International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 2018

International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Racial Minorities, particularly Blacks, have little to nothing to cheer about or celebrate.

Racial Profiling is rampant. We are still faces at the bottom of the well.

In Canada and the United States, racist rallies that were a thing of the past has publicly emerged and politics is moving to the far right.

Black kids are still profiled in school as requiring special education or having some form of exceptionality.

Black kids and their parents are increasingly stressed by Children Aid Societies and Black kids are more likely to be taken into care, sometimes for the least infractions or allegations.

Prisons are overpopulated with Black men who should be in Universities. The criminal justice system remains systemically racist.

Black men are in distress numbers are disproportionately arrested, charged, assaulted, seriously injured or killed by police in the United States, Ontario, Canada, Guyana, the United Kingdom,  and Trinidad. Extra-judicial killing by state agents that are troubling but justice for the victims remain illusory.

Whether its dressed as implicit bias, implicit racism, systemic racism, institutionalized racism or personal racism: it is racism.

Our justice system participants still don't get it on what is racial profiling.

Consumer racial profiling remains prevalent.

Black people are excluded in large numbers from corporate Canada's boardrooms and large law firms. One can still count the numbers because they are so low.

Discrimination in employment, whether it is in the public service or private sector remains the second highest grounds for applications under the Human Rights Code.

Access to justice remains illusory. On March 21, 2000, I wrote:

For those of us who are true, committed anti-racist, we must continue to fight against all of the evils of racism which evident within our society. We are not the first to fight this battle. We do not want the next generation to have to fight this battle again.
March 21 is a time for us to re-dedicate and re-commit ourselves to fight any and all social injustices that isn't beneficial to the society in which we were brought up [and in which some of us has adopted as our home].
Our continued fight has reinforced the meaning of moral courage, humility and integrity. We hope that the Government of Canada, the Government of Ontario and the Ontario Human Rights Commission can learn the meaning of moral courage, humility and integrity from us.

The truth hurts but it must be told.

While I remain hopeful. I have little to celebrate in 2018.

March 21, 2018
Selwyn A. Pieters
Barrister, Solicitor & Notary Public
of the Bars of Guyana, Trinidad and Ontario.

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)

Pieters Law Office

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

Cross-examination of Nicholas Rule on Racial Bias in Judgments of Physical Size and Formidability

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 June 12, 2017

On June 12, 2017, at the Andrew Loku Inquest I crossed examined Professor Nicholas Rule on an article he coauthored: Wilson, J. P., Hugenberg, K., & Rule, N. O Racial Bias in Judgments of Physical Size and Formidability: From Size to Threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000092

--- E x T R A C T ---

NICHOLAS RULE

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SELWYN PIETERS:

          Q.   Good afternoon, Dr. Rule.

A.   Good afternoon.

          Q.   I am Selwyn Pieters.  I represent the Black Action Defence Committee.  Now, you spoke about implicit bias as perceiving or having Black men stereotyped as angry and aggressive.

A.   I did.  Yes.

          Q.   And you spoke about the shift of Black men being happy go lucky or Black people being perceived as happy-go-lucky people.

A.   That’s right.

          Q.   Right.  This angry and aggressive posture that comes from implicit bias, would you say that that is something that infects society as a whole?

A.   It certainly affects society as a whole, yes.

          Q.   Then so if that is the case, then the fear of a Black man is based on implicit thought processes rather than objective fear, would you agree?

A.   I would agree.

          Q.   You mentioned a shopping mall example with respect to a wallet and a gun.  You recall that?

A.   I do.

          Q.   And you mentioned that it is likely that the perception would be the Black person having the gun?

A.   That’s what the studies have shown, yes.

          Q.   Right.  So, if that situation is replicated in real life in a shopping mall where a White man has a gun and the Black man has the wallet, would it be the case, taking what you said or say -- the association of black with crime is and implicit association of Black people with crime -- that the Black person would be at risk of violence from the police or a negative reaction?

A.   You mean as opposed to the White person --

          Q.   Yes.

A.   -- with the gun?  I don’t know that it would necessarily go that far, actually.  So I think that it would be more likely that the presence of an actual gun would be a more salient stimulus to draw attention.  So I -- it is -- the studies do show that people are more likely to mistake the wallet for a gun in the hands of Black person and that they’re then faster to make a shoot decision, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they would mistake a gun for a wallet per se in the case of a White person.

          Q.   Very well.  You’re familiar with the Diallo situation in the U.S. where a Black man was shot taking a wallet out of his pocket?

A.   I am.

          Q.   Very well.  You mentioned, you spoke about implicit bias and then you spoke about implicit racism.

A.   That’s right.

          Q.   Define implicit racism for us.

A.   Implicit racism would be beliefs about a group defined by its race that are held implicitly and are of negative valence against that group.

          Q.   Very well.  Now ---

A.   If I can -- I would say implicit racism is a specific type of implicit bias.

          Q.   But it’s racism nonetheless?

A.   That’s right.  Yes.

          Q.   Right.  Would you say it’s possible for Toronto Police to compile social science data on implicit bias in relation to individual officers from the time they join the force and as they progress through the force?

A.   It is certainly possible for us to measure implicit associations held by a particular individual and to track those for changes over time.

          Q.   What about systemically within the organization?

A.   Within the organization you would need to make those individual assessments and then you could perhaps aggregate them to say that, you know, a given group of individuals is more prone towards a particular level of bias.  Though, I don’t know that that would necessarily constitute the same idea as an institutionally endorsed or a reiterated notion.

