Showing posts with label Toronto Police. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Toronto Police. Show all posts

Sunday, April 08, 2018

Doug Ford will provide enhanced funding for TAVIS

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.








Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

R v. Constable James Forcillo - Is the judgement a licence to kill?


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 at the site
where Yatim was gunned down
On July 27, 2013, Constable James Forcillo a member of the Toronto Police Service, together with several police officers converged on a streetcar that was stopped at Dundas Street and Bellwoods Avenue, in response to an emergency alarm from the Toronto Transit Operator who was driving the 505 streetcar. Yatim was alone in the streetcar having allegedly threatened passengers who were sitting in close proximity to him.

Forcillo issued expletive laden commands to Yatim. Yatim responded with his own expletive laden words. Forcillo fired three shots at Yatim as he allegedly made a step forward on the streetcar in disobedience to Forcello's command.  That pathology report stated that the shots fired in this volley killed Yatim. That is not the end of the story. Whilst Yatim fell on the floor of the streetcar and was dying, Constable Forcillo fired six more shots at Yatim. The six shots were not lethal.

Constable Forcillo was arraigned before the Jury and tried for the following offences:
1) Second degree murder;
2) Manslaughter;
3)Attempted murder
4) Aggravated assault.

The first two charges relates to the first volley of three rounds fired at Sammy Yatim on the streetcar whilst he was close to the streetcar door with a knife in his hands. The third and fourth charges relate to the six shots fired after a pause and during the time that Yatim lay helpless on the floor of the streetcar dying.

On January 25, 2015, Constable James Forcillo was found guilty by a eleven (11) member mixed jury in a Superior Court Trial presided over by  The Honourable Edward F. Then.

The defence in this case raised the justification for the use of force under section 25 of the Criminal Code and self-defence  under section 34 of the Criminal Code. From all appearance the jury accepted the defence contention that there was some doubt that Forcillo's conduct amounted to second degree murder and/or manslaughter.

The jury however accepted the Crown's contention that Forcillo's conduct beyond a reasonable doubt established the specific intent offence of attempted murder. Constable Forcillo therefore was found to have intended to kill Yatim when he fired the six second volley of shots that were not lethal.

In R. v. McArthur, 2004 CanLII 8759, 182 CCC (3d) 230; 19 CR (6th) 38; [2004] OJ No 721 (QL); 184 OAC 108 (ON CA), <http://canlii.ca/t/1gk4v>, Doherty J.A. explains that:
47. Under our law, a person can only be convicted of attempted murder if he or she intended to kill. The moral culpability of the attempted murderer is at least equal to that of a murderer. He or she avoids a murder conviction and the automatic sentence of life imprisonment not because of any mitigating factor, but because through good fortune, the victim was not killed.

48. A conviction for attempted murder will almost inevitably result in a lengthy penitentiary term...

In Ontario, it is rare that police officers who has shot citizens whilst in the line of duty are convicted. In this case, the Crown's strategy to charge on second degree murder was criticized as an overcharge for which conviction by a jury would be a "herculean task". On the other hand, the Crown's splitting the conduct of Constable Forcillo into two distinct component resulted in accountability and the resulting criminal liability with the finding of guilt.

It is reported that Constable Forcillo will be seeking a stay of the proceedings prior to sentencing the principal basis is that he cannot be convicted of a crime when the very basis of the crime is the training he received as a police officer. A state actor raising argument that he is not deserving of a convicting whilst acting on behalf of the state and in the course of his duties as the premise of a stay application is quite novel. However, a stay is an exceptional remedy that is rarely granted. So there is little to no reason to believe this argument will prevail.

Sage advise
In this criminal prosecution the objective video and audio evidence, the testimony of numerous eye witnesses and the pathology report made a different. The finding of guilt, in my view, makes it clear that a badge, gun and state power is not a licence to kill. Police officers are required to exercise sound judgment, mental discipline and respect the right to life, even when dealing with encounters that could potentially be violent.

