Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts

Monday, December 27, 2021

Selwyn Pieters Law Office Litigation Year in Review 2021: Staying Resiliant in the face of COVID19 and Pervasive Anti-Black Racism

 


By Selwyn A. Pieters B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)
Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Pieters Law Office
Created December 27, 2021
Updated: January 02, 2022

Remembering 2021:  This was an interesting litigation year with law being practised in three countries, in several practice areas, with highs, lows, speed bumps, potholes (pun intended), falls and in-betweens. 

My work have covered a large number of clients and a wide array of legal areas, particularly, human rights law (racial discrimination, systemic discrimination, racial profiling, racial context to criminal law), civil litigation, Constitutional Law/Charter issues, criminal law, police law, Guyanese Constitutional law, as well as a variety of forms of administrative law.  I have been ably assisted by Thoby King who, upon completing his Articles of Clerkship, continues to provide legal services to my clients on a part-time basis.

Legal Publication


Civil Practice and Procedure in Ontario: Co-authored chapter on Rule 33 of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure, which concerns orders to attend medical examinations. This project involved extensive case research and writing. The book was published on September 8, 2021. See, Selwyn A Pieters and Thoby King, Rules of Civil Procedure Chapters, Discovery, Rule 33 - Medical Examination of Parties in Civil Procedure and Practice in Ontario, Noel Semple (ed.), Canadian Legal Information Institute, 2021 CanLIIDocs 2025.

Speaking Engagements and Presentations

January 30, 2021, Black Pre-law Conference, Peter A. Allard School of Law, University of British Columbia

Community advocacy  regarding noose found at Michael Garron Hospital construction site

February 05-06, 2021, Participated as a Judge in the Julius Alexander Isaac Moot hosted by The Black Law Students’ Association of Canada (BLSA Canada) .

February 17, 2021, Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History and BLSA Osgoode panel discussion with three Black legal professionals: Selwyn A. Pieters, Asha James, and Justice Lori Anne Thomas, on how Black Resistance has manifested through their journeys.

April 22, 2021: “COVID-19 and Police Racial Profiling in Ontario”, Regent Park Parent Conference Workshop Series.

May 31, 2021, Press Conference of Paul Slowe Chairman of the Police Service Commission (Guyana)

June 11, 2021: “Access to Administrative Justice for Community Users: A Litigator’s Perspective” at National Roundtable on Administrative Law: All the Voices We Don’t Hear, hosted by the Canadian Institute for the Administration of Justice.

July 28, 2021, Healing the Leaders, Toronto Centre of Community Learning & Development.

September 15, 2021 Selwyn A Pieters and Thoby King, Workplace COVID-19 Vaccination Policies: Can Non-Unionized Employees in Ontario be Fired for Non-Compliance?, CanLII Authors Program, 2021 CanLIIDocs 2230

October 4, 2021, Physicians for Human Rights Research Presentation on "Excited Delirium"

November 8, 2021, Law in Action Within Schools (LAWS)  careers workshop for grade 10 students at Central Technicao School

November 10, 2021, Grappling with Racial Bias in the Inquest Context, Presiding Inquest Officers.

November 23, 2021, Litigating Racial Bias, Faculty of Law, Queen's University.

November 27, 2021, panel discussion "Building resilience and community, one person at a time" Toronto Centre of Community Learning & Development.

Constitutional and Public law


I was counsel for the CityPlace Residents’ Association in City of Toronto v. Attorney General for Ontario 2021 SCC 34: This Supreme Court of Canada case concerned the City of Toronto’s constitutional challenge to the Provincial Government’s reconfiguration of municipal electoral boundaries during the municipal election of 2018. Our client was the CityPlace Residents’ Association, which intervened on the side of the City at the Supreme Court. The decision was a 5-4 majority for the Ontario government. CPRA's submissions on electoral listening was adopted by Abella J. and the minority (dissenting opinion). 

Previous summary of the case: I acted in this case at the lower leveels of Court as co-counsel for Rocco Achampong in  Toronto (City) v. Ontario (Attorney General) (C65861) where Justice Edward Belobaba of Ontario Superior Court of Justice overturned Bill 5, Better Local Government Act that dramatically changed the composition of City Counsel mid-way through the 2018 municipal elections. See, City of Toronto et al v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 5151 stay granted Toronto (City) v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2018 ONCA 761. The appeal was heard on the merit by a five member panel of the Court of Appeal and the Court in a majority decision overturned the decision of the Superior Court and restored the status quo in favor of cutting City Council. See,Toronto (City) v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2019 ONCA 732. Mr. Achampong did not participate in the appeal. 


Knox College, University of Toronto, 2021 CanLII 75429, this matter involved an appeal to the PO-4176 - Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario in respect to the denial of email and other records held by the Toronto School of Theology and Knox College related to the appellant’s Doctor of Theology studies. In its decision the adjudicator concludes that records responsive to an individual’s request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act  regarding his doctoral studies in Theology at Knox College and the Toronto School of Theology are not in the University of Toronto’s custody or under its control. As the requester has no right of access to the responsive records under section 10(1) of the Act, the adjudicator dismisses the appeal.

Guyana Criminal and Constitutional Law

I have been heavily involved in a sequence of legal matters in Guyana relating to the Police Service Commission (PSC) and the Guyanese government’s attempt to influence promotions of senior police officers and to attack the PSC. These matters have not yet been resolved. Namely:

·      May 31, 2021 submissions of Paul Slowe, PSC Chairman and Commissioner Clinton Conway in response to a May 19, 2021 Show Cause Notices served on them from the Office of the Prime Minister, including a supporting affidavit of Paul Slowe with extensive exhibits and a brief of documents.

