Doug Ford will provide enhanced funding for TAVIS

Ontario Progressive Conservative Leader Doug Ford's speech on policing: if he becomes Premier of Ontario in June 2018 he will pump more money into The Toronto Anti-Violence Intervention Strategy (TAVIS). Tavis was a unit that collected personal information on mostly Black and Brown males. It was feared and hated for criminalizing a community based on racial stereotypes.

Cross-examination of Seelall Persaud, the Commissioner of the Guyana Police Force, on note-taking

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 August 3, 2017

The Commission of Inquiry comprising Mr. Paul Slowe, DSM was issued on the 11th day of July, 2017, to-
1. inquire into the persons, places, time, circumstances and events by and through which allegations and reports came to be made of an intention or a plan to assassinate the President of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana;
2. investigate and review the full range of the Guyana Police Force’s actions and responses to the reports and the extent to which such actions were conducted or executed with due diligence;
3. determine whether any person and, in particular, officers of the Guyana Police Force had information before and after reports were made of the plan to assassinate the President and whether any such officers communicated that information to a superior authority;
4. record and report on what official action was taken on the basis of the information received and whether there was due diligence by the officers of the Guyana Police Force in the investigation of the plan to assassinate the President;
5. review all actions taken by the Guyana Police Force and examine whether there was evidence failure, neglect or omission to thoroughly and properly investigate the intention or plan to assassinate the President and determine whether such failure or omission was intentional;
6. determine the blameworthiness for failure or neglect of officers or persons involved in the investigation and recommend action to be taken against persons found to be blameworthy;
7. recommend steps that can be taken in order to prevent the recurrence of such incident and can be deemed appropriate by the Commissioner; and 
8. identify systemic issues, if any, in the Guyana Police Force’s competence to investigate matters of this nature.

This is part of my Cross-examination of Seelall Persaud, the Commissioner of the Guyana Police Force, on note-taking and record keeping. Read and form your own opinion:

Mr. Pieters: I am Selwyn Pieters I represent the interest of a young reporter Mr. Travis Chase who is also in the Courtroom and I have some questions for you.
Mr. Persaud: Sure.
Mr. Pieters: Now Mr. Commissioner I understand that you were, sworn in as a Police Officer on October 15 1984.
Mr. Persaud: That is correct.
Mr. Pieters: And you are an internationally trained officer as well in terms of experience and education?
Mr. Persaud: That is correct.
Mr. Pieters: And that you went to Harvard University?
Mr. Persaud: That is correct.
Mr. Pieters: What did you do at Harvard University?
Mr. Persaud: A course executive education in National and International Security.
Mr. Pieters: And have you had training as well in other police organisations?
Mr. Persaud:Yes,  I did the FBI National Academy  at the FBI Academy in Virginia USA, and I did Senior Investigating in Officers Course by the Scottish Police I did several drug investigation course by many conducted by many countries around the world
.......
Mr. Pieters: When did you become aware that Mr. Chase recorded an interview with Mr. Gillard?
Mr. Persaud: I heard about an interview being aired sometime maybe shortly after he
…
Mr. Pieters: When was that?
Mr. Persaud: I can't recall.
Mr. Pieters: Who advised you?
Mr. Persaud: I can't recall either.
....
Mr. Pieters: Yes, I appreciate that, but let me ask you this Mr. Commissioner do you have a pocket book?
Mr. Persaud: No.
Mr. Pieters: How do you record entries of issues that are brought to your attention by Officers?
Mr. Persaud: Its filtered if there is a need to record I do record.
....
Mr. Pieters: Right, well who records, if you don't take a contemporaneous recording which is what your job is as a policeman, you are a policeman regardless if you are a Commissioner or Constable, right?
Mr. Persaud: Yes.
Mr. Pieters: And you are supposed to take contemporaneous notes, aren't you?
Mr. Persaud: On matters that are investigating on matters of interest, yes.
Mr. Pieters: And matters that are brought to your attention in your office as a police officer isn't that the case?
Mr. Persaud: No it's not the case.
.....
Mr. Pieters: Did you take any notes in respect to these matters touching in the assassination plot against the President of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana?
Mr. Persaud: No I didn't.
Mr. Pieters: Why didn't you take notes?
Mr. Persaud: It was not necessary.
Mr. Pieters: I am going to suggest to you that it was.
Mr. Persaud: I am going to continue to say that it was not.
Mr. Pieters: I am going to suggest to you that it was neglect of duty for you not to take notes of an important issues such as this.
Mr. Persaud: I will totally deny that.
Mr. Pieters: Would you said that you know the date when you were advised that Mr. Chase did an interview with Gillard?
Mr. Persaud: No, it was of no interest to me.
Mr. Pieters: It was of no interest to you and we gone get to that.
Mr. Persaud: Yes
...
Mr. Pieters: Let me finish my question, that‟s the problem as a professional
policeman, you testified to the panel that you have no way of making contemporaneous
notes…
Mr. Persaud: That is true unless I find it necessary.
Mr. Pieters: Well let us deal with that.
Mr. Persaud: Yes.
Mr. Pieters: Contemporaneous notes is an aide-memoire... taking notes is an aide-memoire, it aids your memory, and it helps you…
Mr. Persaud:...I don't disagree with you…
....
Mr. Pieters: It is called an aide memoir, but it also assists you when you testify in
court.
Mr. Persaud: But I didn‟t know that it would have been called to testify on this, had I known that then from day one I would have probably made notes.
Mr. Pieters:(inaudible)
Mr. Persaud: No, I make notes when it's necessary, I didn't find it necessary.
Mr. Pieters: But where is your is your memo book?
Mr. Persaud: I have a personal diary.
Mr. Pieters: Where is your personal diary?
Mr. Persaud: It‟s in the office.
Mr. Pieters: You came to court today, you don‟t think you should have brought it?
Mr. Persaud: No.
Mr. Pieters: If that is what you use to recollect your memory.
Mr. Persaud: I am saying that I didn't write anything in relation to this matter in the diary.
Mr. Pieters: You didn't write anything on this matter, so I will suggest this to you didn't write anything on this matter Mr. Persaud because you thought that all the officers would have covered up for you and exclude you from the whole sequence, that I why you didn't make notes.
Mr. Persaud: I totally deny that I don't know of any commissioner of Police that went to any court and gives evidence of any investigation that the police force conducted during his tenure as commissioner.
Mr. Pieters: That is what I suggest to you, and I will make some suggestions to you…
Mr. Pieters: And you ordered that Gillard be sent on bail as well.
Mr. Persaud: I never knew Gillard was arrested.
Mr. Pieters: You did know…
Mr. Persaud: Until this inquiry.
Mr. Pieters: Well that shows how in tune you are with the police force that you
manage.
....
Mr. Pieters: And when would you have briefed Mr. Ramnarine prior to your leave
in…I think it was the end of February you went on leave.
Mr. Persaud: It is normally done in the week before I proceeded.
Mr. Pieters: Would you have memoed him?
Mr. Persaud: Well no, there were oral briefs.
Mr. Pieters: They were oral briefs, there was no note taker taking notes?
Mr. Persaud: No.
Mr. Pieters: And were you taking notes during the meeting with what you said to
Ramnarine?
Mr. Persaud: No.
Mr. Pieters: And is Ramnarine taking notes of what you are saying to him?
Mr. Persaud: I don‟t know.
Mr. Pieters: Well you were at the meeting tell the panel.
Mr. Persaud: I did see him writing I don‟t know if he was taking notes or writing
something else, I never review.
Mr. Pieters: So the change over of command is quite an ad-hoc matter…

Walter Rodney Debates - Guyana Parliament - August 04, 2016

Walter Rodney Report is the focus of Debates in the Guyana Parliament on August 04, 2016. This should be an interesting debate).

