80,000.00 damages plus $20,000.00 costs against Toronto Police for Racial Profiling

By Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)
Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Pieters Law Office
Created April 06, 2017

In Elmardy v Toronto Police Services Board, 2017 ONSC 2074 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/h314g>, a Divisional Court panel awarded $50,000.00 Charter damages and $25, 000.0 punitive damages award plus $20,000 costs against Toronto Police Services Board and Police Constable Pak.

This was a typical carding case: [11] The police gave the Appellant no reason for his detention and he was not advised of his right to counsel. During the incident, the police filled out a card, known as a 208 card or field information report, for the Appellant. Part of the information to be included on the card was the Appellant’s skin colour, which was filled in as “black,” and his birth place, which was filled in as “Sudan.” The police did not explain to the Appellant that he was being “carded.”


The analysis in this case showed the Divisional Court was alive and in tuned to the dynamics of racial profiling:

[19]           The only reasonable inference to be drawn from the fact that both officers, without any reasonable basis, suspected the Appellant of criminal behaviour, is that their views of the Appellant were coloured by the fact that he was black and by their unconscious or conscious beliefs that black men have a propensity for criminal behaviour. This is the essence of racial profiling.
[20]           In this case, the officers’ unreasonable beliefs about the Appellant caused them to assault the Appellant, unreasonably search him and forcibly restrain him. In other words, instead of presuming his innocence, they assumed and acted as if he were guilty and dangerous. He must be violating his bail and he must be carrying a gun. These assumptions, for which there is no explanation other than the colour of the Appellant’s skin, caused them to blatantly and aggressively violate the Appellant’s constitutional rights.
[21]           The trial judge found that the officers’ real motivation for stopping the Appellant was so that they could “card” him by filling in information on a 208 card. This begs the question of why the officers would single the Appellant out for “carding.”
[22]           However, the trial judge also found that the officers lied about why they stopped the Appellant and “backfilled” a purpose after the fact. Lying about the real reason for a stop is another basis for drawing the inference that what motivated the stop was the Appellant’s race and colour. As noted in Brown, at para. 45, the inference that a police officer is lying about why she or he singled out an individual for attention is a circumstance that is “capable of supporting a finding that the stop was based on racial profiling.” Such a finding becomes even more compelling when, as here, the “lies” that the police chose to tell about why they stopped the individual are based on racial stereotypes, such as the belief that black men are more likely to be on bail and more likely to be carrying weapons.
[23]           Contrary to the finding of the trial judge that there is no evidence from which one can draw the inference that the conduct of the police officers was racially motivated, there is no other reasonable inference that is available from all of the evidence. The explanation the officers gave for their behaviour was both rejected by the trial judge and infected with racial stereotypes. Given this, there can be no issue that the Appellant’s right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination based on race under s. 15 of the Charter was also violated.

"The Appellant was an innocent man who had fled his country looking for a society in which his rights would be respected. Instead of finding the respect to which he is entitled, he was subjected to humiliating, violent and oppressive behaviour from one of this city’s police officers, all because of the colour of his skin. Further, when questioned about their behaviour the police officers were found to have lied to the Court, conduct that can seriously undermine the administration of justice."

Hopefully the Human Rights Tribunal would take note of this decision and start to up its awards in these cases.

SELWYN A. PIETERS RESPONSE TO JUSTICE JAMES PATTERSON CHAIRMAN OF CAMP STREET PRISON COI

on April 22, 2016 on or about 1:50 p.m. whist Chief Prison Officer Patrick Crawford, of the Guyana Prison Service, was in the witness box I was handed a document on the Commission’s letterhead titled “PRESS RELEASE”. That release had already been circulated to the media without my knowledge. 

When the Chairman berated me publicly on April 05, 2016 for a matter that really was put to bed the following day by the very News Source, it distracted me from my focus on a witness. See, Commission Chairman and Prison Attorney clash over video evidence, April 5, 2016 (date accessed: April 22, 2016). Today, another witness Mr. R. was to provide evidence and I could not continue as I felt sick to my stomach reading the Retired Justice James Patterson's press release that he put out to the public and provided to me in the presence of my client’s representatives and a witness in the midst of the proceedings in open court. These are two actions on the part of that retired justice that created a hostile and poisoned atmosphere in his courtroom. This action on April 22, 2016 is akin to serving a person with a writ whilst a witness is in a witness box in a courtroom: See, Curling v. Victoria Tea Co Ltd., 38 C.H.R.R. 216, 2000 CanLII 20870 (ON HRT), 2000 CanLII 20870 (ON H.R.T.).

Judges speak through their Judgments not  through a"Press Release" that is provided to the media and then served on counsel in that very Judge Courtroom in the presence of a witness, the media, the public, the other side and all present.  

Putting out a press release without using the formal processes that the law provides to a Justice to deal with any perceived issues in his/her courtroom brings the administration of justice into disrepute. It means an attack on the integrity of "Officers of the Court", the very Court that the Justice has inherent jurisdiction to control its processes.