The reaction to the verdict on television and on social media, particularly twitter, was stark and contrasting:

Toronto Police Association President Mr. Mike McCormack expressed his disappointment, stated that the verdict created a chill and that a stay will be sought on the basis that Constable Forcillo acted consistent with his training.
Toronto Police Service Chief Mark Saunders, was combative and surly in his presser. He contradictory to Mike McCormack, praised the superior system of training that Toronto Police has for its officers. He refused to answer some of the questions posed to him by journalists. He announced that Forcillo would be suspended with pay pending the outcome of the criminal justice process.
Julian Falconer, counsel to the mother of Sammy Yatim, triumphantly thundered that the era of police impunity has come to an end. No longer is the police word against a hapless citizen’s but the police evidence not has to be squared against objective video and photographic evidence and its credibility is assessed on that basis.
Jeff Hershberg ‏@LawyerToronto  Criminal Defence Lawyer “The police often tout video surveillance as amazing and proves guilt. When posted online in #Forcillo case, it's trial by YouTube.”
Chris Marriott ‏@chrismarriott  “The absurdity of Canadian "Justice": Convicted of attempted murder when you're on video actually committing murder.”
Wendy Gillis, Journalist “No matter which way #Forcillo decision goes, verdict is hugely significant for police accountability, police use of force & video evidence.”
Desmond Cole ‏@DesmondCole  “Every day, people who work with the public de-escalate dangerous situations without guns, without killing.”
Andray ‏@AndrayDomise  “If anything is "chilling" about any of this, it's what the mouthpiece of TO officers just told us about their mindset.”

Police officers do need to think before they shoot. Police officers do need to resort to less lethal options in the use of force continuum and escalate only as necessary. Police officers need to de-escalate rather than escalate situations. Those are the implications of a guilty finding in this case on criminal liability.

It can be expected however that the the funders of Constable Forcillo's legal team will exhaust all appeal routes to keep him from being convicted and sentence to a lengthy term of penitentiary. A conviction and sentence to jail time will inevitably result in the loss of his employment as a police officer.

****

In August 2013, I provided legal commentary on the Sammy Yatim homicide on a Streetcar by Police Constable James Forcillio, on CP24, CTV, CBC Television, CBC Radio, Toronto Star, Global National: 

CBC, The National" Police officer gets bail in Sammy Yatim shooting" August 21, 2013; 

L'heure du monde - Relations difficiles entre les citoyens et la police de Toronto avec K. Djinko August 21, 2013; 


Toronto Star "James Forcillo: An explanation of the bail process" August 20, 2013; 





Related Research...
Andre Marin's Investigation
MICHAEL ELIGON

Coroners Inquest
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2012/08/14/coroner_calls_single_inquest_into_3_police_shootings_of_mentally_ill_people.html

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/08/04/make_public_oversight_of_police_training_a_priority.html

Public Statement from the Father of Michael Eligon Jr.
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/public-statement-from-a-father-michael-eligon-jr-was-shot-killed-toronto-police-officer-1650732.htm

SIU REPORT
http://www.siu.on.ca/en/news_results.php

Video SHOOTING OF MICHAEL ELIGONhttp://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/1140015--police-shooting-of-michael-eligon-a-timeline

Doug Pritchard Eye-witness Account Interview regarding the Police Killing Of Michael Eligon
(Very good verbal re-inactment)
http://vimeo.com/40549621

Media Report on SIU Director's decision regarding Eligon... Mentions TASERS...
http://www.zuza.com/news-story/75948-siu-clears-police-officer-in-shooting-of-michael-eligon/

Other MEDIA RESULTS of Eligon 
TODAY'S GLOBE & MAIL:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/ontario-to-review-how-police-respond-to-the-mentally-ill/article2420940/

Globe & Mail page A13
Greiving Father hopes Truth will come out...
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/1170211--grieving-father-hopes-truth-will-come-out-about-michael-eligon-s-death
 SIU Rejects criticism in Michael Eligon Case
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/1169701--siu-investigator-rejects-criticism-in-michael-eligon-case
Andre Marin Slams SIU
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/1169048--ombudsman-andre-marin-slams-siu-over-pro-police-bias-in-michael-eligon-case

Rogers TV Coverage of Police Service Board meeting
http://www.rogerstv.com/page.aspx?lid=237&rid=16&gid=95147 
Reuben Abib - BADC Deputation by Reuben Abib begins around the 1hr:33min mark...