          Q.   I’m going to put some propositions to you and you can tell me whether you agree or whether you disagree or you can explain it.

A.   Sure.

          Q.   I’m going to suggest to that the perpetuation or the perpetration of implicit bias is a form of violence based on what you described today in respect to how Black men are perceived and treated.  

A.   It would depend on the way that one defines violence.  If one defines violence as a physical behaviour then I would not agree.  If one defines violence as, you know, including aggressive thoughts, that might be possible.  However, I might still disagree, actually, because I think in that case they would need to be conscious thoughts for them to be considered violent.

          Q.   Yes.  But if someone has implicit thoughts of violence against someone, are you saying that that would be excused?

A.   No.  I don’t think that one would necessarily have implicit thoughts of violence.  So, the nature of the way that, you know, a human would think about violence or particular actions wouldn’t necessarily be at an implicit level.  Those would have to occur somewhat more explicitly.  The implicit level would simply be the associations between two concepts, so it’s a -- it’s a much more basic thing.  But to actually consider a violent act, or any behaviour of that sort, would require a -- an either explicit or semi-explicit level, I think.

          Q.   I take it from your testimony, you can agree, disagree or explain it, that this implicit bias that you spoke about and that you researched and wrote about, it perpetrates oppression against a specific race and that’s Black people.

A.   I think I could agree with that.

          Q.   I also take it from your study and what you said today that the relationship between discrimination on the basis -- there is a relationship between discrimination on the basis of race and implicit bias?

A.   There is and that would be implicit racism.

          Q.   And that there is a relationship between prejudice, stereotyping, discrimination and implicit bias?

A.   There certainly is, yes.

          Q.   And that discriminatory attitudes and implicit bias are mutually exclusive?  Or they go -- sorry, not mutually exclusive.  They go hand in hand?

A.   Yes.  But not in a bidirectional manner.  So, as I said earlier, implicit bias would be present when there are discriminatory attitudes, but implicit bias can be present without discriminatory attitudes as well.

          Q.   You said something here and I’m going to put something to you and you can tell me what your position is.  You said we favour people who look like us in very important ways. 

A.   That’s right.

          Q.   So, I’m going to put this to you: Colour blindness and excuses are the means by which the dominant group maintains its position.  I can put it differently.

THE CORONER:  Perhaps if you did rephrase it might be easier for the witness. 

BY MR. PIETERS:

          Q.   If what you said today in evidence is true and this implicit bias has its most virulent or its most devastating impact on Black people, let’s say in Canada or in Toronto, then we can’t really boil down implicit bias or any of these things in a colour-blind way.

A.   Well, what I can say about colour blindness is that it’s typically regarded as an ineffective strategy for dealing with race relations.  Colour blindness typically -- so the idea of colour blindness is the notion that if we ignore differences between groups -- in this case racial groups, groups defined by colour differences, typically -- that there won’t be problems.  That if we just, you know, if we don’t see the differences then there aren’t issues to discuss.  The data have clearly shown that that is not effective but rather it masks the underlying issues.  But rather an approach that acknowledges differences and discusses those differences is more effective for ameliorating any discrepancies that are based on those differences.

THE CORONER:  Mr. Pieters, a time warning.  You have two minutes.

MR. PIETERS:  Very well.  I’m going to finish way before then, Dr. Carlisle.

THE CORONER:  Anything you can do to help.

BY MR. PIETERS:

          Q.   What effect does denial from a systemic level, for example, a president of a police association denying that police act on implicit biases, have on managing that association or managing its members in dealing with issues of implicit bias or racism?

A.   I think that that would likely be problematic.  I think any time that -- if we’re truly discussing denial as a concept whereby one knows one thing but does not wish to accept it, as denial is often used in the psychological literature, then that wouldn’t be -- that is not a productive step towards making any kind of change.  It’s important that one acknowledges a phenomenon before one can potentially even deal with.

          Q.   What would be your recommendation to the jury for a police service to confront this issue and deal with it?

A.   That’s a very big question.  I think that, you know, if there are differences in the way that suspects are being treating on the basis of their race, then certainly an examination is required to understand why this is occurring, how it’s occurring and then steps would need to be taken.  If it’s determined that this is based on implicit biases, that is associations or expectations that people from one racial group are more prone to criminal behaviour than another, then some of the training exercises that we discussed earlier today might be appropriate for attempting to correct those biases.

          Q.   Than you, Dr. Carlisle.  Thank you, Dr. Rule.

A.   Thank you. 

THE CORONER:  Thank you, Mr. Pieters.

See also, Wendy Gillis, Black men perceived as more threatening, expert tells Andrew Loku inquest, Toronto Star, June 12, 2017

Racial profiling in the Courtroom, the classroom, Lsuc and other legal spaces

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 February 15, 2017

Stereotypical Identification of Black Men as accused Person is Typical in our System of criminal (in)justice. Those who disagree has not walked in my shoes so cannot persuade me otherwise. Here is an encounter at Old City Hall for which I had to educate the Crown lawyer.....

I am a Black male who is a Barrister & Solicitor. I write with respect to your conduct this afternoon in courtroom 111 at Old City Hall... I had signed in on the Counsel sheet representing an accused person (Male, White, 32, blue eyes, brown hair). I then sat in the counsel area directly behind you waiting for the case to be heard. This was a matter that was screened for diversion as it was a theft under from LCBO $12.95 bottle of Liquor.