James Patterson wrote:

These proceedings unfortunately have given rise for what we know in the vernacular as “grandstanding”.  Liberties were taken. Mr. Selwyn Peters, Counsel for the Joint services and Fire Service, was ferried away by his enthusiasm and made statements which, by any objective view, constitute a breach in civility and an affront to the Commission.  In very short order Mr.  Peters approached the Chairman and was profuse in his apologies for his delict. The apology was unconditional and was well received.

Mr. Christopher Ram, on the other hand, who appeared for the Bar Association as an interested party obtained “good standing” from the Commission to conduct his brief.  Mr. Christopher Ram was equally fierce on behalf of his clients, an amorphous lot though they be. The Commission has been unusually charitable to Mr. Christopher Ram whose forte clearly is not the art of the advocate.  His appearance has been pro bono, for the public good, and such appearances are clearly to be commended.  The Commission applauds Mr. Christopher Ram for his initiatives.

In his haste to issue a press release attacking counsel for all sides appearing before him he could not even get the spelling of my name right. It is Pieters not Peters. I also have several comments to make in response to retired Justice James Patterson’s press release about me. 

Throughout the two weeks that the inmates of the Georgetown Prison were testifying before the Commission of Inquiry, inflammatory comments were peddled in the press that attacked the reputation and integrity of senior members of the Joint Services who I was retained to represent. We could not allow that to stand unchallenged.

As was reported in the media, on Day 11 of the Commission’s sittings inmate Collis Collison took the witness stand. Allegations were made about the conduct of officers that were untrue. I clarified the truth in respect to the conduct of the officers with reference to a video that existed that presented objective evidence of what took place at the material date, time and place. I went up to the Commission’s Secretariat that day with my laptop and showed the Chairperson Justice Patterson the video from my computer. The Commission Counsel inserted a DVD into her device and showed a short clip that did not correspond to the very label on my disk. I followed up with the Guyana Prison Service representatives and was told that the entirety of all videos including surveillance videos were turned over to the Commission of Inquiry and soon after a request was made to the Guyana Prison Service.

On day 12 of the Commission Sittings (when Carl Brown was in the witness box) the Chairman entered the hearing, and similarly to April 22, 2016, where I was not given advance notice of a press release being sent out by the Commission, presented an article to me from News Source, that spoke to a video that existed that was shown to the media and asked me to comment. I commented on my interaction with the press the day prior. The Chairman was upset and the entire interaction between him and I was captured nationally and internationally because of the matter in which he chose to address it. I apologized to him because it is in my nature to apologize to any person that I may have unintentionally offended. I also have a lot of respect for the panel collectively.

I disagree with Justice Patterson, for reasons that will be seen below that there were any breaches of civility on my part. I could have ignored his comments and conduct or respond to it and I responded appropriately and professionally.

Justice Patterson never checked with the source of the article. News Source had obtained and seen the video of the encounter with Collison and the Officers well before I was retained by the Prison Service or even in the Cooperative Republic of Guyana:

News Source saw a copy of the video of the prison unrest and reported on it long before Mr. Pieters became involved in the Commission of Inquiry and long before he arrived in Guyana.

The Attorney never showed any video related to the Prison Unrest to News Source.

News Source was able to view a video recording of the prison unrest that appeared to have been captured by a prison officer.

See, Commission Chairman and Prison Attorney clash over video evidence, April 5, 2016 <http://newssourcegy.com/news/commission-chairman-and-prison-attorney-clash-over-video-evidence/>  (date accessed: April 22, 2016).

On the day that the Chairman was upset about the video he allowed me to be verbally abused by Carl Brown. I also challenged inflammatory statements Carl Brown made about Commissioner Erskine. The Chairperson, instead of warning Mr. Brown, responded he cannot control what comes out of a witness mouth. 

Mr. Dexter Todd later that day launched an attack on me. Go to 7:20 of this video and onward: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMkub_ZqMV0>.  All of that was in front of the National and International media and I have the video footage of it all. I was NOT allowed to respond to Todd’s abusive missive “I will not hear you” was Justice Patterson’s words. 

The Secretariat and the Commission Chairperson himself after I was retained as counsel continued to by-pass counsel, instead communicating directly with the Prison Director and the OC of the Georgetown Prison. I was advised by the OC Mr. Pilgrim that the COI had all of the relevant video footage. I believed him and still do have no reason to doubt the veracity of what he told me. I learnt that the videos was sent to the Commission in electronic downloadable format. It appears that the entirety of a video was not downloaded. When I was told of it by Commission Secretary, I directed the Prison Officer assigned to assist me to immediately turn the DVD over to the Secretariat. During the exchange with the Chairperson when I explained to him my understanding on the video issue he said in a very condescending tone “I chose to believe you.” I made it very clear as a lawyer and an officer of the Court if he did not believe me I was prepared to resign immediately. My integrity and my word is what I have as a lawyer and I will not allow it to be impugned when there was no evidentiary basis to support an assertion. I did not know the Commission did not download the entirety of the prison video and that was my word. My word is my bond.