SAMMY YATIM



SIU REPORT



Security camera footage of police shooting on TTC streetcar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPhBBr5LKHo

Enhanced Video of Shooting of Sammy Yatim by Toronto Police

Security camera footage of police shooting on TTC streetcar - Long Vs. 6:07min


TORONTO STAR

NATIONAL POST

GLOBE & MAIL

ALJAZERRA 


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

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.

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.
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, June 05, 2015

Rohan Roberts Files Human Rights Complaint for Racial Profiling against Toronto Police


By Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C. 
Lawyer & Notary Public

TORONTO -- A Human Rights Application has been filed with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario by Mr. Rohan Roberts alleging racial profiling by Toronto police.

The Toronto police services board, Retired Chief William Blair, Current Chief Mark Saunders, Superintendent Tony Riviere, Detective Dion Monahar, Constables Andrew Keown and Ryan D'Sena are named in the Application filed Wednesday evening by Lawyer Selwyn Pieters on behalf of Rohan Roberts.

The complaint alleges racial profiling and differential treatment  in the provision of services and facilities based on race, colour, ancestry and ethnic origin contrary to sections 1 and 9 of the Human Rights Code.

The application arose as a result of a December 16, 2014 encounter in a Jane & Finch neighbourhood between Rohan Roberts and Constables Andrew Keown and Ryan D'Sena.

On Tuesday December 16th, 2014, or about 1:30 am officers The Applicant exited through a fire exit door of his apartment complex at 5 Needle Firway. As The Applicant walked along the sidewalk he observed a marked police cruiser entering his apartment complex. The Applicant observed that shortly thereafter the police cruiser turned off its lights and was following The Applicant as he walked along the parking lot of his complex.

The Respondent police officers Keown and D’Sena then drove up alongside the Applicant demanded his identification and questioned The Applicant about whether or not he had marijuana on him and/or was smoking. The Applicant responded in the negative.

The Respondent police officers Keown and D’Sena spent some time running my name through their various databases. After some time, The Applicant's identification was returned to him and he was was advised that he was free to go.

The Applicant then collected his identification and as he was walking away he stated to the officers “you guys always like to harass people.” This utterance was made by The Applicant because in his apartment complex and neighbourhood he has been subjected to numerous stops and searches by Toronto Police Officers working out of 31 Division and TAVIS.

One of the officers then said to the Applicant "what did you say to me" “You are going to shoot You Pussies?”  No such utterance was made by the Applicant.

The Applicant was then rushed by the officers, arrested, handcuffed and dragged to a grassy area just outside of the door leading to the parking lot and beaten by the officers.

The Applicant had no alcohol or illicit drugs on his person at the material time, date and place. The Applicant did not consume any alcohol and/or illicit drug at the material time, date and place.

The Applicant faced trumped up charges of assault with intent to resist arrest and threatening death. The Applicant pleads that these charges which were withdrawn on April 28, 2015 on the basis that no reasonable prospect for convict exist were meant to criminalize The Applicant.

The Applicant was assaulted in the police vehicle in responding to a question as to whether he believed the Respondent  officers’ conduct was racist.

The Applicant pleads the actions of Keown and D’Sena that is pleaded herein caused him injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect. The Applicant was subjected to humiliation; victimization; and was vulnerable in the face of the conduct of the Respondent  officers.

The Applicant experienced a loss of dignity and self-worth that is the direct result of the infringement by the Respondents of his right to equal treatment with respect to goods, services and facilities without discrimination and/or harassment based on race, colour and ethnic origin or a combination thereof contrary to section 1 and 9 of the Human Rights Code.

Senior Toronto police officers, including the Chief, have spoken against the practice of racial profiling in the past. However, in 2014 and 2015, Toronto Police Chief William Blair and now Mark Saunders seemed unperturbed, and their comments seemed to imply that there is nothing wrong with police discriminating by skin colour. Mark Saunders referred to the persons complaining about the pernicious police practices as "collateral damage" in his first press conference as Chief of Police on April 20, 2015.

Thus, the Respondents, Police Services Board, the police administration and Keown and D'Sena, violated the Applicant's human rights in policy, practice, and effect, by engaging in racial profiling.