·      Joint submissions of all PSC members in response to a second round of Show Cause Notices dated June 1, 2021, including another affidavit of Paul Slowe and another brief of documents. Submissions were filed June 8, 2021.

·      Arrest, detention and seizure of electronic devices of A. H., a Police Sergeant, on the false allegation that he leaked the Report to the Police Service Commission into sexual harassment allegations against Senior Superintendent Karimbaksh prepared by Assistant Commissioner of Police Simon McBean to Sherod Avery Duncan 

·       After the purported suspension of the members of the PSC by the President on June 16, 2021, letter to the President regarding the purported suspensions ( June 28, 2021).

·    Fixed  Date Application and accompanying documents on behalf of the Commission seeking judicial intervention in the promotion of senior ranks. This matter is engaging the attention of the Supreme Court of the Judicature (Gino Persaud J.) The Police Service Commission v. Secretary, Police Commission (1004/2021-FDA)

·    Appeared in person at the Magistrate's Court in Georgetown, Guyana, on October 15, 2021, before Principal Magistrate, Sherdel Isaacs-Marcus for arraignment and bail hearing for former Chairman of the Police Service Commission (PSC), Paul Slowe on charges of  sexual assault x 3 and conspiracy to defraud the Guyana Police Force (GPF). Successfully secured bail. There is also a video of the conduct of the SOCU police officers that day as they attempted to detain, arrest and pass Mr. Slowe down the "chute." See also, Slowe to ‘vigorously defend’ fraud, sexual assault charges, Guyana Chronicle, May 22, 2021; Slowe granted bail on conspiracy to defraud, sexual assault charges, Stabroek News, October 16, 2021.

I was also retained in the case where Director of Prisons Gladwin Samuels was reassigned to the Ministry of Home Affairs as the Assistant Coordinator of People Smuggling. See, Samuels Removed as Prison Director, Village Voice, April 24, 2021. In this case no ligitation was initiated.

Civil Litigation


Lee and Willson v Agnelo, Agnelo and Thompson (SCJ File no. CV-21-00658765-0000): This is an ongoing file involving a dispute between neighbours over driveway access as well as alleged racial profiling and discrimination of our clients by the plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs recently filed for an Interim Injunction against my clients. The application for an Interim Injunction was dismissed. The Plaintiff did not meet the test of a strong prima facie case nor did they meet the traditional test for injunction. In her reasons for judgment The Honourable Madam Justice P. Tamara Sugunasiri wrote:

[26] .....I am using this opportunity to add to the growing body of caselaw that anti-Black racism need not be overt nor intended, in order to harm.
[27] Anti-Black racism is a reality in our society arising from centuries of stereotyping, negative messaging and negative imaging. As the Ontario Court of Appeal has recognized: “For some people, anti-black biases rest on unstated and unchallenged assumptions learned over a lifetime. Those assumptions shape the daily behaviour of individuals, often without any conscious reference to them." While much of the jurisprudence on anti-Black racism arises in the criminal context, it is impossible to imagine that civil disputes are completely immune from such influences. Often it can only be inferred from circumstantial evidence, which has its own pitfalls. The challenge for another day will be to determine if, and to what extent, unconscious anti-Black racism impacts on the equities of this case.

Yeates et al. v. Karol et al.; CV-15-540974, This was a claim involving Nuisance, Breach of Contract, Personal Injury, Negligence, and Property Damage arising out of a a construction dispute between neighbours.

Criminal Law


R. v. Vaughan Oscar Roberts - Mr. Roberts is charged with second degree murder of Jason Wagar, attempted murder of Michael Muchmore, possession of a restricted weapon, possession of a loaded restricted firearm without an authorization or licence, without lawful excuse point a firearm at another person, use of a firearm in the commission of an indictable offence, and discharge of a firearm with intent to endanger the life of Michael Muchmore. These charges arise from an incident that occurred on August 12, 2021, at 15 Fergus Street, in the City of Kingston. A bail hearing was held in this matter and a publication ban requested by the Crown Attorney was resisted by Mr. Roberts: R. v. Roberts, 2021 ONSC 8116 (SCJ). Mr. Roberts was released on bail the Judge having found that "Considering the totality of the evidence presented, including the racial context, the qualities of the sureties, the terms of the proposed plan of supervision, the lack of a criminal record, and the most recent outbreak at the Quinte Detention Centre, I am of the opinion that detention is not necessary in order to maintain confidence in the administration of justice." R. v. Roberts, 2021 ONSC 8401. See also, Attempted murder added to charges in Kingston shooting globalnews.ca, August 13, 2021; Murder suspect seeks bail, declines publication ban The Whig.com October 26, 2021; Judge grants bail to Black Ajax man facing murder charge, citing 'very strong' self-defence argument in death of white Kingston man, Toronto Star, December 17, 2021 

R. v. Madison 2021 CarswellOnt 5084, 171 W.C.B. (2d) 337 Sentencing of Connor Madison: A sentencing hearing was held on March 30, 2021 for Mr. Connor Madison on multiple charges including aggravated assault and uttering threats.  Mr. Madison is a 23-year old man of Metis heritage who stabbed another resident of a shelter and later threatened his mother and as well a Toronto Community Housing security officer, while out on bail. Mr. Madison was sentenced to 24 months for aggravated assault, two months consecutive, for threatening security officer and one month consecutive for threatening his mother, less 488 days' credit for time served.

Preliminary inquiry of Connor Madison: Mr. Connor Madison was charged with second-degree murder in June, 2020 in connection with stabbing death of Stephon Anton Knights-Roberts . His preliminary inquiry was held from May 17 – 19, 2021 with a decision given orally on May 27, 2021 committing him to trial. 