I mentioned to the Chairperson that this issue of communicating directly with the client outside of the knowledge of the lawyer poses difficulties and that I should be copied on all communications to my client. That practice of communicating with the clients without copying me continued. It presented difficulties to me and the clients. An example being an ill officer being directed to report to the Commission the next business day whilst on sick leave. Another is the Director of Prisons being directed to provide evidence to the Commission that very next business day without speaking to his lawyer or providing a will-say statement.

I addressed that issue with the Commission on April 08, 2016:

On another note, a copy of the letter from the Commission Chairperson to the Director of Prisons was forwarded to my attention. Unfortunately, that schedule that the Commission sent to the Director after its counsel left the jurisdiction is simply not just. No discussion was held with the Prison Counsel in the case management conference in respect to the Guyana Prison Services witnesses. Those witnesses will be made available from April 18, 2016. 

It is the usual protocol that represented clients are communicated with through their counsel, while I cannot dictate to a Tribunal how it wishes to conduct its affairs that is how I know it since I have been practicing law. I am uncomfortable that I usually learn of the Tribunal’s correspondence to my clients only after the clients have forwarded them to me. That is not and cannot be acceptable in any quasi-judicial or judicial forum. I will be much obliged that I be copied on any correspondence to my clients so that I can properly be accountable to the Tribunal as an Attorney-at-law.

The Chairperson wrote:

The Chairman of the Commission, caught in the cross fire of the fierce contending parties, has on a regular basis incurred the wrath of both counsel that is to say, Mr. Christopher Ram and Mr. Selwyn Pieters, as each pressed their client’ case with understandable vigour.”

In respect to me, my significant concern that appears to be Mr. Ram’s concern is the chairman’s  inflexible approach in arbitrarily imposing a 20 minute time-limit for cross-examination of witnesses when some witnesses would, obviously require more time than others. In the following days after the 20 minutes time limit was imposed the Commission either sat half-day or not at all.

The chairman Justice Patterson issued a press release that does the profession in Guyana harm. The instant where and when Mr. Ram walked out of the Commission of Inquiry where he believed that his work was hampered is not new. A lawyer similarly walked out of the Linden Commission of Inquiry in 2012. In terms of the 2012 walkout I was reminded by another colleague present that "Mr. Hughes withdrawal was after a bizarre and excessive reprimand from the Chairman. On his return his cross examination by Minister Rohee was severely and frequently unfairly interrupted and curtailed by Mr. Knight."

Lawyers walked out of the Rodney Commission of Inquiry when they were subjected to bias and excessive interjections by the Chairperson and the panel members. In the Linden COI and the Rodney COI, these issues were not dealt with by Press Releases but within the jurisdiction of the COI and resolved so that the lawyers could return and protect their clients interest. In other words, the Commissions recognized the lawyers had a job to do and struck a balance that worked for all concerned.

Prior to the issuance of the "press release" from Justice Patterson I reached out quietly to Christopher Ram and the Chairperson, through his Secretary, to see whether the gap could be bridged. Mr. Ram's response was positive. I then wrote to the Commission through its Secretary:

From: Selwyn Pieters

Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 7:36 PM
To: Teshanna Cox
Cc: Christopher Ram ; Glen Hannoman; Law Office of DEXTER TODD ; Selwyn pieters
Subject: Guyana Bar Association President Withdrawal

Good evening Ms. Cox,

We have been down the road in other Commissions where counsel left a Commission of Inquiry in a huff in the heat of battle over objections sustained or other rulings by the Commission. That occurred today in another COI. Obviously the Guyana Bar Association is an important stakeholder. Some middle ground may be able to be reached in a pre-hearing conference in Chambers. I have spoken to Mr. Ram and he is willing and able to attend in Chambers to meet with the Commissioners. I am reaching out to see whether or not the Commissioners can hold a pre-hearing conference tomorrow with all counsel.

I have enclosed the clips from the Linden Commission of Inquiry:

Nigel Hughes withdraws from Linden COI after refusing to retract inappropriate remark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_57Io17aREo

Attorney Nigel Hughes returns to Linden Commission of Inquiry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvXitIc4PGA

I am a member of the Guyana Bar and member of the Guyana Bar Association so I do respect the work of the Bar Association and it contribution to the COI vis-a-vis its members.

Please convey my thoughts to the Commission.

