Pegasus Guyana - Ants and Roach Infested Rooms

By Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)
Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Created August 05, 2015

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





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

Good evening Susan,

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

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

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

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

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

Yours very truly,

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

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

Case history of racial profiling and carding in Ontario: Selwyn Pieters

By Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)
Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Created June 17, 2015

“Racism, and in particular anti-Black racism, is a part of our community’s psyche. A significant segment of our community holds overtly racist views. A much larger segment subconsciously operates on the basis of negative racial stereotypes. Furthermore, our institutions, including the criminal justice system, reflect and perpetuate those negative stereotypes.”  R. v. Parks, (1993) 15 OR (3d) 324; 24 CR (4th) 81; 84 CCC (3d) 353; [1993] OJ No 2157 (QL); 21 WCB (2d) 121; 65 OAC 122  (Ont. C.A.), p. 369.

I am one of the leading lawyers in Ontario on the carding and racial profiling file. I therefore take this opportunity to chart my own journey in the quest for a juster justice system and the elimination of lawless law enforcement. Twenty three years after Carlton Parks decision very little has changed in respect to the lot of Black males in Toronto and Ontario in respect to our interactions with law enforcement, Courts and Tribunals. I recently litigated a carding incident of lawyering whilst Black arising out of a carding incident in a lawyers' lounge up to the Court of Appeal: Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 CarswellOnt 7881, 2013 ONCA 396, 228 A.C.W.S. (3d) 204, 116 O.R. (3d) 81, 306 O.A.C. 314, 9 C.C.E.L. (4th) 233, [2013] O.J. No. 2695(Ont. C.A.) and most recently R. v. Steele 2015 CarswellOnt 3334, 2015 ONCA 169, [2015] O.J. No. 1253 (Ont. C.A.). Leave to the Supreme Court of Canada denied:  R. v. Steele, 2015 CanLII 43092 (SCC).

Selwyn argued numerous case of racial profiling in Criminal Courts including: R. v. Agil, Chambers, Fullerton, Jimale and Brown 2011 CarswellOnt 18099 (Ont. CJ. July 14, 2011, Khawley J.) [Carding led to a big gun, drugs and gang case that I successfully litigated in Toronto... Project Threadbare the Judge called it because of the lack of evidence]; R. v. Steele, 2010 ONSC 233 (ON S.C.) and R. v. Egonu, 2007 CanLII 30475 (ON SC) - Driving while black and R. v. Bramwell-Cole [2010] O.J. No. 5838 (ON S.C.) - walking while black. Charges of cause disturbance and assault police can be pretextual racial profiling charges: R. v. Roach, 2005 O.J. No. 5278 (Ont. C.J.) (Criminal Law - Causing a Disturbance); R. v. Ramsaroop, 2009 CarswellOnt 5281, 2009 ONCJ 406 (Ont. CJ.); R. v. Taylor, 2010 CarswellOnt 6584, 2010 ONCJ 396, [2010] O.J. No. 3794 (Ont. CJ.).


M. (R.) was a case involving a youth 14 years old who was arrested four time by Toronto Police all based on racial profiling and improperly targeted him for arrest and detention based on Code-related grounds. He has no convictions yet was targetted, carded, arrested, detained, on several occassions. His case was fiercely litigated by Toronto Police and the reported decisions stand as a monument to the challenges litigants face in litigating racial profiling:

M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 CarswellOnt 12134, 2013 HRTO 1472
M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 CarswellOnt 11941
M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 1102
M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2013 HRTO 73
M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2012 CarswellOnt 11158
M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, [2011] O.H.R.T.D. No. 618, 2011 HRTO 410
M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2011 ONCJ 143, 2011 CarswellOnt 1980, 2011 ONCJ 143, 274 C.C.C. (3d) 272 (Ont. CJ.)
M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2010 CarswellOnt 9121, 2010 HRTO 2349

M. (R.) v. Toronto Police Services Board was settled to the satisfaction of all parties and the terms of settlement reached remain confidential.

Carding by Toronto Police killed Dwayne Manning: Manning v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2014 HRTO 1409 (CanLII). This became one of my most difficult and challenging case. As Dwayne Manning continued to be carded and harassed his confidence was shaken and his mental health declined. He took his life in 2014.

