] The referral to a Tribunal generated print, radio and television coverage. See, for example, John Saunders, “Black traveller calls search racial profiling: Rights body to hear Selwyn Pieters's case involving two Canada Customs agents over train incident, JOHN SAUNDERS reports”, The Globe and Mail (June 04, 2001), p. A16.

[5] See, for example, Paul Waldie, "Customs to gather racial data to see if officers use profiling" The Globe and Mail (December 16, 2002), p. A1.

[6] R. v. Richards, (1999), 26 C.R. (5th) 286 at 295, Rosenberg J.A. (ON C.A.), quoting the African Canadian Legal Clinic  definition in its submissions

[7] Pieters v. Department of National Revenue Canada Human Rights Tribunal (Minutes of Settlement as approved January 30, 2002. Tribunal File No.: T650/3801)

[8] Canadian Human Rights Commission, Departmental Performance Reports, 2001-2002, 3.1.2.3 Litigation

<http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rma/dpr/01-02/CHRC/chrc01-02dpr02_e.asp>

[9] The Court’s record reflects that Ms. Tam was self-represented: “This matter comes on for hearing on 30-SEP-2014 at Ottawa before The Honourable Mr. Justice Nadon The Honourable Mr. Justice Webb The Honourable Mr. Justice Scott Appearances: Mr. Adrian Bieniasiewicz - Tel: (613) 670-6312 for the applicant Ms. Ting Ting Tam & her cousin for the respondent. Total duration: 1h30min Before the Court: Judicial Review Result: allowed Reasons delivered from the Bench Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 213 page(s) 206 - 209 Abstract of Hearing placed on file"