The very evening of April 20, 2016, Commission Secretary responded to me as follows:

4/20/16, 9:04 PM - Ms Tashana Cox: Hi

4/20/16, 9:04 PM - Ms Tashana Cox: I just spoke to Chairman
4/20/16, 9:16 PM - Selwyn Pieters: And what is his thinking?
4/20/16, 9:43 PM - Ms Tashana Cox: He said no
4/20/16, 9:43 PM - Ms Tashana Cox: He thinks that Ram's statement was made to publicly embarrass the court
4/20/16, 9:43 PM - Ms Tashana Cox: Well...
4/20/16, 9:43 PM - Ms Tashana Cox: And if he wants to re enter, he needs to be a man enough and make a public announcement
4/20/16, 9:44 PM - Ms Tashana Cox: Commissioners were pretty peeved this afternoon about the entire incident
4/20/16, 9:44 PM - Ms Tashana Cox: Chairman especially was upset at Ram's "short fuse"
4/20/16, 9:45 PM - Selwyn Pieters: I understand that why I sent Hughes YouTube video from Linden COI so that he knows to apologize to the panel.
4/20/16, 9:52 PM - Ms Tashana Cox: Very well. Let's see how that goes.

I heard nothing further from the Commission until the issuance of the Press Release.

Professionalism goes both ways. In all of the instances cited above, I was not treated professionally or with civility. 

Little to no legal recourse exist to deal with a retired Justice who has crossed the line with lawyers and his colleagues. 

I have been through worst abuse in my legal career and I will never ever “yield to the conduct and manners of the gutter.” Fortunately, for the period in question, all of the video footage are on my youtube channel and all and sundry are welcome to review each and every minute. The only time I showed some frustration was on Day 12 when I was not only subject to what was described above but also had my cross-examination of an important witness curtailed to 20 minutes and in language that was not particularly polite. Again, and thankfully, the entirety of these footage are on my youtube channel.

END

Camp Street Prison Georgetown Commission of Inquiry

Toronto-based Human and Civil Rights Lawyer Selwyn Pieters has been granted standing to provide legal representation to the Guyana Prison Service, Guyana Police Force and Guyana Fire Service in the Commission of Inquiry constituted for the purpose: “to enquire into all the circumstances surrounding the death of  seventeen (17) Prisoners namely from the Camp Street Prison, Georgetown on the morning of Thursday 3rd of March,2016 to report the findings and conclusions to the Minister of Public Security and to make recommendations on any action that should be taken to avoid any recurrence”

“The government has the prerogative to choose who its legal counsel are and who it repose confidence in to represent the interest of the state and state bodies. Certainly the loss of 17 lives are quite tragic. Certainly we want to get to the truth of what occurred. Certainly we want tangible and meaningful recommendations to improve the prison system and to make it much better to ensure there is no further loss of lives so that prisoners are while in state custody can be treated in an humane manner, can be safe , while the public is protected and secured” says Selwyn Pieters

Video Recording of the Testimony of Witnesses

 The Terms of Reference

(1)             The Inquiry will investigate, examine and report on:

·         Examine the causes, circumstances and conditions that led to the disturbances on the morning of the 3rd of March, 2016 that resulted in the death of 17 Prisoners on the morning of the 3rdof March, 2016 and any other subsequent disturbances at the Camp Street Prisons, Georgetown.

·         Inquire into the nature of all injuries sustained by the Prisoners during the disturbances on the morning of the 3rdof March, 2016 and any other subsequent disturbances.

·         Determine whether the conduct of the staff of the Guyana Prisons Service who were on duty on the morning of the 3rd of March, 2016 and thereafter was in compliance with the Standard Operating Procedures of the Guyana Prisons Service.

Determine whether the deaths of the 20 prisoners was as a result of the negligence, abandonment  of duty ,disregard of instructions, inaction of the Prison Officers who were on duty on the night of the 2nd of March,2016 and the morning of the 3rd of March,2016.

(2)             Recommendations

The Commission shall determine comprehensive and plausible recommendations to ensure the safety of the prisons.

(i)                                      Examine and make findings and recommendations to improve the physical infrastructure of the prison;

(ii)                         The existing security arrangements in respect of the custody, management and control of prisoners.

(iii)                       The appropriate treatment of prisoners in compliance with legal and other requirements.

(iv)                       To prevent a recurrence of any such disturbances.

(3)              Rules of Procedure

(i)                            The Inquiry must consider the views of stakeholders including:
·        Staff of the Prisons and their Unions;

·        Members  of the Judiciary;

·        Prisoners accommodated within the Camp Street Prisons

·        Staff of the Ministry  of Health and the Ministry of Social Protection and  Human Services;

·        Any other stakeholders the Inquiry deems appropriate.