My most satisfaction came from my face-off with three police officers who shattered my confidence in Toronto Police as an entity that respects that rights of citizens. Pieters v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2014 HRTO 1729 (CanLII). In this case, I witnessed racialized violence against two Black males and intervened. I took this case to the HRTO with no regrets.

John Tory, Toronto Police Services Board, Elimination of Carding and Racial Profiling - A Critical Viewpoint on the Issue

By Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.
Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)
Attorney-at-Law (Republic of Guyana, Island of Trinidad)
Created June 9, 2015

“Racism, and in particular anti-Black racism, is a part of our community’s psyche. A significant segment of our community holds overtly racist views. A much larger segment subconsciously operates on the basis of negative racial stereotypes. Furthermore, our institutions, including the criminal justice system, reflect and perpetuate those negative stereotypes.”  R. v. Parks, (1993) 15 OR (3d) 324; 24 CR (4th) 81; 84 CCC (3d) 353; [1993] OJ No 2157 (QL); 21 WCB (2d) 121; 65 OAC 122  (Ont. C.A.), p. 369.

I am one of the leading lawyers in Ontario on the carding and racial profiling file. I therefore take this opportunity to chart my own journey in the quest for a juster justice system and the elimination of lawless law enforcement. Twenty three years after Carlton Parks decision very little has changed in respect to the lot of Black males in Toronto and Ontario in respect to our interactions with law enforcement, Courts and Tribunals. I recently litigated a carding incident of lawyering whilst Black arising out of a carding incident in a lawyers' lounge up to the Court of Appeal: Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 CarswellOnt 7881, 2013 ONCA 396, 228 A.C.W.S. (3d) 204, 116 O.R. (3d) 81, 306 O.A.C. 314, 9 C.C.E.L. (4th) 233, [2013] O.J. No. 2695(Ont. C.A.) and most recently R. v. Steele (2015) ONCA 169 (Ont. C.A.). As well, other lawyers have also felt the brunt of racial profiling in the Black/brown skin that we are in Shallow v. Toronto (Police Services Board), 2008-00492-I, a case that was before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, where a Black Crown Attorney complained about being belittled and falsely arrested because of his race: "The unspoken message to me was: lawyer, Crown, or whatever, you're still just a black guy so know your place, boy"; Bogle v. Toronto Police Services Board: On December 27, 2005, his birthdate, Jason Bogle, a 26 year old Black Lawyer, and his girlfriend, were surrounded in his Lexus vehicle shortly after he left a celebration of his birthday to take his girlfriend home. The excuse that the officers provided was that he fit the description of a suspect and that in the wake of the Boxing Day Jane Creba shooting they cannot be too careful. See also, Pieters v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2014 HRTO 1729 (CanLII). In this case, I witnessed racialized violence against two Black males and intervened. I took this case to the HRTO with no regrets.

On Sunday June 07, 2015, John Tory, Mayor of Toronto, announced that he has had a change of heart in respect to the carding of citizens by Toronto Police Service. This announcement on a Sunday evening was met with jubilation.

Obviously, the "all hand on deck" approach to this issue brought John Tory to a come to Jesus moment. However, on the ground for numerous years dealing with this issue were Jim Rankin, a reporter with the Toronto Star; Selwyn Pieters, the author, here who has litigated these case at every level of Courts in Ontario; David Tanovich who have written, taught and spoke out on this issue; the African Canadian Legal Clinic, whose advocacy and public relations on this file was sustained.

While Mayor John Tory pledge to eliminate carding, some system of accountability is required for police interactions with citizens. The provision of reasons for the stop, the issuing of receipts for police interactions and advising citizens that they are free to leave, would be a step forward.

Least we forget, the struggle to end carding involved numerous persons who paid a high price including me. Carding by Toronto Police killed my former client Dwayne Manning. I filed a Human Rights Application bases on the numerous instances Mr. Manning was carded. He continued to be harassed in Downtown Toronto by police officers. As Dwayne Manning continued to be carded and harassed his confidence was shaken and his mental health declined. Dwayne took his own life. See, Manning v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2014 HRTO 1409 (CanLII) where his case was deemed abandoned because of his death.