Officers D'Sena and Keown are also involved in another matter in the Jane & Finch area involving Black Youth Michael Duru in January 2015 that was captured on video 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



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

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 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.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, May 01, 2015

Public trust in Toronto Police Service means that the law must be respected

By Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)
Attorney-at-Law May 01, 2015

Below is an extract from part of a lengthy May 01, 2015 letter that I wrote to the recently appointed Chief of the Toronto Police Service, Mark Saunders, concerning racial profiling, racialized violence and inappropriate use of the Canadian criminal justice system machinery. The quote from R. v. Schertzer, 2015 ONCA 259 is an add on to the letter.
.....
Mr. [X] reported to me the following in respect to his interactions with officers at 31 Division:
i. That he has been stopped and searched in public many times without any reason;
ii. That he was assaulted in the past as well by Toronto Police Officers;
iii. That he does not feel comfortable to walk in his community alone as a result;
iv. That he wants the police harassment of him in his community to stop.
Just for your reminder on May, 30th, 2013, the Black Community Police Consultative Committee (BCPCC) held a town hall meeting at the Christian Centre Church with Toronto Police 31 Division and residents of the Jane-Finch area.  The purpose of this discussion was to identify problems and solutions to improve community safety and the relationship with local police.[1] You were in attendance and said this:

“First and foremost, our primary function within a community is public safety, making sure folks are getting to and from their places safely.  In different areas of the City there are different values, I can go to a different pocket of the city and their primary issue is, my car getting broken into, then I can go to other parts of the City and the big issue is, is my son and daughter ok to walk to school and back?  Two completely different dynamic issues, and so as a police service the way that we try to be successful and addressing the needs is by identifying what is the strongest value for that community? The way that we learn that is by having those conversations with the members of the community, with the consultative communities because they speak to us and let us know what’s going on and they let us know where the relationships are weak and where we can do better.”   

....
In Toronto in 31 Division of Toronto Police it is no different than Baltimore. Essentially, the troubled police - community interaction in 31 Division is systemic and endemic. A Black police Chief and Black Commander makes no difference when the culture supports racial profiling and racialized violence. I cannot stress enough how deleterious it is to the Toronto Police Service and society as a whole when police officers abuse and misuse their powers. We watched how things unfolded in Baltimore over the past few weeks with the Freddie Gray matter. That is not an unlikely occurrence where the culture of the police service is such that lawless behavior on the part of police officers are shielded and covered up.

Little affects me more than the abuse of power by police officers and when such organizations are tone deaf to the concerns of its citizens. Our Canadian judicial system is inappropriately used with trumped up charges of assault police when your officers abuse citizens rights.....

 The Court of Appeal recently reiterated the following in R. v. Schertzer, 2015 ONCA 259:
[132]     Public confidence in the honesty of the police is fundamental to the integrity of the criminal justice system.  As Moldaver J.A. wrote in Schaeffer v. Wood, 2013 SCC 71 (CanLII) at para. 52, citing Sir Robert Peel:
“‘the police are the public and…the public are the police…  The wisdom of this statement lies in its recognition that public trust in the police is, and always must be, of paramount concern.” 
[133]   Police officers are sworn to uphold the law. In R. v. Feeney, 2008 ONCA 756 (CanLII), 238 C.C.C. (3d) 49, at para. 8, this court endorsed the following passage from R. v. Cusack (1978), 41 C.C.C. (2d) 289 (N.S. S.C.(A.D.))::
[T]he paramount consideration in this case is the protection of the public from offences of this sort being committed by persons who are given special authority by our law to deal with individual members of society, and to deter such persons from acting in breach of their trust....
The commission of offences by police officers has been considered on numerous occasions by the Courts, and the unanimous finding has been that their sentence should be more severe than that of an ordinary person who commits the same crime, because of the position of public trust which they held at the time of the offence and their knowledge of the consequences of its perpetration..
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.
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 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.




[1] - The Black Community Police Consultative Committee (BCPCC) Town Hall Meeting, May 30th, 2013; a video of the Town Hall Meeting is available at this web link - http://jane-finch.com/videos/policetownhall.htm   
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, December 27, 2014

Review of my more important, challenging and interesting cases in 2014

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 December 27, 2014
Updated on December 29, 2014

This is a review of my year of litigation. In 2014 my journey through litigation took my through several practice areas including education law, human rights, police law, criminal law, civil litigation, administrative, constitutional and public law. I won some, I lost some, I resolved some and other cases were litigated on principles so that whether lost or won, the important issue was the principle and standing up for justice.