R. v. Clarke  Mr. Clarke was charged with aggravated assault for which he entered a plea to the lesser included offence of assault causing bodily harm. There was a joint position for 18 month conditional sentence having regarding to mitigating factors in favor of the accused. The complainant, who orchestrated the confrontation with Mr. Clarke, sustained multiple stab wounds. One in the upper middle back area that was plugged at the scene by EMS and resulted in a collapsed lung. The stab wound to the left ear severed some nerves and plastic surgery was necessary to repair the damage. The treating physician indicated that there were lacerations to left parotid gland, which is located just under and in front of the left ear.  Also, a laceration to the left temporal artery, located just in front of the left ear. The final stab wound was to the left anterior lower neck area 3-4 inches in length and which caused a hematoma.  He was taken to surgery to rule out any injury to his trachea and esophagus. The complainant was first treated with a surgically placed chest-tube to his right chest. He also received a number of sutures to close the wounds to his ear, neck and back. The complainant spent a week in hospital prior to being discharged. He continues to have some lasting effects, including some nerve damage to his face due to the nerve damage caused by the severing of the nerves near his ear, as well as strained breathing due to the injury to his lung. Mr. Clarke as a result of my work served no jail time for this offence.

R. v. Harry, the complainant alleged that the accused assaulted her in the presence of her children, two of whom she alleged were ear witnesses and one of whom was present in the room. As a result of plea negotiations Justice Broderick granted the accused a conditional discharge. This means that he will not receive a criminal conviction and will not have a criminal record from this incident, but there will be a temporary record kept of the discharge. 

R. v. J.A. mischief - this was a domestic matter in which the complalnant alleged that the accused broke her computer monitor. The charges were withdrawn.

R. v. Theriault, 2020 ONSC 5784 - Provided legal advice and assisted in the revision and editing of a  Community Impact Statement for the sentencing of a White Police Officer who was involved in the assault and lost of an eye of Dafonte Miller, a Black teenager.

Domestic Violence - cases involving domestic violence and interpersonal assaults / violence amongst spouses and friends with benefits increased astronomically during COVID and the resulting lock-down. We provided representation in criminal matters and regulatory matters arising out of such difficult matters that spawn charges that could include murder, aggravated assault, assault bodily harm, 267(C) assault/choking, CC 267 assault with a weapon,  CC 266 assault,  CC 279(2) forcible confinement, CC 267(A) assault with a weapon.


Police Law (hybrid Human Rights)

We provided legal representation to clients in several cases involving police misconduct before the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) some of which resulted in findings of misconduct and disciplinary action.

On April 15, 2020, the Court of Appeal released Stanley v Office of the Independent Police Review Director, 2020 ONCA 252 upholding in part Stanley v. Chief of Police of the Toronto Police Service, 2019 ONSC 180. In this case Office of the Independent Police Review Director substantiated misconduct against Constable Christopher Howes with respect to his conduct during a search warrant entry in the Stanley family home. In this decision, the Court of appeal determined in para. 64-68 and 75-78, the following:
 
(a) The Police Services Act, RSO 1990, c P.15 trumps both common law and the SPPA,
(b) The OIPRD has the authority to make rules to govern its own practices and procedures,
(c) The OIPRD lacked explicit statutory power of reconsideration when the decision in question was made, but
(d) accepted that this newly acquired legal authority might be applied retrospectively to the Stanley family’s case if re-investigation is to be ordered.

Leave to appeal this decision was subsequently dismissed by the Supreme Court of Canada on January 28, 2021: Office of the Independent Police Review Director v. Faye Stanley, et al., 2021 CanLII 4697. Supreme Court won't hear police oversight case on Black family's allegations of brutality, Canadian Press, January 28, 2021.

A significant proportion of those residing in homeless encampments in the City of Toronto belong to historically marginalized groups who are overrepresented among Toronto’s homeless population. They include people with disabilities, Black and Indigenous people of colour, people in receipt of social assistance and members of the LGBTQ community protected under the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990 c. H.9 and s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. See, Black et al. v. City of Toronto, 2020 ONSC 6398 and Sanctuary et al v. Toronto (City) et al., 2020 ONSC 6207 

In June and July 2021, the City has escalated its efforts to force homeless encampment residents to vacate public parks and to remove their belongings. It has issued Notices of Advice under Municipal Code c. 608 which regulates City parks and prohibits, inter alia, the erection of tents in parks (the “Parks By-law”). The City has issued Trespass Notices requiring the removal of tents and belongings and prohibiting people from being in parks overnight. It has conducted massive operations removing the occupants of the encampments.

While the City’s enforcement of the Trespass Notice(s) is facially neutral, it is the above disadvantaged persons who are being forcibly removed by Police and City officials and further displaced.

The videos of the tactics of the Toronto Police in the past two encampment clearance at Lamport Stadium and Alexandra Park was disturbing for its wanton violence. OIPRD can do a systemic type of review similar to what was done on the Thunder Bay Police Service and make systemic recommendations. Our law firm has filed OIPRD complaints on behalf of two persons who alleged they were mistreated by Toronto Police officers.

I also provided Independent Legal Advice to police officers who experienced various forms of racism in the Toronto Police Service.

Of course, being a human rights advocate / lawyer comes with risks of harassment and retaliation from officers of the State:  6 Toronto cops were found guilty of disparaging anti-racism advocates. The report was kept secret, CBC Toronto, November 04, 2021; 6 Toronto police officers found guilty of discreditable conduct online, Global News, November 04, 2021.


Human Rights Law

Selwyn prticipated in the 60th Anniversary of the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) by recounting his experience in the seminal and significant racial profiling/carding case of Peel Law Association v. Pieters 2013 CarswellOnt 7881, 2013 ONCA 396, 228 A.C.W.S. (3d) 204, 116 O.R. (3d) 81, 306 O.A.C. 314, 9 C.C.E.L. (4th) 233, [2013] O.J. No. 2695(Ont. C.A.)