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ON THE DEATH IN AN EXPLOSION OF THE LATE DR. WALTER RODNEY <http://www.parliament.gov.gy/…/5851-report_of_the_commissio…> 
Background Information <http://selwynpieters.blogspot.ca/…/walter-rodney-commission…>

Ms Gail Teixeira, M.P. to move the following motion:WHEREAS the Report on “The Commission of Inquiry Appointed To Enquire and Report On the Circumstances Surrounding The Death in An Explosion Of the Late Dr. Walter Rodney On Thirteenth Day Of June, One Thousand, Nine Hundred and Eighty at Georgetown” was handed over to the Government of Guyana on February 10, 2016;
AND WHEREAS the Government laid Volume 1 of the Report of the Commission of Inquiry in the National Assembly on May 12, 2016;
AND WHEREAS the Commission in its Report presented its findings including “Critical Findings and Summary on Gregory Smith” and 11 significant recommendations,
BE IT RESOLVED:
That this National Assembly adopts the Report and its findings;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the National Assembly calls on the Government to take measures to implement the recommendations therein in order to ensure that the democratic architecture of the state is preserved and strengthened.
(Notice Paper No. 52 (M41 Opp. 8) published on 2016-05-31)

Submissions by Selwyn A. Pieters to MSGCS on Police Street Checks

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 31, 2015

On June 16, 2015, Ontario's Minister of Community and Correctional Services announced that the province intends to develop a set of rules to govern police street checks. In furtherance of this objective, it is holding consultations with various stakeholders.

As a lawyer who represented persons facing the brunt of this practise in civil courts, before the Human Rights Tribunal and in Criminal litigation, I set out a chart of my jurisprudential journey so that these issues are not considered in the abstract but rather having regard to what obtains in our courts and tribunals in respect to this process of racial oppression.

Selwyn Pieters written submissions on MSGCS Ontario Police Street Check Consultation (Racial Profiling), August 31, 2015

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

A retired Judge enlightened view on the Guyana Police Force

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

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


By Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)
Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Posted on November 05, 2014
Updated on November 07, 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

********
Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A. (Toronto), LL.B. (Osgoode), L.E.C. (U.W.I). Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario). Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana and Republic of Trinidad and Tobago).

Selwyn has appeared at all levels of courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada in Attorney General of Ontario v. Michael J. Fraser, et al., 2011 SCC 20, Ontario Court of Appeal in Freeman-Maloy v. Marsden 267 D.L.R. (4th) 37, 208 O.A.C. 307 (C.A.); Bangoura v. Washington Post (2005) 202 O.A.C. 76, (2005) 17 C.P.C. (6th) 30 (Ont.C.A.), the Federal Court of Appeal in The Honourable Sinclair Stevens v. The Conservative Party of Canada, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1890, 2005 FCA 383. He represented Correctional Manager Mariann Taylor-Baptiste in the ground-breaking competing rights case of Taylor-Baptiste v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 2012 CarswellOnt 8965, 2012 HRTO 1393, 2012 C.L.L.C. 230-022 reconsideration denied in 2013 CarswellOnt 1033, 2013 HRTO 180, 2013 C.L.L.C. 230-019 at the HRTO; Civil Rights lawyer Charles Roach in the Oath cases of McAteer, Topey, Dror-Natan v. Canada (Attorney General) 2013 CarswellOnt 13165, 2013 ONSC 5895 (ON S.C.) and Roach et al. v. Canada 2012 CarswellOnt 7799, 2012 ONSC 352 (ON S.C.) which is a constitutional challenge to the oath in the Citizenship Act.

Selwyn has provided representation to persons charged with various criminal offenses including Drugs: Selling and Possessing, Shoplifting, Serious Offences of Violence: Aggravated Assault, Assault with a Weapon and Robbery, Gun Offences, sexual assault, robbery, theft, extortion, HIV/AIDS litigation; fraud, break & enter, attempted murder, murder, regulatory offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, professional disciplinary offences, and conspiracy offences.