(ii)                         This commission shall render its report, findings and recommendations to the Minister of Public Security no later than the 31st of March, 2016.
(iii)                       This Inquiry shall be conducted continually at the (Venue) and in such other places as the Honourable Chairman may determine.
(iv)                       The Inquiry shall be held in public, with reservation nevertheless to the Commissioners to exclude any persons/persons if they deem fit for the due conduct of the Inquiry, the preservation of Order or for any other reason.
(v)                         The Commission shall commence work on the …..day of March,2016 and the said Chairman shall take appropriate steps to ensure that the Commission complete its work and submit its report within the aforesaid time.
(vi)                       The Chairman and one other Commissioner shall constitute a quorum.
(vii)                    Subject to the above, this Commission shall establish and regulate its own procedures for the conduct of the Inquiry and shall be governed by the aforesaid provisions of the Constitution of Guyana, the Commissions of Inquiry Act, Chapter 19:03, the High Court Act, Chapter 3:01and any other Laws enabling.

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; 

Global National "Toronto streetcar shooting: police have a ‘defence that others don’t,’ says legal analyst" August 20, 2013; 

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

CBC "Why James Forcillo was charged with murder in Yatim shooting" August 20, 2013;

Toronto Star "Sammy Yatim: Family 'relieved' by SIU decision to charge officer with murder" August 19, 2013; 

Toronto Star Toronto police review on mentally ill must yield results: Editorial August 14 2013

Related Research...

Andre Marin's Investigation

http://www.ombudsman.on.ca/home.aspx?lang=en-CA

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

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/toronto-man-questions-shooting-of-son-by-police-officer-cleared-by-siu/article2418838/

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

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

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iy2zsuRyjaQ

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPhBBr5LKHo

TORONTO SUN - Yatim
http://www.torontosun.com/search?cx=016362519718727753442%3Aubvjwz0hpe0&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=yatim&siteurl=www.torontosun.com%2F&ref=&ss=1365j564339j5

TORONTO STAR

http://www.thestar.com/search.html?page=1&q=yatim

NATIONAL POST

http://www.nationalpost.com/search/index.html?q=yatim

GLOBE & MAIL

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/topic/Sammy-Yatim-shooting

ALJAZERRA 

http://www.aljazeera.com/video/americas/2013/07/20137310515123546.html

Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry Must Complete and Submit its Report

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 December 27, 2015

On April 20, 2014, when the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC)] announced its participation in the Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry, it concluded its press statement by saying “Guyana and Guyanese deserve closure to this chapter of our history and an end brought to use of Rodney’s name as a wedge. The GTUC is prepared once again to play its part to the achievement of this end.” The Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry took up a lot of my time and efforts in 2015. The fact remains that the taxpayers spent $400 Million dollars. Further, the fact remains that a lot of time and effort of a lot of people were put into that Commission. As well, the fact is there needs to be closure for the Rodney Family, the Burnham Family, the Smith's Family, people like Ogunseye (who faithfully attended most of the proceedings including closing arguments), The PNC persons (who felt their characters were at issue) and many others who need that aspect of Guyanese history to be done and historically wrapped up. The sensible thing is to provide the time required to complete that report. The Commissioners are paid to Inquire and Report. Its taxpayers money, let it be done. Presenting the report at [January] month's end closes the matter..... We can then move on [in] 2016 without the Rodney name being used as a wedge, as Lincoln Lewis describes it.

Rodney Inquiry commissioners distance themselves from Shaun Samaroo

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 September 17, 2015

There is a petition circulating requesting His Excellency, David Arthur Granger, President of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana to "Allow the Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry (WRCOI) Two More Weeks to Hear Testimony from Key Witnesses." As I noted in response to such arguments made by Rodney Lawyers:

Mr. Pieters: Thank you very much. Selwyn Pieters for the People’s National Congress [PNC]. By way of Extraordinary Gazette dated 8th July, 2015, under the signature of Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Harmon, Minister of State, the life of the Commission was extended for the final time to 30th November, 2015. That is the date specified by the President, by which the Commission shall render its report, findings and recommendations to the President within that specified period.
It is our submission that the Commission, whose life has been extended to 30th November, has not been terminated prematurely.

Mr. Chairman, the position that we take is that nothing precludes written hearing for those issues to which the Salmon letter pertain. It is our position and the other parties may disagree, but certainly questions can be submitted in writing. The persons to whom the information is sought can submit affidavit evidence and the parties can be given an opportunity to file additional written submissions or supplementary written submissions - if that is necessary. Mr. Chairman, for that proposition I relied on a case called Vale v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada [1998] O.J. No. 6466, 40 O.R. (3d) 347, per Cullity J.
Mr. Chairman: Just spell it for the purposes of the records.
Mr. Pieters: V-a-l-e vs S-u-n-l-i-f-e A-s-s-u-r-a-n-c-e Company of Canada. That was a reported decision, 1988, for the OR which is “Ontario Reports”, the third edition, 347. Mr. Chairman, my friend, Mr. Pilgrim, and rightfully so, spoke about the audi alteram partem rule  and certainly we do not disagree that in administrative proceedings nemo judex in causa sua) and other audi alteram partem exist and certainly in the case of …
Mr. Chairman: I think for the purposes of the listening public, you should try to avoid the Latin tides and if you use them, you should explain what they mean.
Mr. Pieters: Certainly Mr. Chairman. The two terms speak to issues of fairness and issues of impartiality, so they speak to those two concepts. In a case called Marks vs Minister of Home Affairs, 35 West Indian Report, at page 134, that decision cited a case called Kanda vs the Government of Malaya, 1962 AC322, in which Lord Denning, given the judgment of the Privy Council said this:

“The rule against bias is one thing.  The right to be heard is another.  Those two rules are the essential characteristics of what is often called natural justice.  They are the twin pillars supporting it.  The Romans put them in the two maxims: nemo judex in causa sua: and audi alterem partem.  They have recently been put in the two words, impartiality and fairness.  But they are separate concepts and are governed by separate considerations...   If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him.  He must know what evidence has been given and what statements have been made affecting him: and then he must be given a fair opportunity to correct or contradict them...   the judge or whoever has to adjudicate must not hear evidence or receive representations from one side behind the back of the other.”

Mr. Chairman, I say that because the fact is, the questions and evidence that Robert Corbin, for example, was required to answer have been crystallised since November, 2014, when Lieutenant Sydney James testified. We say that no plausible explanation has been offered on why a Salmon letter was not issued to him shortly thereafter. His name was serialised in the media by the consultant of the Commission, Shaun Michael Samaroo in an article called “Corbin delivered guns to the House of Israel” in the Guyana Chronicle on 3rd June, 2014. We understand the concerns that Mr. Pilgrim has raised in respect to the three business days’ notice, to which these Salmon letters were issued, but we say that no explanation has been given to us as to why the Salmon letter would not have been issued to Robert Corbin, shortly after Lieutenant Colonel James testified in November, 2014.
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps you will allow me to interrupt you just to say that, the usual practice in commissions is that, towards the end, one sends out their Salmon letters, otherwise the same person may have to get three or four, so one really determines who the persons are that merit Salmon letters when the evidence is really at an end. That would have been premature to send out one at that point. It is really not in keeping with the standard practice, but I have taken note of what you said. Please proceed.
Mr. Pieters: In respect to Norman Mclean and “Skip” Roberts, we understand that “Skip” Roberts was here for a certain period and his evidence was not taken. We also understand as well that the evidence for “Skip” Roberts would have been crystallized in January, 2015, and the same applies in respect to him that there is no explanation as to why he was not issued his Salmon letter previously. So, the PNC’s position, therefore, is that enough time has been allocated to the Commission to wrap up its proceedings, including obtaining evidence from witnesses issued Salmon letters without personal appearance. Such witnesses, as I indicated before in my submissions, can give their evidence by way of affidavit and counsel can submit written questions to those witnesses and supplementary written submissions, arising out of any evidence that becomes available, can be made. There is therefore no breach of legitimate expectation, as Mr. Pilgrim submits and no breach of natural justice of the Rodney’s family are asserted. Therefore, we submit that any request for petition to the President should be disallowed, since, indeed, one has until 30th November, 2015, to complete their mandate. Those would be my respectful submissions.
Mr. Chairman: Thank you very much, Sir. I regard your suggestion with respect to responses, by way of affidavit from those who have not yet testified, as worthy of serious consideration by the Commission. It is a question to some extent of resources as well, but it is certainly not an idea not worthy of serious considerations, so thanks very much for your submissions, Sir.

The Commission was constructed to attack the PNCR/APNU-AFC coalition and had on its payroll Shaun Michael Samaroo, A Special Corespondent for the Guyana Chronicle

Mr. Shaun Michael Samaroo whose special reports of the Rodney Commission of Inquiry appeared in the Guyana Chronicle, was paid $7,300.00 U.S.D. per month through the budget assigned to the COMMISSION OF INQUIRY TO INQUIRE INTO AND REPORT ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE DEATH IN AN EXPLOSION OF THE LATE DR. WALTER RODNEY. See, for example, March 28, 2015, Hanoman discredits Wagner’s testimony, Guyana Chronicle;   March 26, 2015 Wagner to unveil secret list of ‘big names’ – Says assassination suspect Gregory Smith revealed list of names connected to Dr Walter Rodney’s assassination Guyana Chronicle; January 28, 2015 Robert Allan Gates makes stunning claim at Rodney Commission –McLean, Lewis, Roberts vital to dark Rodney plot Guyana Chronicle; November 14, 2014 article "Special Report on the Rodney Commission of Inquiry by Shaun Michael Samaroo, Detailing PNC State machinery violence against WPA at Rodney Commission" Guyana Chronicle; November 07, 2014, Special Report on the Rodney Commission of Inquiry by Shaun Michael Samaroo, At Rodney COI… Gopaul, Williams ‘brawl’ in dramatic face-off Guyana Chronicle; October 31, 2014, Special Report on the Rodney Commission of Inquiry by Shaun Michael Samaroo, Remote trigger detonated bomb that killed Rodney, Guyana Chronicle; August 07, 2014 Special Report on the Rodney Commission of Inquiry by Shaun Michael Samaroo, Commission Chairman slams Basil Williams’ propaganda idea Guyana Chronicle; August 06, 2014, Special Report on the Rodney Commission of Inquiry by Shaun Michael Samaroo, Police files reveal PPP sought peaceful resolution to PNC dictatorship, Guyana Chronicle; August 05, 2014, Special Report on the Rodney Commission of Inquiry by Shaun Michael Samaroo, Laurie Lewis wrote, mailed Teekah death threat, Guyana Chronicle; June 5, 2014 Shaun Michael Samaroo, Granger was Army Liaison to GPF in Gregory Smith probe : – Says former Army Chief-of-Staff McLean, Guyana Chronicle; June 03, 2014 Corbin delivered guns to House of Israel, Guyana Chronicle....