2017-28096-I Walkes v. Reids Heritage Homes, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario heard submissions on whether an expert affidavit from J David Hulchanski, PhD will be accepted into evidence and the expert qualified to provide evidence in this housing discrimination case. Dr. Hulchanski posited that “Given that the Black population of the region Fergus is part of is 526,000 (5.8% of the GGH, Table 1) researchers are correct to wonder what are the odds of an exceptionally small Black population of Fergus occurring and maintaining itself ‘naturally,’ and for so long (as of 2016), given the extensive ethnocultural diversity of the Toronto region, and much of Ontario and Canada? How is it that Fergus with 20,400 people, 8,150 households, in a county that has 3,300 Black residents, has a Black population of 100? These facts, given that they are from 2016, would alert most researchers to consider residential discrimination, in the form of racial steering and racial exclusion, as part of the explanation.” The Tribunal's decision is reported at Walkes v. Reid’s Heritage Homes, 2021 HRTO 251. In this case we were also successful in a third party records application which compelled TD Canada to produce banking records to the Tribunal and the parties. 

Holder:  (File. No. 2020-43232-I) is a Human Rights application regarding racial and age discrimination and failure to accommodate disability-related needs. Employer is the Ministry of the Attorney General representing her employer the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.  A significant issue has been the impact of a purported settlement of the Human Rights claim by the union. A preliminary hearing to determine the point was heard and a decision is pending. See also,  Ontario Public Service Employees Union (Holder-Regis) v Ontario (Attorney General), 2020 CanLII 97346 (ON GSB).

Other cases worked on in 2021 include

 N.M. as represented by litigation guardian L.B. v Toronto Police Service Board (File No. 2020-42533-I): Police racial profiling and racialized use of force against a minor. A video of the 14 year old being hog tied by Toronto Police is on youtube. See also, Mother of teen says 'violent' Toronto police arrest has 'traumatized' her son, Global News, August 21, 2019.

Lamontagne v Metrolinx (File No. 2020-43455-I) and Lamontagne v Metrolinx (File No. 2020-43456-I): Racial profiling and racialized use of force by GO Transit special constables. The applicants alleged that they were singled out and treated differently because of their race and ethnicity: Black, African-Canadian, Males.

 Orlyn Collins v Movati Athletics (File No. 2020-40427-I): Racial profiling at a gym. See, for example, Collins v. Movati Athletic (Group) Inc., 2020 HRTO 849, for a synopsis of what this matter was about.

Chen v Toronto Police Service Board (File No. 2019-39271-I): Racial profiling and racialized use of force by police. Mr. Chen alleged that he was held and restrained by two police officers whilst a third officer assaulted him causing him physical injuries. This matter is still awaiting a hearing.

Burke v Toronto Police Service Board, Chief of Police of the Toronto Police Service, Constable Blacklaws (File No. 2020-40412-I): Racial profiling and racialized use of force by police. Mr. Burke was detained and left in handcuffs. Toronto Fire had to attend and cut the handcuffs off.

In the international law arena, I was engaged as a local expert for the World Bank Group’s Women, Business and the Law project in their Violence against Women survey for Guyana.

Employment/Labour Law

Selwyn represented several non-unionized employees in managerial positions in termination of employment matters where the dismissal was for cause and some without cause and without notice. The matter to be resolved and has been resolved in all of the cases litigated in 2021 was the length of the notice period,  human rights damages, and other benefits, the employer was obligated to pay the employee in lieu of the notice, and having regard to other factors including bad faith termination.

Selwyn also provided advice to non-unionized employees on COVID19 vaccine mandates in their workplaces: See, for example, Selwyn A Pieters and Thoby King, Workplace COVID-19 Vaccination Policies: Can Non-Unionized Employees in Ontario be Fired for Non-Compliance?, CanLII Authors Program,
 
Licencing / Professional Regulation

13315/HRLA Jon P Galvano v. Registrar under the Alcohol, Cannabis and Gaming Regulation and Public Protection Act, 1996 - this matter involved an application to revoke a horse racing licence. A determination of the matter was not made as the applicant died before the appeal could be heard.

2595582 Ontario Inc. C.O.B. Yas Café and Lounge v York Region Public Health Unit (Health Services Appeal and Review Board, File No. 21-HPP-0012): this matter involved a challenge to the Medical Office of Health’s order to close hookah lounges in York Region due to COVID-19. At a Case conference, the impugned order was put in abeyance due to the Province-wide lockdown that had come into effect in the interim. The matter was subsequently resolved upon the stage 3 reopening of businesses including hookah lounges. 

Banking Law

TD Canada terminated my client's banking relationship including that of other family members without explanation on on the basis that it was "within our right to end our relationship with any customer, without giving detailed reasons, provided we have given reasonable notice of doing so." We were able to negotiate an extension of time for the client's use of her banking facilities including credit card.

BMO terminated and determined the mortgage of a client on the basis that its business activities are outside of the bank's "risk appetite. It provided one months notice of the termination. On the bais of our negotiation the Bank increased the notice period for withdrawal of its services from one month to about six months. Although it has shortened the time for the client to repay the term loan, the duration was still in accordance with what the courts have found reasonable.

Inquests


Since January 2021 Selwyn has been appointed as one of ten Ontario lawyer Presiding Inquest Officers under the Coroners Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.37. The appointment comes as a result of a legislative change to the Coroners Act that allows a lawyer to preside at a Coroners Inquest. Until 2021, all presiding officers at Inquests were medically trained. The role is part-time and will complement Selwyn's litigation practice.