Selwyn has also been involved in drugs, guns and gang trials including "Project Green Apple", "Project XXX" and "Project Kryptic", "Project Corral" which are some of Canada's largest Criminal Organization prosecutions. Selwyn is currently counsel for an accused in "Project Feline" and Project Revival" drug sting operations. In Project Corral, Selwyn's advocacy resulted in the "gang expert" evidence being discredited and the Criminal Organization charges against his client and others being tossed out by the Court: R. v. Agil, Chambers, Fullerton, Jimale and Brown 2011 CarswellOnt 18099 (Ont. CJ. July 14, 2011, Khawley J.)

Selwyn recently obtained an extraordinary remedy of costs agains the Crown for failure to provide disclosure of police officer memo book notes in R. v. W.(J.), [2013] O.J. No. 2284, 2013 CarswellOnt 6322, 2013 ONCJ 270 (Ont. CJ.).

Selwyn is the successful litigant in the recent racial profiling case involving carding of three Black men: Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 CarswellOnt 7881, 2013 ONCA 396, 228 A.C.W.S. (3d) 204, 116 O.R. (3d) 81, 306 O.A.C. 314, 9 C.C.E.L. (4th) 233, [2013] O.J. No. 2695.

Selwyn has provided crucial legal advise to clients duringhigh risk situations such as gun calls, hostage taking, barricaded persons, mentally disturbed persons, high risk arrests and public order control in situations where there is significant public disorder, lawlessness, personal injury and property damage. Charges of cause disturbance and assault police can be pretextual racial profiling charges: R. v. Roach, 2005 O.J. No. 5278 (Ont. C.J.) (Criminal Law - Causing a Disturbance); R. v. Ramsaroop, 2009 CarswellOnt 5281, 2009 ONCJ 406 (Ont. CJ.); R. v. Taylor, 2010 CarswellOnt 6584, 2010 ONCJ 396, [2010] O.J. No. 3794 (Ont. CJ.)

Selwyn was co-counsel in the world's first-ever sexual HIV transmission murder trial of Johnson Aziga in Hamilton, Ontario. See, for example, R. v. Aziga, 2008 CanLII 39222 (ON S.C.); R. v. Aziga; 2008 CarswellOnt 4300 (ON S.C.) and R. v. Aziga, 2008 CanLII 29780 (ON S.C.)

Selwyn argued on racial profiling includes: R. v. Steele, 2010 ONSC 233 (ON S.C.) and R. v. Egonu, 2007 CanLII 30475 (ON SC) - Driving while black and R. v. Bramwell-Cole [2010] O.J. No. 5838 (ON S.C.) - walking while black.

Selwyn has acted in exclusion cases at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada: See, Song Dae Ri (Re) 2003 CarswellNat 4527; (2004) 36 Imm. L.R. (3d) 203; Liang (Re) 2002 CarswellNat 4719; 33 Imm. L.R. (3d) 251.

Selwyn has appeared in  Coroners' Inquest including: Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Negus Topey (May 02, 2005, Coroners' Court, Dr. K.A. Acheson) Ruling on Application for Standing; Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Dwight Haughton (Coroners' Court, Dr. Evans) Ruling on Application for Standing; Coroner's Inquest into the Death of Jeffrey Reodica(May 04, 2006, Coroners' Court, Dr. B. Porter) Ruling on Application for Standing

Selwyn also acted as co-counsel with C. Nigel Hughes for the families of three deceased persons killed during a civil demonstration in Linden, Guyana, at the Linden Commission of Inquiry. Selwyn is currently co-counsel with Brian M. Clarke representing the Guyana Trades Union Congress in the Walter Anthony Rodney Commission of Inquiry in Georgetown, Guyana.