When you stated to the Justice of the Peace that there were no more counsel matters, without me hearing you call the matter for which I was providing representation, I stepped forward from counsel area to alert you to the fact that there was indeed one more counsel matter. Instead of listening to me, you pointed to where the unrepresented accused persons were and directed me to go and join the line. I had to remind you that I am a lawyer. You did not even apologize. I have been in courtroom 111 where you were crown on numerous occasions and I was very shocked, surprised, embarrassed and in some way humiliated by your behavior. All you had to do if you were not sure whether or not I was a lawyer is ask the question, not assume I am an accused person who should join the back of the line.

You may or may not know that Black male lawyers are fed up being treated as though they are accused person when practising before the courts......

I believe there is a need to record today's incident because it reinforces certain stereotypical attitudes and notions that indeed results in racial profiling.

Systemic Racism in Ontario Legal Profession

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 January 17, 2017

This video is a collection of thoughts on the Challenges Faced by Racialized Licensees Working Group (“the Working Group”) Final report, Working Together for Change: Strategies to Address Issues of Systemic Racism in the Legal Professions (November 2016). I have also added my thoughts as a subject matter expert. 






Discussion of Systemic Racism

Systemic discrimination consists of practices or attitudes that have, whether by design or impact, the effect of limiting an individual’s or group’s rights to opportunities because of attributed rather than actual characteristics.  If the practices or attitudes affect certain groups in a disproportionately negative way, it is a signal that practices that lead to this adverse impact may be discriminatory.[1]  Establishing systemic discrimination depends on showing that practices, attitudes, policies or procedures impact disproportionately on certain protected groups,[2] such as African Canadians.

Evidence related to systemic and individual discrimination is often interwoven.  It is difficult to untangle systemic discrimination in practice from its application in particular circumstances.[3]   In Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v Canada (Department of National Health and Welfare),[4] the Federal Court of Canada confirmed that the applicant was entitled to adduce systemic evidence in support of allegations of discrimination against him personally

The relevance of social science and contextual evidence in racial profiling cases cannot be understated:

[118]    After making this finding, the Vice-Chair, in para. 91, quoted a passage from Nassiah discussing the social science evidence led in that case:

… racial profiling social science evidence is relevant because it speaks to, not just the initial decision to stop, detain, pursue an investigation, but also supports the general phenomenon that the scrutiny applied to the subsequent investigation is different, more heightened, more suspicious, if the suspect is Black. The stereotyping phenomenon is the same, whether it manifests itself in the discretion to stop/arrest/detain a person in part because they are Black, or whether it manifests itself in the form of greater suspicion, scrutiny, investigation in whole or part because a suspect is Black. [Emphasis in original.]

In a racist blog < http://chimpmania.com/forum/showthread.php?97617-Canadian-groid-apettorney-ooks-raycizz&p=903356> that showed up after this case got into the public domain someone wrote:

“In Toronto, nigger apettorney Selwyn Pieters shuffles up to the law society headquarters, and an astute security guard suspects something is wrong. The guard asks to see the ape's law society identity card, which turns out expired, and the ape is denied entry. Chimpout ensues.”

“Look at this thing. Would you allow it entry ANYWHERE, short of Apefrika?”

“Things like this should not be allowed!”

“I'm suprised anyone hires it, ever. Nasty beast.”

“I'm sure everyplace the nigger shows up this happens. Humans don't want fat greasy niggers around.”

Another wrote “The only way it would belong in the building is if it was there to clean the toilets.”

I was treated as an imposter not because I am not a lawyer but it is because of stereotypes based race, ethnicity, ancestry, creed and the intersection of these grounds. The intersecting grounds are the basis of the racial profiling and unequal treatment that I was subjected to. Had the security guard believed I was a lawyer he was have followed the procedures set out in paragraphs 23-24 of the LSUC response and would have dealt with me in a customer service friendly manner as a member of the LSUC. It is for this reason that I cited the overtly racist comments herein. While these were direct examples of racist words that some people would find offensive, the treatment experienced by me and other Blacks and racial minorities at the LSUC and by the LSUC is consistent with the racist views above.

I do not believe that had I been white or Jewish, I would not have been subjected to differential treatment by the security guard and the LSUC. The lack of scrutiny of the suspended licencee Ari Benjamin Kulidjian for three years as he entered those doors of the LSUC, whilst not entitled to carry a LSUC identification card supports my view.

Further, the Human Rights Tribunal Application in Arlene Spence v. Law Society of Upper Canada et al. 2016-24316-I is an employee complaint of racism at the LSUC Spence v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2017 HRTO 31 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/gww66>, 

 In Law Society of Upper Canada v. Selwyn Milan McSween, 2012 ONLSAP 3, a case that involved professional misconduct findings against McSween by a Law Society of Upper Canada hearing panel, in concurring reasons, adjudicators Clayton C. Ruby and Constance Backhouse examined McSween's personal background, antecedents, training and the nature of discrimination and wrote the following, which though lengthy deserve quoting liberally:

3.         Racism in the Context of Law 

[68]           In 1999, the Working Group on Racial Equality in the Legal Profession of the Canadian Bar Association published Racial Equality in the Canadian Legal Profession.  The report examines racism in the legal profession and reveals that students from racialized communities have fewer opportunities to secure articling positions and first jobs. They do not benefit from the same articling experience as their non-racialized colleagues who are introduced to clients, assist more senior lawyers on important cases, and who conduct research on a broader range of files.  There is no evidence to suggest that circumstances have changed for the better; in particular, articling opportunities have diminished.  See: Working Group on Racial Equality in the Legal Profession, Racial Equality in the Canadian Legal Profession (Canadian Bar Association: Ottawa, 1999).
[69]           More recently, in 2004, the Law Society commissioned a study entitled Diversity and Change: The Contemporary Legal Profession in Ontario.  This report attempted to establish a baseline for tracking diversity and equity in the Ontario legal profession.  It found that, when surveyed, lawyers of racialized communities are more likely to reveal that they were denied opportunities to take responsibility for cases because of client objections, and they also were more often subject to inappropriate comments by judges and other lawyers.  See: Kay, F. M.  et al. Diversity and Change: The Contemporary Legal Profession in Ontario (A report to the Law Society of Upper Canada) (Queen’s University: Kingston, 2004).
[70]           It is reasonable to infer that as a group, Afro-Caribbean Canadian lawyers are economically and professionally disadvantaged when compared with their colleagues, and that many face diminished opportunity as alleged in this case by Mr. McSween.
[72]           The research into Canadian legal history shows that systemic racism has had a substantial impact on the legal profession.  It demonstrates that ideas of legal “professionalism” have been used to exercise power and exclusion based on gender, class, religion, and race.  The first minority individuals who sought admission to the legal profession faced significant barriers.  Those who succeeded in obtaining entry found that those barriers continued to impact upon their careers when they attempted to practise.  Significantly, an increased risk of disbarment was one such barrier for racialized lawyers.
[73]           It would be misguided to be aware of this history and yet ignore its contemporary incarnations simply because the legal profession has today become much more diverse.  The legal profession has made no concerted effort to rid itself of the racism inherent in the practice.  As the evidence in this case illustrates, racialized lawyers continue to face barriers not experienced by their colleagues.

In Law Society of Upper Canada v. Terence John Robinson, 2013 ONLSAP 18 following from the principles in McSween, an appeal panel observed that:

[78]           In our view, McSween supports the proposition that systemic racism and discrimination which explains or provides context to why a licensee engaged in misconduct or conduct unbecoming is relevant. This is not unique to Aboriginal licensees. What is unique are the systemic and background factors that affect Aboriginal people, including Aboriginal lawyers and how these factors have affected them.

Recently, The Challenges Faced by Racialized Licensees Working Group (“the Working Group”) Final report, Working Together for Change: Strategies to Address Issues of Systemic Racism in the Legal Professions (November 2016):

117. It is clear from the Working Group’s engagement and consultation processes that discrimination based on race is a daily reality for many racialized licensees; however, many participants stated that they would not file a discrimination complaint with the Law Society for various reasons, including fear of losing their job, fear of being labeled as a troublemaker, and other reprisal related concerns. Participants also noted that although racism can be experienced on an individual basis, racial discrimination can also be institutional or systemic in nature. Participants did not believe that an effective process was available at the Law Society to address systemic complaints. The Working Group heard from a number of participants who stated that a system of anonymous complaints would assist in alleviating some of the concerns about reporting cases of racial discrimination.

University of Ottawa Professor (and LSUC Bencher) Joanne St. Lewis in her Slaw column made the following incisive comments about the micro and macro aggressions that Black lawyers face due to racism and its deleterious effects:

The legal profession has a heightened awareness of issues of mental health. Ignoring the role of racism in worsening or causing mental illness, points to the underlying failure to address the realities of racism in legal workplaces. Experiencing everyday microaggressions, being the subject of direct racism, absorbing injustices in silence – all take a toll that cannot simply be masked by individualized terms such as stress, depression etc. The Challenges Report missed the opportunity to build on the Law Society’s mental health initiatives by recommending strategies specific to racialized licensees. The report ought to include a recommendation that the profession’s designated health care provider (Homewood Health) develop the necessary staffing and substantive expertise to address these concerns as part of a comprehensive mental health support strategy to racialized licensees.

Ms. Joanne St. Lewis was the co-chair of the 1999 Canadian Bar Association Working Group on Racial Equality and author of Virtual Justice: Systemic Racism and the Canadian Legal Profession. She was the first Black woman to be elected to serve as a Bencher of the Law Society of Upper Canada in its 207 year history. She has served as legal counsel for the Centre for Research Action on Race Relations in Lavoie v. Canada [2002] S.C.J. No. 24 (where she appeared before the SCC) and was representative for the co-intervenor NOIVMW (National Organization of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women) on the LEAF legal committee on R. v. R.D.S. [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484.[5]

In its submissions to the LSUC Working Group, the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers wrote:

CABL notes that the process of recalling, reliving and publicly discussing systemic and sometimes overt racism is gruelling and uncomfortable. Our members shared intimate details of their experiences in order to draw attention to the challenges faced by black and other minority lawyers in Ontario.

…

CABL is fully in support of the LSUC addressing the challenges our members and other minority groups face in the practice of law. The members of the Bar have failed in their obligation not to “discriminate on the grounds of race, ancestry, pledge of origin, colour, ethnic

origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability with respect to professional employment of other lawyers, articled students, or any other person or in professional dealings with other licensees or any other person (as defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code)”2 [See The Rules of Professional Conduct section 6.3.1-1] It is for this very reason that we believe the report places too much faith in the ability of the Bar to self-monitor and correct the systemic issues recognized in the report. There must be direct regulation from the LSUC. We believe that the recommendations should be strengthened to reflect LSUC regulation rather than suggestion

---

[1] Canadian National Railway v Canada (Human Rights Commission), [1987] 1 SCR 114 at para 34

[2] Brome v Ontario (Human Rights Commission), (1999) 171 DLR (4th) 538 at para 16 (Ct J (Gen Div)); Brome v Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [1999] 171 DLR (4th) 538 (Ct  J (Gen Div)), leave to appeal to CA refused, [1999] 89 ACWS (3d) 1238 (CA).