Provincial Offences Act matters

Sale or distribution by non-authorized cannabis retailer or permitted by landlord (ss.6, 7, 13 and 23 of the CCA). For charges of sale of cannabis under s. 6 of the CCA. I represented budtenders of unlicenced cannabis dispensaries who faced charges under s. 6 of the CCA. The City of Toronto prosecution and defence resolved these matters on the basis of a fine of $1000.00 and one-year probation, for the budtenders.

Selwyn also represented clients in respect to charges under the Planning Act; Building Code; and Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act.

Animal Law matters

Selwyn has represented the owner of a company licensed to provide services including canine security and training and sale of trained dogs for security and other service purposes in litigation matters.

Thursday, December 26, 2019

Selwyn Pieters Litigation Year in Review 2019


By Selwyn A. Pieters B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)
Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Pieters Law Office
Created December 25, 2019


Remembering 2019:  This was an interesting litigation year with highs, lows, speed bumps, pot holes (pun intended) and in-betweens. 

I litigated in at least 10 practice areas, delved into a new area of Securities Litigation and was an Expert in two international law matters originating from Guyana. The truth of the matter is that the cases litigated are mostly test case and fundamentally impacts society. Significantly, some of them were done pro-bono, particularly since Legal Aid or other funding were hard to come by, and some litigants cannot afford the costs of hiring a lawyer and the fees and disbursements associated with challenging the actions or omissions of public authorities particularly the police.

Overall it was a very busy year, with some significant victories. 2020 will mark my 15th year since I was called to the Ontario Bar.


Constitutional and Public law

Langenfeld v. Toronto Police Services Board et al., 2019 CarswellOnt 14511, 2019 ONCA 716, 309 A.C.W.S. (3d) 506, 437 D.L.R. (4th) 614, 55 Admin. L.R. (6th) 322, 58 C.C.L.T. (4th) 27 (ONCA). This application involves the right of individuals to attend public meetings of the Toronto Police Services Board (“TPSB”), held in the second floor auditorium of Police Headquarters in Toronto, without submitting to a search carried out with neither a warrant nor reasonable and probable grounds. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice declared that the practice of searching visitors to Police Headquarters prior to entry in the absence of a warrant or reasonable and probable grounds, as it applies to individuals wishing to attend public meetings of the TPSB, infringes s. 2(b) of the Charter and is not justified under s. 1 of the Charter because the infringement is not prescribed by law. The Court of Appeal agreed with the Superior Court that a search as a condition of entry to Police Headquarters infringed the s.2 (b) rights of individuals wishing to attend the TPSB meetings. On the s. 1 analysis, it held that the infringement was justified, as it was prescribed by law and was a reasonable limit on the s. 2(b) right. Therefore, it allowed the appeal of the Chief of Police, set aside the application judge’s order, and dismissed Mr. Langenfeld’s application. An application for leave to appeal was filed in the Supreme Court of Canada. As an aside, the reach of the Langenfeld decsions was recently explained in Canadian Broadcasting Corporation v. Ferrier 2019 ONCA 1025


I was co-counsel for Rocco Achampong in Toronto (City) v. Ontario (Attorney General) (C65861) where Justice Edward Belobaba of Ontario Superior Court of Justice overturned Bill 5, Better Local Government Act that dramatically changed the composition of City Counsel mid-way through the 2018 municipal elections. See, City of Toronto et al v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2018 ONSC 5151 stay granted Toronto (City) v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2018 ONCA 761. The appeal was heard on the merit by a five member panel of the Court of Appeal and the Court in a majority decision overturned the decision of the Superior Court and restored the status quo in favor of cutting City Council. See,Toronto (City) v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2019 ONCA 732. Mr. Achampong did not participate in the appeal. The City of Toronto has applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. It is likely that we will intervene if leave is granted.

I provided an expert affidavit in Reid v. Speaker  Charrandass and AG which was cited by the Chief Justice of Guyana in her decision, that was upheld by the Caribbean Court of Justice in CharrandasPersaud v Compton Herbert Reid, Dr Barton Scotland, The Attorney General,Bharrat Jagdeo, Joseph Harmon & Guyana Elections Commission [2019] CCJ 10 (AJ). See also, High Court asked to quash no-confidence motion; says Charrandas Persaud was Canadian since 1998 - Demerara Waves Online News Guyana, January 04, 2019

Education Law/ Civil Litigation

Lam v. The University of Western Ontario Board of Governors et al., 2019 ONCA 82, 2019 CarswellOnt 1562 (ONCA) cost order Lam v. The University of Western Ontario Board of Governors et al., 2019 ONCA 185, 2019 CarswellOnt 3247 (ONCA) leave to appeal denied University of Western Ontario Board of Governors v. Simon Lam, 2019 CanLII 64826 (SCC). In this case the Court of Appeal determined that a University Student can sue for a breach of contract. The Court looked at what was signed when the student agreed to attend that university, which would contain the terms of the contract arguably and the graduate student handbook, and determined that there was an arguable case to litigate. This matter now proceeds to a trial. Another of my colleagues is handling the trial.

W.H. v. Toronto School of Theology The Student sought to appeal the termination of his registration in the Doctor of Theology Program (Program). Minutes of Settlement waived Student’s appeal rights. The Chair asked for written submissions from the parties as to whether the Academic Appeals Committee (AAC) had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. University of Toronto Academic Appeal Tribunal dismissed case holding that it has no jurisdiction.