Wood v. Schaeffer: Watchdogs Special Investigations Unit and Ombudsman Ontario Vindicated in the Fight for Accountability of Police in Death Investigations

By Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)
Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Posted on December 19, 2013

December 19, 2013 marks a significant day in the era of police accountability in the area of note - taking and responsibility of police officers to cooperate with the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) in investigations into serious injuries and death.

In Wood v. Schaeffer 2013 SCC 71 Police Officers facing SIU Ontario probes can no longer have lawyers help them write their notes.

Historical Overview on the Civilian Oversight Body

(1)   The Creation of the Special Investigations Unit

[35]                          Before the SIU was formed, incidents of serious injuries or deaths involving police officers were investigated internally by the police (A. Marin, Oversight Unseen:  Investigation into the Special Investigations Unit’s operational effectiveness and credibility (2008), at para. 23).  This changed in 1990 with the enactment of the Act, which created the SIU. 

[36]                          The creation of the SIU followed on the heels of a report released in 1989 by the Task Force on Race Relations and Policing (Report of the Race Relations and Policing Task Force (1989)).  The Task Force was commissioned by the provincial government after two black Ontarians were fatally shot by the police in 1988.  Its report contained a host of recommendations, one of which called for the creation of an “investigative team” comprised partially of civilians “to investigate police shootings” in the province (p. 150).  The Task Force recommended civilian participation in investigations of the police because, in its view, the practice of “police investigating the police” could not “satisfy the public demand for impartiality” and fostered “a serious deterioration in the public confidence” (p. 147).

[37]                          The Solicitor General, during legislative debate on the Act, confirmed that the creation of the SIU was a direct response to the recommendation of the Task Force.  He stated that the government had listened to the concerns raised by the Task Force and that the Act “addresses the concern, heard by the general public, of police investigating police” (Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Official Report of Debates (Hansard), 2nd Sess., 34th Parl., May 17, 1990, at p. 1318).

The importance of Police Officers notes

Paras. 62 - 68 deals with the duty to make notes in a very authoritative sense:

(a)   The Duty to Make Notes Generally

[62]                          Section 9(1) and (3) of the regulation require witness and subject officers to “complete in full the notes on the incident in accordance with [their] duty”.  The regulation does not define the duty to make notes.  Nor does the Act, which provides a non-exhaustive list of the “duties of a police officer” in s. 42, including, for example, preserving the peace, laying charges and participating in prosecutions, and performing the lawful duties that the chief of police assigns.

[63]                          Although it is common ground among the parties that the duties of a police officer include a duty to make notes on the events that transpire during the officer’s tour of duty, I recognize that neither side points to a definitive statement of this Court holding as much.^[3] 

[64]                          However, reports by experienced jurists have concluded that such a duty exists.  For example, in their 1993 report to the Attorney General of Ontario on charge screening, disclosure, and resolution discussions, a committee made up of experienced counsel and police officers and led by the Honourable G. A. Martin, observed that:

[T]he duty to make careful notes pertaining to an investigation is an important part of the investigator’s broader duty to ensure that those who commit crimes are held accountable for them.

. . .

[I]nadequate note-taking, while it can hamper the conduct of the defence, also risks hampering an investigation and/or a prosecution.  In short, inadequate note-taking does a disservice to both an accused and the community, [which] is entitled to expect that innocent people will be acquitted and guilty people properly convicted.  [Emphasis added.]

(Report of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on Charge Screening, Disclosure, and Resolution Discussions (1993) (“Martin Committee”), at pp. 151 and 153)

[65]                          In another instance, the Honourable R. E. Salhany considered the significance of police notes in the course of a public inquiry into a death caused by an off-duty officer.  He explained the importance of notes in this way:

[Note-making] is not a burdensome task that police officers must reluctantly undertake because they were taught to do so at their police college. It is an integral part of a successful investigation and prosecution of an accused. It is as important as obtaining an incriminating statement, discovering incriminating exhibits or locating helpful witnesses. The preparation of accurate, detailed and comprehensive notes as soon as possible after an event has been investigated is the duty and responsibility of a competent investigator.  [Emphasis added.]