[3] Kelly v British Columbia (Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General), 2009 BCHRT  363at para 29.

[4] [1998] 85 ACWS (3d) 647. This decision has been applied numerous times to find that statistical evidence of a larger systemic problem within an organization can be used to support an  inference of discrimination in a particular case.

[5] It is highly likely that at a hearing in this matter I will be serving a summons on this Bencher to provide contextual evidence on the LSUC in respect to anti-black racism.

Selwyn Pieters Reply to Robert Lapper on Racism at the Law Society of Upper Canada

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 25, 2016
Updated: September 09, 2016
Updated: December 08, 2016


Update: An application to the Human Rights Tribunal was filed on September 07, 2016, the crux of the application is:

On July 05, 2016, I was racially profiled at the Law Society of Upper Canada (“LSUC”), treated differently from other lawyers and denied access to the door that is normally accessible to lawyers and members of the public alike. I believe that I was subjected to racial profiling in the provision of services in contravention of section 1 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).  

I am discriminated and/or harassed with respect to membership in a vocational association because of race (Black), colour (Black), ancestry (African), ethnic origin (African-Canadian), creed (dreadlocks, perceived rastafarian) in contravention of sections 6 and 9 of the Code.

On August 22, 2016, Robert Lapper, Q.C., Chief Executive Officer  of the regulator of lawyers, The Law Society of Upper Canada, published a letter in the Law Times: LSUC responds to discrimination allegation <http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201608225590/letters-to-the-editor/letter-lsuc-responds-to-discrimination-allegation> (Date accessed: August 25, 2016).

The letter sought to refute my allegations that on July 05, 2016, I was racially profiled at the Law Society of Upper Canada, treated differently from other lawyers and denied access to the door that is normally accessible to lawyers and members of the public alike.

Interrogating Racism and the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP):

Robert Lapper wrote: "The Law Society has standard procedures for all non-staff licensees who seek to enter controlled access areas of the building. Access to these parts of the building is gained through the main reception area of the Law Society. The standard procedures call for security staff to ask licensees to show their Law Society identification card. If this card is expired, security staff will check the Law Society’s database of licensees to confirm the licensee’s status. Once security staff have confirmed the licensee’s status, he or she is permitted entry to those areas of the building."

Mr. Lapper continued: "It is true that some individuals are not stopped at the main entrance. Staff of the Law Society are not subject to the standard procedures outlined above and move frequently through the controlled access doors without interacting with security. Staff of the Law Society are issued staff identification cards and security passes, which they use to gain entry to controlled access areas of the building directly."

He then wrote: "We very much regret that Mr. Pieters was upset by his experience with the Law Society on July 5. However, I am satisfied that standard procedures were followed and there was no discrimination. "

What Occurred in Pieters Case?

1) Pieters is a member in Good Standing at the Law Society of Upper Canada;
2) On July 5, 2016, Pieters took his student to the Society;
3) The guard on duty was shown Pieters LSUC Card;
4) The Guard aggressively demanded that the card be removed from the wallet;
5) The Guard invaded Pieters space and grabbed the card out of his hands;
6) The Guard denied Pieters and his student entry through the door;
7) The Guard never checked LSUC Database to see whether or not Pieters was a lawyer in Good Standing;
8) What concerned me more than anything else is the security guard's conduct was not customer service oriented. He treated me, and the student obseved that and related it to the security supervisor as though "you cannot possibly be a lawyer."
9) A video exist that shows the conduct of the Guard, prior to, during and after the interaction with Pieters.

The Student Witness Independent Account:

"We commenced our tour after entering the main doors. There was a group of people (all Caucasian) ahead of us who passed security without any issues and were admitted via a card controlled door into the wider facility. On approaching that same door, we were met by the security guard on duty who was the same individual who had admitted the group that was ahead of us but did not leave his desk which was a few metres away from the door when attending to them. I stepped back as the guard approached and he began engaging with you. The guard’s comments to you suggested that you could not be a lawyer and he demanded to see your LSUC ID card. From my observation at this point the guard had come very close to you and had invaded your personal space. You then reached into your pocket to get the ID and showed it to him through the clear plastic covering. That did not satisfy the guard and he then asked you to remove the ID completely from the wallet. The guard became impatient and then attempted to grab the wallet and ID closer to him for further inspection. You then informed him that this was inappropriate behaviour and that you were a member in good standing with the Society. After giving him the ID, he then informed you that it had expired and that you needed to renew it before you could enter the wider premises. The guard did not offer to show you where to go for the renewal of the ID. You were obviously familiar with the premises so you knew where to go to renew the ID."

A Breakdown of how discrimination at the Law Society of Upper Canada works:

"Esteemed professionals are careful and discrete. They manage discrimination and harassment to avoid detection, or undue scrutiny.  Preventing any perception of discriminatory practice is the basis of their actions not avoiding the practice itself.  If policies have been violated, they simply adjust their practices to remain under the radar."

In “Race Talk and the Conspiracy of Silence: Understanding and Facilitating Difficult Dialogues on Race” New York: Routledge, 2016, page 90, author Derald Wing Sue made these trite observations: “The existence of institutional racism shields the operation of white privilege through what is called Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), which represents the rules, habits, procedures, and structures of organizations that oppress people of colour while favoring Whites. The SOPs may apply equally to all groups but serve to maintain the status quo.”