I am currently counsel for two men Rohan Roberts and Michael Duru in the Jane and Finch area who were racially profiled, carded, arrested and charged by Officers Ryan D'Sena and Andrew Keown. Rohan Roberts criminal charges were withdrawn on April 28, 2015 on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect for conviction. For coverage of Roberts case , See, Jeff Gray Toronto police face human-rights complaint over alleged beating Globe and Mail, June 05, 2015; Mark Carcasole, Reporter, Global News, Toronto man launches human rights complaint against police, Global TV, June 05, 2015; Greg Ross, Toronto man files human rights complaint after alleged police beating CBC TV, June 04, 2015; Tammie Sutherland, EXCLUSIVE: Charges dropped against man who alleged Toronto police brutality CityNews, April 28, 2015.

In a recent letter to Mark Saunders, Chief of Police, I wrote:

It is not a crime for a Black man in Jane and Finch to be in and around his neighbourhood. I live in Regent Park and I walk in my neighbourhood any hour of the day and night as that is my prerogative. I trust that you will, in your new role, reinforce to your officers that citizens have rights under  The Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 (the "Charter"); Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”); Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15 as amended. This is not North Korea.

Michael Duru's charges are set for a five day trial commencing in March 2016.

Michael Duru made a blurry video of the January 2015 interaction that went viral: http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/28/video-of-alleged-violent-takedown-by-officer-being-investigated-by-toronto-police/



Michael Duru video



This is my recollection of being locked out of police headquarters on November 14, 2012, when members of the African Canadian Community attended to make deputations and observe the Board's meeting on carding/racial profiling:

As a litigator who is involved in issues of racial profiling in criminal matters, civil matters and human rights applications, naturally I have an interest in the Toronto Police Service and how its policies in this area that touches on the fundamental rights of citizens in this City are shaped.

I attended the Toronto Police Services Board meeting on November 14, 2012, to be met by a wall of police officers who denied total access to persons interested in attending that meeting, most of whom were Black people. The claim the the meeting room was full was proven to be false by Televisions reports that showed empty seats. As well, it is the normal practice to stream the meeting into an overflow room.

The Chair of the Police Services Board Alok Mukerjee and the Chief of Police William Blair are responsible for this disrespectful treatment.

Lets see who were outside: John Sewell, a former mayor could not get in. African Canadian Legal Clinic Lawyer Roger Love could not get.

I could not get into police headquarters to attend this public meeting. Here I am being blocked along with Tidy Francis and Steven Mayers.


Three Black Deputants could not get in. To add injury to insult one was stopped, carded and denied access. The female Sargeant even recorded his personal information on her cellular telephone - a total violation of what a public meeting is supposedly about open access and possibly a violation of the man's privacy.


In fact even the media was prevented from entering the meeting, it took a lot of time and effort for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to gain entry to that public meeting. The Toronto Star also reported on the lock out of citizens who were there to make deputations.

In terms of this file, I have litigated carding and racial profiling before Courts and Tribunals on behalf of myself and numerous other people whose rights in my view were violated.

Pieters v. Department of National Revenue, 2001 CanLII 38322 (CHRT), was one of the first cases to reach a Human Rights Tribunal where the allegations of racial profiling was central to the issue. That case was settled: Pieters v. Dept of National Revenue - Minutes of Settlement T650/3801, January 30, 2002. Amongst the terms of the settlement were:

3. The Respondent agrees to provide a letter of apology to the Complainant from the Commissioner of the CCRA with respect to the comment made to the Complainant by an employee of the Respondent on May 24, 1999.
4. The Respondent undertakes that the criteria applied by Customs officers at ports of entry shall not include criteria that discriminate unlawfully on the basis of race, colour, national or ethnic origin or gender, or other prohibited grounds.
5. The Respondent, in consultation with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) and the ACLC, will request proposals and retain an external contractor to design and implement a pilot project intended to develop statistics on referrals to secondary examination, based on race, colour, national and ethnic origin and gender of referrals in the context of all passengers passing through ports of entry.   The time frame and location(s) of the pilot project will be determined by the Respondent in consultation with the external contractor, the CHRC and the ACLC.  The project will also analyze, on the basis of race, colour, national or ethnic origin and gender, the impact of the criteria applied by Customs officers at ports of entry and make appropriate recommendations.  The result of the pilot project will be provided to the CHRC and the ACLC, and the Respondent will consult with the CHRC and the ACLC respecting the implementation of its recommendations.
6. The pilot project will consider the collection on a permanent basis of the data described in Article 5.  The Respondent will consult with the CHRC on the general purposes of any measures that may be recommended from the pilot project prior to any decision on the further collection of such data.  If these data are collected on a permanent basis, CCRA shall collect and analyze such data annually and prepare a report to the Minister of National Revenue and to the CHRC, which shall be made part of the public record.
7. On or before March 1, 2002, the Respondent shall retain an anti-racism expert, external to CCRA, to provide anti-racism and cultural diversity training to all Customs officers.  Each new officer shall receive this anti-racism training within 180 days of hire, and all student officers shall receive anti-racism training as part of their orientation.  Refresher anti-racism training will be provided to all customs officers on a regular basis.
8. The Respondent undertakes to ensure that CCRA policy directs Customs officers to advise each person directed to secondary inspection of the reason for conducting such inspection.
9. The Commissioner of CCRA, or the Assistant Commissioner, will meet with the ACLC on an annual basis to hear the perceptions and impacts of CCRA Customs practices on racialized groups.  The ACLC will bring representatives of appropriate community groups to these meetings.

Selwyn argued numerous case of racial profiling in Criminal Courts including: R. v. Agil, Chambers, Fullerton, Jimale and Brown 2011 CarswellOnt 18099 (Ont. CJ. July 14, 2011, Khawley J.)
R. v. Steele, 2010 ONSC 233 (ON S.C.) and R. v. Egonu, 2007 CanLII 30475 (ON SC) - Driving while black and R. v. Bramwell-Cole [2010] O.J. No. 5838 (ON S.C.) - walking while black. Charges of cause disturbance and assault police can be pretextual racial profiling charges: R. v. Roach, 2005 O.J. No. 5278 (Ont. C.J.) (Criminal Law - Causing a Disturbance); R. v. Ramsaroop, 2009 CarswellOnt 5281, 2009 ONCJ 406 (Ont. CJ.); R. v. Taylor, 2010 CarswellOnt 6584, 2010 ONCJ 396, [2010] O.J. No. 3794 (Ont. CJ.).

At the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, I have litigated several significant cases, some of which I won, some of which I lost and some of which I settled through mediation.

Racial profiling and carding of Black, Brown and Aboriginal peoples in Canada makes society poor. It fosters distrust where mutual respect should exist. This observation was previous made by me on social media and attracted the following comment from Toronto criminal defence lawyer Jeffry House"

I loved yesterday's press conference in which many elite Canadians demanded an end to carding. But it raised a question in my mind: how come the head of the Human Rights Commission (for ten years) and the Chief Justice of Ontario (for 16 years) never managed to use their power to stop it? Instead, they wait till they are without official power, and resort to exhortations to others?

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

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.

Toronto: Aboriginal Canadian Arrested for Suspected Drunk Riding

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

By Selwyn A. Pieters, B.A., LL.B., L.E.C.

Lawyer & Notary Public (Ontario, Canada)
Attorney-at-Law May 01, 2015

Below is an extract from part of a lengthy May 01, 2015 letter that I wrote to the recently appointed Chief of the Toronto Police Service, Mark Saunders, concerning racial profiling, racialized violence and inappropriate use of the Canadian criminal justice system machinery. The quote from R. v. Schertzer, 2015 ONCA 259 is an add on to the letter.
.....
Mr. [X] reported to me the following in respect to his interactions with officers at 31 Division:

i. That he has been stopped and searched in public many times without any reason;
ii. That he was assaulted in the past as well by Toronto Police Officers;
iii. That he does not feel comfortable to walk in his community alone as a result;
iv. That he wants the police harassment of him in his community to stop.

Just for your reminder on May, 30^th, 2013, the Black Community Police Consultative Committee (BCPCC) held a town hall meeting at the Christian Centre Church with Toronto Police 31 Division and residents of the Jane-Finch area.  The purpose of this discussion was to identify problems and solutions to improve community safety and the relationship with local police.[1] You were in attendance and said this:

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

....