Denial

I wrote to the three Commissioners, Sir Richard Cheltenham, K.A., Q.C., Ph.D; Mrs. Jacqueline Samuels-Brown, Q.C.; and Mr. Seenath Jairam, S.C., directly by way of email on March 16, 2015 and June 01, 2015. In a stunning denial, the Chairman of the Commission, Sir. Richard L. Cheltenham, K.A., Q.C., Ph.D – Chairman (Barbados), looked me in the face and said to me and the world that he never heard of Samaroo in spite of the numerous front page stories in the Chronicle and in the face of my two emails to him:

From: selwyn@selwynpieters.com [mailto:selwyn@selwynpieters.com]
Sent: March-16-15 11:00 PM
To: Hugh Denbow
Cc: KEITH SCOTLAND; Brian Clarke; basil_wil@yahoo.com; Andrew Pilgrim; Selwyn Pieters; Chris Ram; Latchmie Rahamat; Glenn Hanoman; Nigel Westmaas; Daylight; Tchaiko Kwayana; wazir mohamed; Shaun Michael Samaroo; Jacqueline Samuels-Brown; Dr. Richard L Cheltenham; Seenath Jairam; Edward Meertins-George; Asha T. Rodney
Subject: Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry
Good evening everyone,
The Commission resumes next Monday and as I have made arrangements to be there for yet another sitting I am confirming that Mr. Lincoln Lewis and I will again be available for his evidence to be taken and have booked my flight and hotel. However, the Commission has yet to respond my correspondence seeking confirmation in light of the witnesses scheduled next week, Mr. Donald Rodney and Ms. Anne Wagner, whether Mr. Lewis' evidence would be reached.
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." <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 "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.
The fact that Shaun Michael Samaroo continues to serialize the Commission's work in a way that can forment racial divide and antagonism is simply unacceptable.
I have telegraphed my view very early as I intend to bring the various newspaper clippings to the hearing next week and have them addressed.
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 musing 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 that given the current situational context in Guyana such publications in the face of an election campaign is not only unhelpful but disgraceful.
I am still awaiting that confirmation.
Yours truly,

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

As well, on June 01, 2015, I directly raised the issue of Samaroo with the Commissioners.