Constitutional and Public law

I was involved as co-counsel at the Ontario Court of Appeal in McAteer v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 CarswellOnt 10955, 2014 ONCA 578, 121 O.R. (3d) 1, 242 A.C.W.S. (3d) 772, 27 Imm. L.R. (4th) 216, 376 D.L.R. (4th) 258 affirming McAteer, Topey, Dror-Natan v. Canada (Attorney General)  2013 CarswellOnt 13165, 290 C.R.R. (2d) 332, 20 Imm. L.R. (4th) 121, 117 O.R. (3d) 353, 2013 ONSC 5895, E.M. Morgan J. (Ont. S.C.J.). See also Roach et al. v. Canada 2012 CarswellOnt 7799, 2012 ONSC 3521 (ON S.C.). Leave to Appeal has been sought at the Supreme Court of Canada. The applicants' position are the Oath to the Queen in the Citizenship Act violates sections 2(a) and (b) Charter of Rights and Freedoms and cannot be saved by section 1. 

 Leave to Appeal was granted by the Ontario Court of Appeal in the case of  Taylor-Baptiste v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 2014 ONSC 2169 (Div. Ct.) and Taylor-Baptiste v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union et al, 2014 ONSC 5218 (costs). Counsel at the Court of Appeal and Divisional Court are Ranjan Agarwal and Amanda McLaughlin of Bennet Jones. At the Human Rights Tribunal I 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.

Human Rights Law


On October 16, 2014, Mr. Justice Wagner of the Supreme Court of Canada granted the Center for Research-Action on Race Relations leave to intervene in Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, et al. v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center), et al. (Quebec) (Civil) (By Leave). This case has interesting parallels to 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. I am co-counsel with a Quebec Lawyer Aymar Missikala. In our written arguments we take the position that: 
18 . Since the Ontario Court of Appeal in Pieters expressly repudiates the unacceptable notion of a "causal nexus" in proving discrimination and profiling, CRARR submits that the Supreme Court has a historic opportunity, with this appeal, to end the more formalistic and restrictive civilist "causal link" test as retained by the Court of Appeal of Quebec that directly reverts to the rejected and rigid intent-based conception of discrimination.
19. The objective is not to set in motion a collision between the Quebec Civil Code and Quebec's civilist tradition with the constantly evolving dimensions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the common-Iaw tradition on equality in particular, but rather to create a more perfect harmony between the two dominant legal cultures in Canada in order to provide more effective and equal protection to victims of race and other discrimination, be they in Quebec or in the rest of Canada, and be they French-speaking or English-speaking.  
Oral arguments are being heard on January 23, 2015.

Another significant case litigated in 2014 was an employment discrimination case Patterson v. Toronto District School Board. This was an application that alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of age, race, ancestry, colour and association with a person identified by a Code ground. The applicant has also alleged that he experienced reprisal or the threat of reprisal. The case generated several reported decisions including:
  • Patterson v. Toronto District School Board, 2014 HRTO 635 (Series of events)
  • Patterson v. Toronto District School Board, 2014 CarswellOnt 713 (Recording hearing)
  • Patterson v. Toronto District School Board, 2014 CarswellOnt 454, 2014 HRTO 66 (Productions - Disclosure of documents)
  • Patterson v. Toronto District School Board, 2014 CarswellOnt 446 (further - disclosure)
  • Patterson v. Toronto District School Board, 2014 CarswellOnt 238 (the Request sought statistical data: with respect to the racial makeup of the senior management levels of the respondent Board; the number of Black Principals in the Qualified Applicant Pool and the racial makeup of the “Senior Team”. In addition the applicant seeks particulars of some element of the respondents’ response.)
  • Patterson v. Toronto District School Board, 2014 CarswellOnt 83 - (witnesses - will-say)
I have completed hearings on the merits in Lewis v. Toronto Transit Commission. Mr. Lewis, an African-Canadian male, filed an Application under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour, place of origin and reprisal. The decision is reserved.