Police Law (hybrid Human Rights)

Stanley v. Chief of Police of the Toronto Police Service, 2019 ONSC 180, 2019 CarswellOnt 65 (S.C.J.) stay of judgement pending appeal Stanley v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director 2019 CarswellOnt 13600 (ONCA). I have completed the appeal on the merits of Stanley v. OIPRD at the Ontario Court of Appeal. The decision is reserved. Essentially the Divisional Court rejected the proposition that OIPRD and a police service can have backroom conversations on substantive matters without the complainant being notified and held that “[28] As is emphasized by the name of the decision-maker, the Director of the Office of Independent Police Review was obliged to conduct an independent investigation and reach an independent decision. This independence is central to the OIPRD’s role in providing a public complaints system against police officers in Ontario: Nobody v. Ontario Civilian Police Commission, 2016 ONSC 5824 (CanLII) (Div. Ct.), at para. 49. Here, in circumstances which belie the independence of the OIPRD, the Director had undisclosed discussions with the TPS about changing his decision and, ultimately, he did change his decision.  These undisclosed communications give rise, at least, to an appearance of unfairness and compromise the independence of the Director.”

Aiken v. Ottawa Police Services Board 2019 CarswellOnt 9212, 2019 HRTO 934 (HRTO). In this case the parties sought a determination of the “data collection question” of the public interest remedy contained in the Consent and Agreement dated July 23, 2010.  The agreement was reached between the Parties and the Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) by way of a settlement of the underlying complaint. The Commission is no longer a party to the proceedings.  The Applicant, Chad Aiken, sought an interpretation that reflects his right (and that of other persons in Ottawa) to equal treatment with respect to policing by the Ottawa Police Services (the “OPS”) without discrimination based on race.  In seeking this interpretation, the Applicant maintains its position that the data collection should be sufficiently encompassing to determine whether there is an overrepresentation of Afro-Canadians in police scrutiny. The Tribunal opined on the “critical secondary work” that is needed when data reveals a problem. It urged that “data collection is just a first step, albeit a significant one, in addressing racial disproportionalities arising from policing practices.” The HRTO strongly urged the police service to take the next steps in the process – “to identify to the best of its ability what is causing or contributing to these disparities through conducting further research, and then based on the research findings, to develop and implement specific strategies to reduce and hopefully eliminate these disparities.” paras 130, 132. The Tribunal felt that Ottawa Police went way beyond what was called for in the 2012 Memorandum of Settlement and agreement.

I currently sit on four technical tables convened by the Ministry of the Solicitor General to create standards for the implementation of the Comprehensive Ontario Police Services Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 1.

I also attended community meetings in Regent Park on collecting statistics and the roll out of the new neighborhood policing model. 


Securities Law / Quasi Criminal

R. v. W. W. 2019 CarswellOnt 18822 (O.C.J.) - On January 21, 2019, Mr. W. pleaded guilty to one count of trading in securities while prohibited contrary to s. 122(1)(c) of the Ontario Securities Act. The OSC Prosecutors were seeking 12 months as a joint position, 15 to 16 months as an open position, 2 years less a day on conviction after trial, and two years probation, in any event, on terms that would prohibit Mr. W. from working in securities or any related businesses. Justice Malcolm McLeod of the Ontario Court of Justice was not convinced that a higher sentence was required as there was no fraud involved, it was not a boiler room scam and neither was there any investor losses. Reviewing existing caselaw, Justice McLeod found that harsher sentences were usually reserved for offenders facing similar charges in cases involving boiler room scams and significant investor losses. The court made it clear that no such factors were present in Mr. Weber’s case and such absence of ordinarily aggravating factors cannot be used to drive up the sentence. Taking guidance from existing precedents, Justice McLeod refused to accept the OSC’s arguments for a higher sentence in the range of 15-18 months. Mr. W. was sentenced to a 90-days intermittent sentence to be served on weekends and two years probation. OSC has appealed the sentence and a hearing of the appeal has been set for May 25, 2020.

R. v. W.W. 2019 CarswellOnt 14097 (O.C.J.) Mr. W. brought an application to strike his guilty plea on the basis that it was not voluntary, informed and unequivocal. The motion to strike the guilty plea was dismissed. The matter thereafter proceeded to the sentencing phase.

Criminal Law

R. v. M.B. 2019 CarswellOnt 10207 (O.C.J.). M.B. was a residential support worker employed at children’s residence that housed individuals with developmental, emotional, psychiatric and behavioural challenges. She was alleged to have assaulted 11-year old complainant on six occasions.  A third-party record application was filed. Records were produced for review by judge, who concluded that some of records were likely relevant. Copies of were produced. Record was not to be used in any other proceeding except with authorization of court order. M.B. matter proceeded to trial and she was acquitted of all charges.

R. v. B.L. (O.C.J.). Mr. L. was charged with six counts of assault, one count of assault with a weapon and one count of utter threat to cause death. He pled guilty to two counts of assault and was given a conditional discharge with probation. The Crown sought a DNA Order for this secondary designated offence. Submissions were made that the state’s interest in obtaining the offender’s DNA profile is premised on the serious nature of both primary and secondary designated offences making the order one that will advance the state’s objectives of:[1]
a)     deterring potential repeat offenders (i.e. specific deterrence);
b)     promoting the safety of the community;
c)     detecting/identifying/prosecuting the offence upon re-offending;
d)     assisting in the solving of "cold" crimes;
e)     streamline investigations; and
f)      protecting the innocent by eliminating suspects and exonerating the wrongfully convicted.

Mr. Justice Stephen Brown accepted and adopted my written submissions: "I have read Mr. Pieters' very thorough written submissions on this matter and they are set out in paragraph 28 to 39 on his written submissions which I am going to file…. And I adopt them in their entirety.". The Crown’s request for an Order to collect Mr. B.L. DNA was denied.