-----Original Message-----
From: Selwyn Pieters
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2015 08:11 PM
To: 'Jacqueline Samuels-Brown; Dr. Richard L Cheltenham; Seenath Jairam; Hugh Denbow',
Subject: GUY$325 million spent on Rodney Commission of Inquiry; State media reporter paid US$7,000 per month to cover hearings
Good evening,
See attached. What attracted my interest is "US$7,300 per month to a state-media operative for his coverage of each sitting of the inquiry." This is utterly ridiculous when the Commission did not even saw fit to reimburse Brian Clarke and I for our costs of showing up on numerous occasions only to have our witness, Lincoln Lewis, deferred.
I am not satisfied with the newspaper report and would like to see the entire breakdown of the cost of this tribunal including costs. I complained previous about Shaun Michael Samaroo's coverage of the Commission's proceedings <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/>  and if he was paid out of the Commission's budget this seriously gave rise to serious questions having regard to the failure of the Commission to address the concerns raised in my March 16, 2015 email. In fact, my email was ignored and the Commission of Inquiry was used by the PPP/C Presidential and other candidates to, without any basis, attack the APNU-AFC coalition.
Anyway, in light of all of the above, I would like to know to whom I must submit my invoices for disbursements on behalf of myself and Mr. Clarke.
http://www.caribnewsdesk.com/news/10026-guy-325-million-spent-on-rodney-commission-of-inquiry-state-media-reporter-paid-us-7-000-per-month-to-cover-hearings
The duration of the International Commission of Inquiry (ICoI) into the death Dr. Walter Rodney is uncertain as Legal Affairs Minister, Basil Williams, says the inquiry has cost Guyanese taxpayers GUY$325,194,226 to date, GUY$16 million of which was paid to a state-media operative for his coverage of sittings.
Williams, who made the disclosure to reporters during an interview today, said the amount given does not include the costs for future sittings, the next of which should take place in July. “This thing is not finished…, they didn’t know the government would have changed,” he remarked.
“Were gonna wind it down,” we can’t afford it,” the Minister continued. Before the ICoI is concluded however, the various lawyers have to be allowed to make submissions, after which the Commissioners must present their decision. “There has to be a sitting for submission to be made, upon completion of which the Commissioners would render their decision on the matter. If that is the case the lawyers would have to be informed that they have to give submissions.”
Detailing some of the specifics of the expenditure, Williams said payment for the Commission’s three Commissioners, two Attorneys – at – Law, and a designated journalist from a state-media entity amounted to $150,777,000. Particularly discomforting, Williams shared, is the fact that records show that government paid out US$7,300 per month to a state-media operative for his coverage of each sitting of the inquiry.
Efforts to contact Shaun Michael Samaroo, who covered the COI for the state-owned Guyana Chronicle newspaper, and that paper's Editor-in-Chief, Mark Ramotar were unsuccessful.
To date, he explained, the journalist, whose identity he has declined to disclose, has been paid US$80,000 ($16 million. “This is squandermania that took place…and abuse,” said Williams, who described the costs as “horrendous.”
On June 13th, 2013 the Government of Guyana (GoG), under the Donald Ramotar Administration, announced that it had approved the establishment of the ICOI following a request from the Rodney Family. Rodney was killed on June 13, 1980 when an explosive device went off in a car in which he was sitting. Due to the circumstances surrounding his killing, it has been deemed an assassination.
Ramotar had said that such an inquiry was necessary to allow Guyana to start the healing process after more than 30 years of uncertainty concerning Rodney’s death, and to avail his family closure. The inquiry commenced April of 2014, and was supposed to wrap up at the end of the year. The government, however, announced that they were extending the Commission’s life indefinitely.
General Secretary of the Peoples National Congress, Basil Williams, as well as other party members have dismissed the ICoI as a “witch hunt,” the aim of which was the sullying of the name of the PNC. As a result of its opposition to the ICoI, the PNC has refused to participate, although Basil Williams did attend sessions to defend the party’s interest.
“We are convinced that he real reason for it was political,” lamented Williams, who added that the ICoI ended up serving “no useful purpose aside from vindicating the PNC…we said at the outset it was a witch hunt. We have hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay,” says Williams who now believed that “…their intention to undermine the PNC and to undermine our (election) campaign in the APNU totally backfired.”
Regards,
Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public

In the Written Arguments of Counsel for the People's National Congress by Basil Williams and Selwyn A. Pieters, Written Submissions of the People's National Congress, July 23, 2015, we raised the issue of Shaun Michael Samaroo.

So for the Chairman to tell me he never heard of Shaun Michael Samaroo prior to my oral arguments does not instil confidence in the Commission.

Pegasus Guyana - Ants and Roach Infested Rooms

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 August 05, 2015

I post this video taken on August 04, 2015 at the Pegasus Hotel in Georgetown Guyanaand these pictures taken one year ago in August 2014, where I experienced a problem with a roach infestation problem at the Pegasus Guyana. I expected to see much improvement in 2015, however, lo and behold, in 2015 very little has changed including customer service.





From: Selwyn Pieters
To:  susan Isaacs @pegasushotelguyana.com
 Cc: reservations @pegasushotelguyana.com
 Date: Monday, August 03, 2015 08:02 pm
 Subject: Pegasus

Good evening Susan,

I was hoping I would not have to write you this trip but I do have to. As you know I was in 2007, and I had an invasion of ants in the room. Not sure how house-keeping would have missed that. I spent Sunday and part of Monday in Berbice. When I returned Monday evening there were scores of fine ants in the room. I called down to the reception desk to relay my concerns about 4:15 p.m. I requested that housekeeping spray the room and bring a mop to mop up the ants. One hour later no one arrived. I went down to the front desk, to see the duty manager. It took a while waiting. So I left and took a walk outside the hotel. When I returned I waited for some time for the duty manager and had to return to the room since the duty manager did not come to the front desk. He arrived at 6:22 p.m. I was then moved to room 3006 shortly after 6:30 p.m.

The excuse that the on-call manager provided for no seeing me earlier was simply not acceptable. What can be more important (apart from an emergency such as a fire or robbery or medical emergency) than responding to a customer whose room is swarmed with ants?

I stayed at the Pegasus this trip because I had to old family members who I brought along on holidays and I thought this would be good. I am very disappointed.

My aunty who stayed in room 715 complained that her luggage was piflfered and belongings stolen. She was also concerned that the housekeeping staff left two bath towels in the room and showed up late almost every evening with a washclothe. It seemed very irregular to her.

This cannot be the best customer service that Pegasus can offer. It just cannot be....

Yours very truly,

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

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.