In effect, these SOPs are used as masks to hide racism or exclusionary impact or effect. However, as recently observed by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario in Briggs v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2016 HRTO 966 (CanLII), "If the police officers involved in the applicant’s stop were not acting in accordance with applicable protocols and training materials, this factor could support an inference of discrimination in this case."

My Rejection of the Comments of the CEO that Standard Operation Procedures were followed

The CEO's comments are duplicitious and quite frankly is an insult to my experience and intelligence, as he knows or ought to have known that the LSUC security guard did not follow the Standard Operation Procedures that he says the LSUC has in place. Is this SOP in writing? When was it formulated? I would like to see that SOP if it is a written document.

As I mentioned in my letter to the CEO, I have no issues with the LSUC Guards doing their jobs but they must interact with lawyers and members of the public with tact and diplomacy.

Other Observations:

After the initial Law Times Article was published: Alex Robinson, "Lawyer alleges discrimination by LSUC security guard" July 25, 2016 <http://www.lawtimesnews.com/201607255550/headline-news/lawyer-alleges-discrimination-by-lsuc-security-guard>, some lawyers approached me telling me they have never had a LSUC identification card. One of those lawyers practised law for over 40 years.

Another was quite incredulous that a "lowly security guard" could have denied me access.

Other lawyers stated that they are admitted through the use of various law associations cards.

Conclusion

I wrote in my letter to the CEO that “The LSUC and its staff have to get it right when dealing with Black people. Treating a Black lawyer in good standing as an imposter is not acceptable.”

Progressive racialized and non-racialized members of the LSUC knows that there is not only racism in the legal profession itself but that racism exist at the LSUC. See, for example, 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.), a racial profiling case involving two Black lawyers and a student, two of whom had dreadlocks.

At the LSUC the attacks on Black lawyers is disciplinary with race as the subtext. In Law Society of Upper Canada v. Selwyn Milan McSween, 2012 ONLSAP 3, a case that involved professional misconduct findings against McSween by a Law Society of Upper Canada hearing panel, in concurring reasons, adjudicators Clayton C. Ruby and Constance Backhouse examined McSween's personal background, antecedents, training and the nature of discrimination and wrote the following, which though lengthy deserve quoting liberally:

3.         Racism in the Context of Law 

[68]           In 1999, the Working Group on Racial Equality in the Legal Profession of the Canadian Bar Association published Racial Equality in the Canadian Legal Profession.  The report examines racism in the legal profession and reveals that students from racialized communities have fewer opportunities to secure articling positions and first jobs. They do not benefit from the same articling experience as their non-racialized colleagues who are introduced to clients, assist more senior lawyers on important cases, and who conduct research on a broader range of files.  There is no evidence to suggest that circumstances have changed for the better; in particular, articling opportunities have diminished.  See: Working Group on Racial Equality in the Legal Profession, Racial Equality in the Canadian Legal Profession (Canadian Bar Association: Ottawa, 1999). 
[69]           More recently, in 2004, the Law Society commissioned a study entitled Diversity and Change: The Contemporary Legal Profession in Ontario.  This report attempted to establish a baseline for tracking diversity and equity in the Ontario legal profession.  It found that, when surveyed, lawyers of racialized communities are more likely to reveal that they were denied opportunities to take responsibility for cases because of client objections, and they also were more often subject to inappropriate comments by judges and other lawyers.  See: Kay, F. M.  et al. Diversity and Change: The Contemporary Legal Profession in Ontario (A report to the Law Society of Upper Canada) (Queen’s University: Kingston, 2004). 
[70]           It is reasonable to infer that as a group, Afro-Caribbean Canadian lawyers are economically and professionally disadvantaged when compared with their colleagues, and that many face diminished opportunity as alleged in this case by Mr. McSween.
[72]           The research into Canadian legal history shows that systemic racism has had a substantial impact on the legal profession.  It demonstrates that ideas of legal “professionalism” have been used to exercise power and exclusion based on gender, class, religion, and race.  The first minority individuals who sought admission to the legal profession faced significant barriers.  Those who succeeded in obtaining entry found that those barriers continued to impact upon their careers when they attempted to practise.  Significantly, an increased risk of disbarment was one such barrier for racialized lawyers. 
[73]           It would be misguided to be aware of this history and yet ignore its contemporary incarnations simply because the legal profession has today become much more diverse.  The legal profession has made no concerted effort to rid itself of the racism inherent in the practice.  As the evidence in this case illustrates, racialized lawyers continue to face barriers not experienced by their colleagues.

In Law Society of Upper Canada v. Terence John Robinson, 2013 ONLSAP 18 following from the principles in McSween, an appeal panel observed that:

[78]           In our view, McSween supports the proposition that systemic racism and discrimination which explains or provides context to why a licensee engaged in misconduct or conduct unbecoming is relevant. This is not unique to Aboriginal licensees. What is unique are the systemic and background factors that affect Aboriginal people, including Aboriginal lawyers and how these factors have affected them.

Any form of racism, particularly anti-Black racism will continue to fester and continue to pervade the halls of power when those in authority and with the power to prevent it take a bureaucratic approach that our staff were following procedures, when, as we know in this case, a thorough interrogation of the racism and/or circumstances would show that there were no procedures of the sort and if they were such procedures that the CEO says exist were not followed.

If that is the case, one can conclude that the adverse treatment was linked to discrimination based on race and that racism was a factor in the treatment.