Human Rights Law

Khan v. Ontario (Community Safety and Correctional Services) 2019 HRTO 357, 2019 CarswellOnt 2769 (HRTO). In this case, the applicant filed an Application alleging discrimination because of race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, disability and reprisal contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). Specifically, among other things the applicant alleges that the respondents have discriminated and reprised against her in how hours at the workplace have been scheduled.   In addition to filing this Application, the applicant filed a grievance with her union regarding the way in which hours are scheduled. The grievance alleges that there is favouritism in the awarding of overtime hours. She seeks “full redress”. The Tribunal deferred the matter. The applicant subsequently withdrew her grievances and the matter is proceeding through the HRTO processes.

2015-20752-I; 2015-20753-I; 2015-20754-I Stanley v. Toronto Police Services Board.  The applicant filed three Applications, one on behalf of each of her three sons (the “claimants”). In the Applications, she alleged that the respondents discriminated against the claimants because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, ethnic origin and age contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. c. H. 19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application arose out of a raid of the applicant’s home carried out by Toronto Police officers in April 2014. The Applicant alleged that the officers’ conduct was fuelled by stereotypical assumptions about young black males and their propensity to commit criminal offences and to act violently. In addition to filing the Applications, the applicant filed a complaint to the OIPRD alleging misconduct on the part of the police officers involved in the raid. See, above section on Police law. This Human Rights matter came before the Tribunal in 2019 and has now been completed.

HRTO File 2019-37512-I - S.A. by litigation guardian A. A. v TPSB, et al. This case revolves around the encounter between a group of racialized youths in Regent Park and Toronto Police Officers who followed them over several blocks and then pretextually ticketed them at a traffic light (crossing on a red light) to collect intelligence in 51 Division. A human Rights complaint was filed in June 2019 This case will be a test on how far the Human Rights Tribunal is willing to go to make orders dealing with Walking Whilst Black situations. A youtube video of part of the encounter is available.

HRTO File 2018-33829-I JC v The Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board et al involves a complaint filed by a Black youth concerning his experience with Peel Police. On August 25, 2017, in Brampton, Ontario, J.C. was arrested by Peel Police and criminally charged for assaulting a police officer.  Those criminal charges were later withdrawn.  At the time of his arrest, J.C. was a young person under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, C.1 (“YCJA”).  He subsequently commenced an application (“Human Rights Application”) before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (“HRTO”) alleging that the Peel Regional Police Services Board, Jennifer Evans, David Oxley, Jarrett Curtis, Alexander Scott-Krawczyk and Gary Mackin (collectively, “Peel Police”) discriminated against J.C. on numerous grounds including race.  A Judge of the Ontario Court of Justice recently granted an Order with respect to the use the parties can make of the file in the criminal proceedings. The matter is likely to be heavily litigated in 2020.

Harrower v. Ontario 2019 CarswellOnt 14680 (HRTO) – The applicant suffers from Arthrogryposis Multiplex Congenita (AMC), a congenital joint contracture condition, as well as several other conditions including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disorder (COPD) and Celiac Disease. In addition to his disabilities and illnesses, of which he needs immediate and urgent relief of his symptoms, Ken has limited funds making the OCS system unreasonable and flawed. As a result of his COPD condition, Ken is unable to smoke cannabis and must either eat cannabis in edible form or eat raw cannabis itself. Given his disabilities, he is unable to work full-time, making him reliant on the Ontario Disability Support Program where he receives very limited funds that do not adequately cover his day-to-day expenses. Ken has a prescription for medical cannabis under Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulation. Ken filed a Human Rights challenge against The Attorney General of Ontario, The Office of the Premier of Ontario and The Toronto Police Service citing that the current cannabis retail system launched by the Government of Ontario –  the Ontario Cannabis Store (OCS) – is flawed and discriminatory against people with disabilities and limited financial means.  Tribunal directed combined summary/preliminary hearing.  Tribunal would determine whether complaint had reasonable prospect of succeeding. Parties could make submissions regarding whether complaint should be dismissed on basis medical cannabis was unconnected to jurisdiction of Ontario.

2017-28096-I Walkes v. Reids Heritage Homes the Tribunal heard evidence on whether an expert affidavit from J David Hulchanski, PhD will be accepted into evidence and the expert qualified to provide evidence in this housing discrimination case. Dr. Hulchanski posited that “Given that the Black population of the region Fergus is part of is 526,000 (5.8% of the GGH, Table 1) researchers are correct to wonder what are the odds of an exceptionally small Black population of Fergus occurring and maintaining itself ‘naturally,’ and for so long (as of 2016), given the extensive ethnocultural diversity of the Toronto region, and much of Ontario and Canada? How is it that Fergus with 20,400 people, 8,150 households, in a county that has 3,300 Black residents, has a Black population of 100? These facts, given that they are from 2016, would alert most researchers to consider residential discrimination, in the form of racial steering and racial exclusion, as part of the explanation.” The decision in respect to this discrete issue is reserved.

In the international law arena, I was engaged as a local expert for the World Bank Group’s Women, Business and the Law project in their Violence against Women survey for Guyana. My contribution was reported in the Law Times, Canadian lawyer helps with World Bank project on women and the law, October 21, 2019. 


Licencing / Professional Regulation

11724 v. Director, Child, Youth and Family Services Act 2019 CarswellOnt 2389, 2019 CanLII 29112 (ON LAT). The appellant operated a children’s residence in Ottawa, Ontario. It appealed the respondent’s Proposal to Revoke a Licence (the Proposal) pursuant to s. 236(1) and s. 264(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017. This decision dealt with a request to seal part of the hearing and its records. The Tribunal considered the openness principle as set out in Toronto Star v. AG Ontario, 2018 ONSC 2586 (ONSC). The appellants voluntarily surrendered their licence. Two days of evidence was heard in Ottawa.