(Report of the Taman Inquiry (2008), at p. 133)

[66]                          These conclusions, in my view, stand on firm ground.  The importance of police notes to the criminal justice system is obvious.  As Mr. Martin observed of properly-made notes:

The notes of an investigator are often the most immediate source of the evidence relevant to the commission of a crime. The notes may be closest to what the witness actually saw or experienced. As the earliest record created, they may be the most accurate.  [p. 152]

[67]                          Against that background, I have little difficulty concluding that police officers do have a duty to prepare accurate, detailed, and comprehensive notes as soon as practicable after an investigation.  Drawing on the remarks of Mr. Martin, such a duty to prepare notes is, at a minimum, implicit in an officer’s duty to assist in the laying of charges and in prosecutions — a duty that is explicitly recognized in s. 42(1)(e) of the Act.

[68]                          None of this, of course, comes as news to police officers.  In this case, for example, OPP policy confirms the duty to make notes by requiring constables to record “concise, comprehensive particulars of each occurrence” during their tour of duty and to “make all original investigative notes . . . during an investigation or as soon as thereafter practicable” (OPP Order 2.50, Member Note Taking, SIU Record, at pp. 48-52).  More generally, police manuals have long emphasized the importance of accurate, detailed, and comprehensive notes; see, e.g., R. E. Salhany, The Police Manual of Arrest, Seizure & Interrogation (7th ed. 1997), at pp. 270-78. 

Even prior to the Supreme Court of Canada decision, caselaw exist to show that the importance of contemporaneous notes is no small matter. As observed in R. v. Tang, 2011 ONCJ 525 citing R. v. Odgers, [2009], O.J. No. 2592

[52] In my view, the lack of proper note-taking by Constable Monahar makes his

testimony before me of no value or reliability.

[53] I agree with my colleague Justice Robert N. Fournier, in his view of the importance of note-taking, at paragraph 16 of his recent judgement in R. v. Odgers [2009] O.J. No. 2592:

[16] Generally speaking in the matter of police officers' notes - the law has indeed evolved over time. No longer are the notes of an officer a simple aide-mémoire generated for the sole purpose of that officer to assist in refreshing his/her memory. While the notebook continues to be an important investigative tool, it has also evolved into a fairly significant evidentiary document of sorts. Their use as a source of reference in the course of a trial can play a significant role in a court's assessment of the evidence. The quality of such record keeping can indeed impart far reaching consequences on occasion. It cannot be said that the adequacy of an officer's notes is of little consequence. Accordingly the courts have recognized that there is an inherent duty placed on officers, to prepare complete and accurate notes. In the normal course of disclosure, officers' notes invariably find their way into the hands of defence counsel, who will of course rely on them. This has become an even more significant reality, since the advent of Stinchcombe. It can be of particular concern in instances, when events or observations of obvious relevance and importance, are omitted or not adequately documented in the notebooks of officers. In such instances, the courts have demonstrated a heightened awareness of the evidentiary dangers, such deficient notes present to a trier of fact. When serious inadequacies are demonstrated, the credibility of police officers can in fact be discounted. It goes without saying that the absence of notes on an important factor is relevant to an officer's credibility.(9) As a result the courts have on occasion, been reluctant to attribute much weight to evidence adduced viva voce by an officer, in the absence of corroborating written references in that officer's notebook. I am aware of a large body of case law(10) on the subject. Ultimately however, this is often a matter of common sense and as usual each case, must be determined on its merits.

[54] In this proceeding, I have concluded that Constable Monahar’s testimony was evasive and contrived. It is not supported by his own notes, and his testimony lacks both credibility and reliability on this key question of his use of force in arresting Mr. Tang.

[55] I therefore, in this proceeding have concluded that Mr. Tang’s evidence, and that of the other witnesses called by the defence, is more reliable than that of the arresting officer, Constable Monahar, as to the sequence of events during the “take down” and arrest.