Postscript

Selwyn is running for a seat as a Bencher in the 2019 Law Society of Ontario elections

Selwyn Pieters, Subject MatterExpertise: Racial profiling, race & ethnicity, anti-black racism (law enforcement, security, education, law, criminal justice system), racial bullying, African-Canadian urban culture and race relations, social  inequality, law enforcement, policing culture in Ontario, Canada; Guyana and Trinidad

Supreme Court of Canada Releases Significant Decision on Proving Discrimination based on Race/Ethnicity (CDPDJ AND LATIF V. BOMBARDIER)

By Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)
Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Created July 23, 2015

“Discrimination can take a variety of forms. Although some of them are easy to identify, others are less obvious, such as those that result from unconscious prejudices and stereotypes or from standards that are neutral on their face but have adverse effects on certain persons. The Charter of human rights and freedoms, CQLR, c. C‑12 (“Charter”), prohibits the various forms of discrimination and creates a remedy for victims of discrimination.”  Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, et al. v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center), et al. 2015 SCC 39, para. 1.

The Supreme Court has release its decision in Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, et al. v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center), et al. 2015 SCC 39 a case of racial/ethnic discrimination in employment that will have national ramifications for all discrimination cases. The significant issue of importance to human rights practitioners and litigants is "whether Court of Appeal erred in requiring proof of causal connection between ethnic origin and exclusion?" In other word, do the modified "causal" which is imported from the Civil Code makes it virtually impossible to prove discrimiantion by importing a standard that has no place in human rights law?

The facts in this case revolves around a Canadian pilot of Pakistani background, Mr. Javed Latif, who in 2004 was offered a job to pilot Bombardier Challenger aircrafts and was denied training (which took place in Quebec, Canada and Texas, U.S.A) by Bombardier due his being listed as a security threat by U.S. authorities. (In order to access training under a U.S. Federal Aviation Authority license, he had to pass a security check required by the U.S. government’s Alien Flight Students Program given that part of the training was to be offered in the U.S.).

As a result, Mr. Latif was denied employment and had problems finding work as a pilot. He filed a complaint of ethnic discrimination with the Quebec Human Rights and Youth Rights Commission, which upheld his case and brought it before the Human Rights Tribunal. In 2009, the Tribunal ruled in his favour and ordered Bombardier to pay him $385,000 in damages and to cease using U.S. national security screening criteria when dealing with Canadian applications for a pilot training license.

Bombardier appealed the ruling to the Quebec Court of Appeal, which quashed the Tribunal's decision in the fall of 2013. The Human Rights Commission obtained leave to appeal the Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court, seeking the latter’s clarification on a number of issues.

One of these issues is whether the Quebec Court of Appeal erred in requiring proof of a “causal connection” between the prohibited ground of ethnic origin and the discrimination experienced by the victim. Canadian jurisprudence on discrimination usually merely requires evidence that a prohibited ground, such as race or gender, was one of the factors in a discriminatory action or practice; this is a lower threshold to prove discrimination than that of “causal connection”.

In 2013, the Ontario Court of Appeal rejected a similar test in the ground-breaking racial profiling case of Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 CarswellOnt 7881, 2013 ONCA 396, 228 A.C.W.S. (3d) 204, 116 O.R. (3d) 81, 306 O.A.C. 314, 9 C.C.E.L. (4th) 233, [2013] O.J. No. 2695(Ont. C.A.). In that case, which involved the racial profiling of two Black lawyers (one of whom was prominent human rights lawyer Selwyn Pieters) and a student, two of whom had dreadlocks,  the Ontario Court unanimously maintained a more liberal position and ruled against the lower Court’s requirement of a “causal nexus between the arbitrary distinction based on a prohibited ground and the disadvantage suffered.”

As the only Quebec intervener in the Bombardier case, Center for Research-Action on Race Relations (CRARR) called for a “consistent, uniform and unequivocal evidentiary requirement for assessing discrimination claims … to guide all equality-seeking individuals and groups as well as all courts and tribunals in Quebec (and) in the rest of Canada.”

In upholding the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada cited with approval Mr. Justice Juriansz's reasoning in Peel Law Association v. Pieters as well as the reasoning in Moore v. British Columbia (Education), 2012 SCC 61 (SCC), as the appropriate test required to prove discrimination:

[49]                          In a recent decision concerning the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, the Ontario Court of Appeal found that it is preferable to use the terms commonly used by the courts in dealing with discrimination, such as “connection” and “factor”: Peel Law Assn. v. Pieters, 2013 ONCA 396, 116 O.R. (3d) 80, at para. 59. In that court’s opinion, the use of the modifier “causal” elevates the test beyond what is required, since human rights jurisprudence focuses on the discriminatory effects of conduct rather than on the existence of an intention to discriminate or of direct causes: para. 60. We agree with the Ontario Court of Appeal’s reasoning on this point. Moreover, this Court used the term “factor” in a recent decision concerning British Columbia’s human rights code: Moore, at para. 33.

 [50]                          It is more appropriate to use the terms “connection” and “factor” in relation to discrimination, especially since the expression “lien causal” has a specific meaning in the civil law of Quebec. In civil liability matters, the plaintiff must establish on a balance of probabilities that there is a causal relationship between the defendant’s fault and the injury suffered by the plaintiff: J.‑C. Royer and S. Lavallée, La preuve civile (4th ed. 2008), at para. 158. The Quebec courts have defined this causal relationship as requiring that the damage be a logical, direct and immediate consequence of the fault. This rule therefore means that the cause must have a [translation] “close” relationship with the injury suffered by the victim: J.‑L. Baudouin, P. Deslauriers and B. Moore, La responsabilité civile (8th ed. 2014), at para. 1‑683.
[51]                          A close relationship is not required in a discrimination case under the Charter, however. To hold otherwise would be to disregard the fact that, since there may be many different reasons for a defendant’s acts, proof of such a relationship could impose too heavy a burden on the plaintiff. Some of those reasons may, of course, provide a justification for the defendant’s acts, but the burden is on the defendant to prove this. It is therefore neither appropriate nor accurate to use the expression “causal connection” in the discrimination context.