Inquests

Ekamba, Re 2019 CarswellOnt 9640. Mr. Ekamba was fatally shot by Peel Regional Police officers who were responding to a complaint. During the incident, a stray police bullet struck Ms. Susan Zreik, who had not been involved and was in her apartment. Ms. Zreik was transported to hospital, underwent surgery for the bullet wound, and survived the injury. Mr. Ekamba’s death was investigated by the Special Investigations Unit. At the conclusion of its investigation, the SIU did not lay criminal charges against the involved officers. One of the main issues in the inquest is the intersection of race and mental health and what role it had in this case. The Inquest has been scheduled for three weeks commencing May 11, 2020. I will be counsel for Black Action Defence Committee.

Cannabis Law

This was a busy year litigating cannabis cases on many fronts. The advocacy was in the Courts and on the streets. Toronto Police Services conducted major operations resulting in the arrest and prosecution of hundreds of young bud tenders.

Toronto Police Service Drug Squad launched Project Buffet in which charges were laid of conspire to commit an indictable offence: to wit, distribution of cannabis, contrary to subsection 10(1) of the Cannabis Act, thereby committing an offence contrary to subsection 465(1)(c) of the Criminal Code and Possession of property obtained by crime: to wit, currency derived from drug trafficking, contrary to section 354(1) of the Criminal Code against numerous persons. On some days I was running bail hearing for 15 persons held for show cause hearings. These matters are making their way through the Courts.

Sale or distribution by non-authorized cannabis retailer or permitted by landlord (ss.6, 7, 13 and 23 of the CCA). For charges od sale of cannabis under s. 6 of the CCA, Ontario Attorney General disposed of over 100 cases with the use of fines of $500.00 and stays of some of the charges. The City of Toronto prosecution asked for $1000.00 and one-year probation, for the budtenders.
Concrete blocks were used to shutter dispensaries. In one instance which prompted a hasty change in the law, I forced the City of Toronto By-law enforcement to re-open a location in which a tenant was locked out of his unit.

The law was amended to remove the provision where a building remained open if residential tenants resided on the property. We litigated the change of the legislation in Brodie v. Attorney General of Ontario, 2019 ONSC 5735. Unfortunately, the application judge did not allow interim access to the premises pending the determination of the constitutional issues.

Law enforcement inclusive of the police engaged in aggressive enforcement in relation to cannabis under the governing federal and provincial statutes, namely, the Criminal Code, Cannabis Act and the Cannabis Control Act, 2017 (CCA) which came into force on October 17, 2018 in Ontario.
The unlicensed cannabis market has and continue to meet a demand unmet by the current regulatory regime. In this regard, there because intense enforcement action by the City of Toronto and Toronto Police to shut down the unlicensed.

The Cannabis Retail Store Allocation Lottery became a farce and has been the subject of litigation. 104 Harbord Street, the location of a series of raids, actually won one of the spots in the lottery.
The Province recently announced that the laws will be amended to open the markets. In the meantime, hundreds of criminal matters and CCA matters are clogging up the Court’s dockets and wasting precious judicial, public and private resources because of a series of costly missteps on the part of the government and regulators.

I have won two different awards in 2019 for my work on law reform and advocacy in this area.
Cases will be litigated in 2020 on the Constitutional, human rights, criminal/quasi criminal and administrative law front on the cannabis files. It will be interesting to see how the judiciary wrestle with these matters.





[1] R. v. F.(P.R.), 2001 CarswellOnt 4566 (C.A.),  at paras 17-18.

Monday, June 26, 2017

BADC Closing Arguments - Andrew Loku Inquest (notes)

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 26, 2017
I want to thank you, members of the jury for taking the time to be here for a case that is of great importance to our communities and taking time out of your lives to be the jury in this case.

Sir Robert Peel stated that "The police are the public and the public are the police." So that if we break this down in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, and multi-racial society it means that the police must have experientially interacted with citizens including Black men and women and persons with mental health exceptionalities."

"One of the Black Action Defence Committee (BADC) Directors reminded me at lunch today that we are on one ship so that if we sink you will too.

The Relationship between police and black community must be look at holistically. If relationship continues to be strained and steps aren’t taken to ameliorate that relationship, no one is safe in this city. Black lives matter. Our lives matters.

Constable Doyle testified that he had a Black partner but never had experience interacting with Black men. You heard the evidence of Professor Nicholas Rule where he spoke of the implicit bias and the shift of perception of Black men from "happy go lucky to Black men to being stereotyped as being angry and aggressive."

Implicit bias affects all of us. 35% of all fatal shootings, at least, are black men. This has led to a fear of the police in our communities. So our fear of police is not irrational. There is disparity in policing and how we are policed. That goes to recommendation with respect to compiling of statistics. We want official statistics. We want use of Force form to be amended to document race of person, and mental health issues. Race, gender, ethnicity of anyone killed or seriously hurt. Dr. Rule spoke of being collect and analyze data on implicit bias of individual officers from recruitment to advancement through the service. He also speak of tracking this data on a systemic level. Dr. Kwame McKenzie also spoke of the important of statistics in respect to the institutional racism including the use of force. So for both experts the collection of statistics are important.

We all worked collaboratively to come up with slate. Also join recommendations of Across Boundaries, that speak about intersectionality of mental health and anti-black racism. Some people would want you to believe that racism has nothing to do with this case. Race and mental health is at the core of what this case is about. We are not taking colour blind approach to this case. Race has something to do with it. That’s why this room was filled when Constable Doyle testified. Our community wanted to hear from him. W e are disappointed that the officers said they wouldn’t change anything they did in that same situation.

We have had inquests before where jury recommended tasers. You have seen the evidence that each Toronto Police officer has a gun, three magazines of ammo (15 rounds each). We're arming them for war, not peace.

You job is very important and I echo what Mr. Morton said, it is the most important thing you will do to make recommendations to governments, agencies and the police sop that lives are saved, deaths are prevented.

See also Dr. Carlise ruling on racism