Justice Nordheimer observed in R. v. Schertzer, (2007) 161 C.R.R. (2d) 367 at paras. 14, 16, 21 (Ont. S.C.J.); rev’d on other grounds (2009) 248 C.C.C. (3d) 270 (C.A.), that:

…the obligation to make notes arises from the individual's employment as a police officer. At the risk of stating the obvious, no one is compelled to become a police officer. Persons make a free decision to become police officers and they do so with full knowledge of what that decision entails. Persons deciding to become police officers surely know that their actions as police officers will be subject to scrutiny in a variety of ways including by their superiors, by their fellow officers, by the public, by the media and by the courts. The training that individuals go through in order to become police officers fully informs those persons regarding their duties and obligations as such.

…

The notes … assist in the proper prosecution of criminal and other offences because they are intended to provide a reliable and timely record of the events underlying those offences.

…

It remains the fact that the principal purpose of requiring notes to be made is not for the purpose of investigating the actions of police officers. It is an incidental effect of the requirement to make notes that possible misconduct by an officer may be revealed.

All levels of Court have now spoken on this issue including the highest court in the land.

Why exclude lawyers from the note-taking process


In overturning the Court of Appeal decision pursuant to a Cross-Appeal from the Director of the SIU on the point of whether or not police officers can consult legal counsel the Court made it clear that in the performance of their professional responsibilites as peace officers, allowing counsel to provide even basic legal advise whould be inconsistent with the duties as set out in section 42 of the Police Services Act.

[67]                          Against that background, I have little difficulty concluding that police officers do have a duty to prepare accurate, detailed, and comprehensive notes as soon as practicable after an investigation.  Drawing on the remarks of Mr. Martin, such a duty to prepare notes is, at a minimum, implicit in an officer’s duty to assist in the laying of charges and in prosecutions — a duty that is explicitly recognized in s. 42(1)(e) of the Act.

[82]                          The Court of Appeal concluded that, while s. 7(1) of the regulation does not entitle officers to the assistance of counsel in the preparation of their notes, it does entitle them to “basic legal advice” about the nature of their rights and obligations under the Act and the regulation before they complete their notes.  That basic advice could include informing officers that they are required to complete their notes prior to the end of their tour of duty unless excused by the police chief, and that their notes will be submitted to the Chief of Police (para. 81).

[83]                          With respect, I disagree with this aspect of the Court of Appeal’s reasons.  In my view, the legislative history shows that s. 7(1) was not meant to create an entitlement to counsel before an officer has completed his or her notes.  Without in any way impugning the integrity of counsel or police officers, even the perfunctory consultation contemplated by the Court of Appeal is liable to cause an “appearances problem” similar to the one I have already identified.  Because the initial consultation is privileged, the public will have no way of knowing what was discussed.  As a result, the same threat to public confidence exists, even if on a somewhat diminished scale.

[84]                          A loss of public trust would seem a high price to pay for an initial consultation that, in my view, achieves no tangible benefit.  Counsel cannot discuss the facts surrounding the incident in any meaningful sense, if at all; nor can there be any discussion about the legal issues that flow from the facts.  Under the Court of Appeal’s model, counsel is limited to providing officers with basic information about their rights and obligations under the legislative scheme.  This information can easily be conveyed in ways that do not generate any appearance problem.  It can and should be included as part of every officer’s training.  If there is some need to refresh officers as to their responsibilities after an event triggering an SIU investigation, this refresher can be provided by a ranking officer or a generic card kept in an officer’s notebook.

[85]                          In the end, the basic legal advice contemplated by the Court of Appeal is essentially meaningless — and anything that might be meaningful sends counsel into a minefield.  In this regard, I agree with the Officers that the court’s proposal is unhelpful:

The officer is unable to ascertain what questions can properly be addressed to counsel and counsel is required to navigate through an obstacle course and provide little, if any, practical assistance to his client.  The permissible advice is, in effect, no advice at all.  The Court of Appeal for Ontario has relegated the role of counsel to a recitation of the most basic legislative requirements rather than providing meaningful legal assistance.  [Emphasis added; A.F., at para. 72.]