 [52]                          In short, as regards the second element of prima facie discrimination, the plaintiff has the burden of showing that there is a connection between a prohibited ground of discrimination and the distinction, exclusion or preference of which he or she complains or, in other words, that the ground in question was a factor in the distinction, exclusion or preference. Finally, it should be noted that the list of prohibited grounds in s. 10 of the Charter is exhaustive, unlike the one in the Canadian Charter : City of Montréal, at para. 69.

On the issue of social context evidence, the Supreme Court of Canada held that:

 It cannot be presumed solely on the basis of a social context of discrimination against a group that a specific decision against a member of that group is necessarily based on a prohibited ground under the Charter. In practice, this would amount to reversing the burden of proof in discrimination matters. Evidence of discrimination, even if it is circumstantial, must be tangibly related to the impugned decision or conduct. As a result, it was not open to the Tribunal in this case to conclude that B’s decision constituted prima facie discrimination under the Charter. The conclusion in this case does not mean that a company can blindly comply with a discriminatory decision of a foreign authority without exposing itself to liability under the Charter. This conclusion flows from the fact that there is simply no evidence of a connection between a prohibited ground and the foreign decision in question.

This again was emphasized in Pieters as well:

[121]   In this case, I am not persuaded that any unfairness resulted from the Vice-Chair’s reference to Nassiah. The reference did not affect his disposition of what I regard to be the main issue in the case—whether the appellants’ race and colour were factors in their selection for questioning. At most they played a minor role in his finding that their race and colour were factors in the manner in which they were questioned. After referring to Nassiah, the Vice-Chair was careful to point out he had “already” made findings about the manner in which the librarian had questioned the appellants. The librarian had “interrupted [the first appellant] while he was on the telephone and, it appears, did not introduce herself to the applicants and [the articling student]”. Furthermore, “[f]rom all the evidence, including the personal respondent's testimony of how she generally carried out this function”, the Vice-Chair concluded that “the blunt and demanding manner in which she asked her questions was not how she would approach and question persons that she imagined were lawyers and had a right to be in the lounge”. These findings of fact relate to the particular encounter in this case; they are not based on generalizations drawn from social science.

Unfortunately for Mr. Latif the Court held that he had not discharged the legal burden of proving discrimination on a balance of probabilities, and that a prohibited ground of discrimination is one factor involved in the decisions or actions on the part of the employer that are alleged to constitute a violation of the Quebec's Charter.

Mr. Selwyn Pieters, co-counsel for CRARR, and CRARR's Executive Director Fo Niemi will be available for comment on the Supreme Court decision.

- 30 -

Information: Selwyn Pieters: (416) 787-5928
Fo Niemi: (416) 808-6119
CRARR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Officers D'Sena and Keown are also involved in another matter in the Jane & Finch area involving Black Youth Michael Duru in January 2015 that was captured on video that went viral: http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/28/video-of-alleged-violent-takedown-by-officer-being-investigated-by-toronto-police/



Michael Duru video



Jeff Gray Toronto police face human-rights complaint over alleged beating Globe and Mail, June 05, 2015

Mark Carcasole, Reporter, Global News, Toronto man launches human rights complaint against police, Global TV, June 05, 2015

Greg Ross, Toronto man files human rights complaint after alleged police beating CBC TV, June 04, 2015

Tammie Sutherland, EXCLUSIVE: Charges dropped against man who alleged Toronto police brutality CityNews, April 28, 2015

Copyright © 2015 Selwyn Pieters. All rights reserved. Please use citation if using or relying on my analysis.

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

Selwyn has appeared at all levels of courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada in Attorney General of Ontario v. Michael J. Fraser, et al., 2011 SCC 20  and Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, et al. v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center), et al. (2015 - decision reserved); Ontario Court of Appeal in Freeman-Maloy v. Marsden 267 D.L.R. (4th) 37, 208 O.A.C. 307 (C.A.); Bangoura v. Washington Post (2005) 202 O.A.C. 76, (2005) 17 C.P.C. (6th) 30 (Ont.C.A.), McAteer v. Canada (Attorney General) 2014 CarswellOnt 10955, 2014 ONCA 578, 121 O.R. (3d) 1, 376 D.L.R. (4th) 258 (CA) and most recently R. v. Steele (2015) ONCA 169 (Ont. C.A.);  the Federal Court of Appeal in The Honourable Sinclair Stevens v. The Conservative Party of Canada, [2005] F.C.J. No. 1890, 2005 FCA 383. He represented Correctional Manager Mariann Taylor-Baptiste in the ground-breaking competing rights case of Taylor-Baptiste v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 2012 CarswellOnt 8965, 2012 HRTO 1393, 2012 C.L.L.C. 230-022 reconsideration denied in 2013 CarswellOnt 1033, 2013 HRTO 180, 2013 C.L.L.C. 230-019 at the HRTO; Civil Rights lawyer Charles Roach in the Oath cases of McAteer, Topey, Dror-Natan v. Canada (Attorney General) 2013 CarswellOnt 13165, 2013 ONSC 5895 (ON S.C.) and Roach et al. v. Canada 2012 CarswellOnt 7799, 2012 ONSC 352 (ON S.C.) which is a constitutional challenge to the oath in the Citizenship Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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