 Police Law (hybrid Human Rights)

 In Afzal v. Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board 2014 CarswellOnt 10803, 2014 HRTO 1200, [2014] O.H.R.T.D. No. 1210.  The applicant who was self-represented filed an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour, place or origin, ethnic origin. He leter retained counsel to assist him with the process. At that point better pleading were drafted and amendments were opposed by the organizational and personal respondents. The Tribunal Ruled that "[15] Having considered these factors, I grant the applicant’s request to amend the Application but only in part. At the outset, I note that the applicant’s request to amend his Application was made at an early stage of proceedings. Although the respondents have each filed Responses, no hearing has been scheduled and no disclosure has yet been made. This factor would generally weigh in favour of granting the applicant’s amendment request." I was able to provide better pleadings for a police officer who alleged that he has been subjected to discrimination and/or retaliation by Supervisors. See also, Afzal and Peel (Regional Municipality) Police Services Board, Re 2014 CarswellOnt 9011. 

 Emms v. Waterloo Police Services Board - Tribunal File: 2013-14928-I - This was an application where a police officer alleged discrimination against her in employment on the basis of sex and disability contrary to sections 5(1), 7(2), 7(3)(a), (b), and 9 of the Human Rights Code. The application also alleged that the employer took retaliatory action against her in contravention of section 8 of the Code.

 I also had the opportunity to litigate Clarke, Clarke and McDonald v HMQ (CSCS) - Tribunal File Nos. 2013-15247-I, 2013-15248-I, 2013-15496-I. This was an application alleging racial profiling in the provision of services by the Ontario Provincial Police.

 I appeared before the Toronto Police Services Board in two cases: The first involved a recommendation by the Chief of Police to revoke the Special Constable Status of a Toronto Community Housing Corporation Officer. I was successful in having the Board reject the recommendation of the Chief of Police. The second involved representing a probationary constable who the Chief of Police recommended that his appointment be terminated. The Board accepted the recommendation of the Chief of Police.

Criminal Law

 I am involved in drugs, guns and gang case "Project Rx". In that case over 70 persons were arrested by police officers in a joint forces operation. It is still in the early stages of its movement through the Courts.

 I represented a young person in a reported matter: R. v. C.(K.) 2014 CarswellOnt 11887, 2014 ONCJ 445, [2014] O.J. No. 4183, 115 W.C.B. (2d) 418 this is a case where a Youth Court justice crafted a unique remedy to a case in which a young person plea guilty to robbery. The headnote from westlaw reads: "Accused young person was currently 19 years old and had no criminal record — Accused young person and two males entered washroom at party where some people had gathered, then brandished gun and demanded that everyone turn over their belongings, including watches, purses, and i-Phones — Accused approached complainant, searched his pockets, took his wallet and keys, then shoved and taunted him, and repeatedly punched him in face — Accused young person pleaded guilty plea to armed robbery — Trial judge sentenced accused young person to five months’ probation, then four months open custody, and two months community supervision — Trial judge also ordered ten-year weapons prohibition and made DNA order — Presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness was not rebutted — Although accused did not possess or brandish weapon, he was not only party to its use, he was active participant in robbery — Accused’s actions resulted in physical and psychological harm to victim, and his use of physical violence was gratuitous — Accused had significant and long-standing issues that had been identified, but not addressed — While accused was open to change in his behaviour, any conclusion as to his ability and willingness to pursue his own rehabilitation remained speculative — Accused was at moderate risk of re-offending and was willing to attend counselling — Accused was required to serve probation order first, then appear before court for review at beginning of custodial portion of sentencing — If circumstances were appropriate to do so, period of custody and supervision would be converted to period of six months probation."