[86]                          In reaching the conclusion that officers are not permitted to consult with counsel before they have completed their notes, I acknowledge the fact that officers who have been involved in a traumatic incident may well feel the need to speak to someone before they complete their notes.  While the regulation prevents such officers from consulting with counsel, it does not prevent them from speaking to doctors, mental health professionals, or uninvolved senior police officers before they write their notes.  Moreover, the regulation empowers the chief of police to allow such officers more time to complete their notes (see s. 9(5)).

[87]                          I should also be clear about the scope of my conclusion.  Once officers have completed their notes and filed them with the chief of police, they are free to consult with counsel.  This would include consultation both before and after the interview with the SIU.  Consulting with counsel at that stage is consistent with the plain wording of s. 7(1) of the regulation and does not derogate from an officer’s duty or from the purpose of the legislative scheme.

The Significance of this decision

Its a super big win for civilian oversight of policing and lawful law enforcement.

********

Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A. (Toronto), LL.B. (Osgoode), L.E.C. (U.W.I). Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario). Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana and Republic of Trinidad and Tobago). A significant portion of Selwyn's work involves representation of persons in human rights, civil and criminal litigation matters in the Federal and Provincial Courts and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

Selwyn is the successful litigant in the recent racial profiling case involving carding of three Black men: Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 CarswellOnt 7881, 2013 ONCA 396, 228 A.C.W.S. (3d) 204, 116 O.R. (3d) 81, 306 O.A.C. 314, 9 C.C.E.L. (4th) 233, [2013] O.J. No. 2695.

Selwyn has appeared at all levels of courts, including the Ontario Court of Appeal in Freeman-Maloy v. Marsden 267 D.L.R. (4th) 37, 208 O.A.C. 307 (C.A.); Bangoura v. Washington Post (2005) 202 O.A.C. 76, (2005) 17 C.P.C. (6th) 30 (Ont.C.A.), the Federal Court of Appeal in The Honourable Sinclair Stevens v. The Conservative Party of Canada, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1890, 2005 FCA 383 and Supreme Court of Canada in Attorney General of Ontario v. Michael J. Fraser, et al., 2011 SCC 20. He represented Correctional Manager Mariann Taylor-Baptiste in the ground-breaking competing rights case of Taylor-Baptiste v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 2012 CarswellOnt 8965, 2012 HRTO 1393, 2012 C.L.L.C. 230-022 reconsideration denied in 2013 CarswellOnt 1033, 2013 HRTO 180, 2013 C.L.L.C. 230-019 at the HRTO; Civil Rights lawyer Charles Roach in the Oath cases of McAteer, Topey, Dror-Natan v. Canada (Attorney General) 2013 CarswellOnt 13165, 2013 ONSC 5895 (ON S.C.) and Roach et al. v. Canada 2012 CarswellOnt 7799, 2012 ONSC 352 (ON S.C.) which is a constitutional challenge to the oath in the Citizenship Act.

Selwyn most recently litigated the racial profiling case of:
M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 CarswellOnt 12134, 2013 HRTO 1472
M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 CarswellOnt 11941
M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 1102
M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 73
M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2012 CarswellOnt 11158
M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, [2011] O.H.R.T.D. No. 618, 2011 HRTO 410
M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2011 ONCJ 143, 2011 CarswellOnt 1980, 2011 ONCJ 143, 274 C.C.C. (3d) 272 (Ont. CJ.)
M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2010 CarswellOnt 9121, 2010 HRTO 2349
M. (R.)v. Toronto Police Services Board was recently settled to the satisfaction of all parties and the terms of settlement reached remain confidential.

Selwyn also acted as co-counsel with C. Nigel Hughes for the families of three deceased persons killed during a civil demonstration in Linden, Guyana, at the Linden Commission of Inquiry.