 Civil Litigation

 Bogiatzis v. Davis 2014 CarswellOnt 16643 has been restored to the normal process of litigation. This is a civil proceedings that followed a criminal matter where proceedings were stayed based on the misconduct of an officer R. v. Bogiatzis 2003 CarswellOnt 3272, [2003] O.J. No. 3335, [2003] O.T.C. 785, 108 C.R.R. (2d) 294, 59 W.C.B. (2d) 545. The Westlaw headnote sets out part of the conduct at issue: [Criminal law --- Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Charter remedies — Exclusion of evidence Applicants were charged with membership in criminal organization and multiple conspiracies related to narcotics and weapons following lengthy investigation into their alleged activities as supplier of drugs to well-known motorcycle gang — Intercepted communications were crucial to Crown’s case against each accused — Investigation conducted by wiretap rested on cumulative affidavit of senior police officer — Officer prepared affidavit based on five bankers boxes of documents provided by various investigative police services involved in investigation — Officer returned documents he considered non-relevant, made use of relevant documents for purposes of affidavit, then destroyed documents by shredding them — Officer did not keep list of shredded documents — Authorizations based on affidavit were granted in sequence over 11-month period with last five authorizations relying on first affidavit — Upon commencement of trial in response to application to compel disclosure of bankers boxes, Crown attempted to reassemble documents by copying originals — Application was brought for stay of all charges on basis that officer’s intentional destruction of documents and consequent non-disclosure seriously prejudiced right to make full answer and defence — At hearing on applications officer testified that in first affidavit he knowingly swore to falsehood regarding informant which was repeated by incorporation in each of five subsequent affidavits — Officer further testified to additional falsehoods in particular later affidavits to support interception of communications of accused as he considered them key targets of investigation — Accused took position that officer’s evidence was so misleading that no reliable evidence existed upon which wiretap authorizations could have been granted — All wiretap evidence was ruled inadmissible — Applications for stay dismissed — Despite non-conscriptive nature of evidence seriousness of breach in obtaining evidence was such that admission of evidence would diminish justice — Officer’s misconduct was flagrant in that he generated wiretap evidence to introduce at trial against targeted persons by deceiving judge authorizing wiretap with false and misleading sworn statements in affidavit — Exclusion of evidence was required to protect integrity of wiretap authorization process.]
Education Law

I am representing former Toronto District School Board (TDSB) Director Christopher "Chris" Spence before the University of Toronto Tribunal in respect to plagiarism allegation in respect to his PhD Thesis. Dr. Spence has filed an abuse of process motion that is to be argued on a date and time to be determined by the University of Toronto Tribunal Chaired by lawyer Paul Morrisson. Various preliminary issues are being dealt with: See, University of Toronto and Spence, Re 2014 CarswellOnt 12490.

 In April 2014, I successfully resolved a suspension appeal and an all-schools exclusion appeal pursuant to section 265(1)(m) of the Education Act at Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board involving allegations of bullying.
In March 2014, I successfully resolved suspension appeal at Halton District School Board involving allegations of bullying and sexual assault.

Commission of Inquiry

In 2014, 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 with Brian M. Clarke representing the Guyana Trades Union Congress in the Walter Anthony Rodney Commission of Inquiry in Georgetown, Guyana.

The Commissioners are Sir. Richard L. Cheltenham, K.A., Q.C., Ph.D – Chairman (Barbados); Mrs. Jacqueline Samuels-Brown, Q.C. (Jamaica) and Mr. Seenath Jairam, S.C. (Trinidad). The Commission’s mandate established by its terms of reference are:-
(i) To examine the facts and circumstances immediately prior, at the time of, and subsequent to, the death of Dr. Walter Rodney in order to determine, as far as possible, who or what was responsible for the explosion resulting in the death of Dr. Walter Rodney;
(ii) To inquire into the cause of the explosion in which Dr. Walter Rodney died, whether it was an act of terrorism, and if so, who were the perpetrators;
(iii) To specifically examine the role, if any, which the late Gregory Smith, Sergeant of the Guyana Defence Force, played in the death of Dr. Walter Rodney and if so, to inquire into who may have counselled, procured, aided and or abetted him to do so, including facilitating his departure from Guyana after Dr. Walter Rodney’s death;
(iv) To examine and report on the actions and activities of the State, such as, the Guyana Police Force, the Guyana Defence Force, the Guyana National Service, the Guyana People’s Militia and those who were in command and superintendence of these agencies, to determine whether they were tasked with the surveillance of and the carrying out of actions, and whether they did execute those tasks and carried out those actions against the Political Opposition, for the period 1st January, 1978 to 31st December, 1980;
(v) To examine, review and report on earlier investigations and enquiries done on and into the death of Dr. Walter Rodney.

The hearings have been adjourned sine die. The main witness Donald Rodney has not provided evidence to date. Dr. Roopnarine has not given his oral evidence. Norman McLean has not yet testified. Cecil Skip Roberts have not yet testified. My client Lincoln Lewis has not provided his evidence as yet.

The life of the Commission expires again at the end of January 2015. Parliament in Guyana has been prorogued and the President announced that elections are to be called on a date to be fixed in early 2015. 


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)