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

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

The Court of Appeal recently reiterated the following in R. v. Schertzer, 2015 ONCA 259:

[132]     Public confidence in the honesty of the police is fundamental to the integrity of the criminal justice system.  As Moldaver J.A. wrote in Schaeffer v. Wood, 2013 SCC 71 (CanLII) at para. 52, citing Sir Robert Peel:

“‘the police are the public and…the public are the police…  The wisdom of this statement lies in its recognition that public trust in the police is, and always must be, of paramount concern.” 

[133]   Police officers are sworn to uphold the law. In R. v. Feeney, 2008 ONCA 756 (CanLII), 238 C.C.C. (3d) 49, at para. 8, this court endorsed the following passage from R. v. Cusack (1978), 41 C.C.C. (2d) 289 (N.S. S.C.(A.D.))::

[T]he paramount consideration in this case is the protection of the public from offences of this sort being committed by persons who are given special authority by our law to deal with individual members of society, and to deter such persons from acting in breach of their trust....
The commission of offences by police officers has been considered on numerous occasions by the Courts, and the unanimous finding has been that their sentence should be more severe than that of an ordinary person who commits the same crime, because of the position of public trust which they held at the time of the offence and their knowledge of the consequences of its perpetration..

It is not a crime for a Black man in Jane and Finch to be in and around his neighbourhood. I live in Regent Park and I walk in my neighbourhood any hour of the day and night as that is my prerogative. I trust that you will, in your new role, reinforce to your officers that citizens have rights under  The Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 (the "Charter"); Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”); Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15 as amended. This is not North Korea.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

[1] - The Black Community Police Consultative Committee (BCPCC) Town Hall Meeting, May 30^th, 2013; a video of the Town Hall Meeting is available at this web link - http://jane-finch.com/videos/policetownhall.htm   

Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users v. BCHRT, 2015 BCSC 534 - Causal Nexus Rejected

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 April 24, 2015

In Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users v. British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, 2015 BCSC 534, the Honourable Madam Justice Sharma had cause to consider the test for establishing discrimination.

Of course, in Moore v British Columbia (Education) 2012 SCC 61, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 360, Justice Abella stated that to demonstrate prima facie discrimination, claimants must show:

1. That they have a protected or equivalent characteristic; 
2. That they experience an adverse impact, and 
3. That the characteristic was a factor. 

In 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.), the Court of Appeal reject the requirement of a "causal nexus" or "Causal connection" or causal link instead holding that:

[54]   The Court did not indicate from where it derived this test.  The term "causal nexus" does not appear in Tranchemontagne, which the Divisional Court cited before setting out this test.  The test is not one that human rights tribunals have traditionally applied. (...)
[59]      While the word “nexus” is perfectly acceptable, I think it preferable to continue to use the terms more commonly used in the jurisprudence developed under the Code. All that is required is that there be a “connection” between the adverse treatment and the ground of discrimination. The ground of discrimination must somehow be a “factor” in the adverse treatment.
[60]      I do not think it acceptable, however, to attach the modifier “causal” to “nexus”. Doing so seems to me to elevate the test beyond what the law requires. The Divisional Court’s requirement of a “causal nexus” or a “causal link” between the adverse treatment and a prohibited ground seems counter to the evolution of human rights jurisprudence, which focuses on the discriminatory effects of conduct, rather than on intention and direct cause.
[61]      I conclude that the Divisional Court erred in law by applying an incorrect and stricter test of discrimination in deciding this case (…)

This issue of causal link, causal connection or causal nexus was also recently argued on January 23, 2015 at the Supreme Court of Canada in Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse, et al. v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center), et al. (decision reserved), as that is a requirement to prove discrimination under the civil law of Quebec.

I was therefore quite interested in reading the decision of Madam Justice Sharma, particularly paragraphs 59 and 60 that squares with Moore and Pieters:

[59]           In my view, there is a significant difference between proving personal characteristics are “causally” connected to adverse treatment versus them being “a factor” in the adverse treatment. Requiring claimants to prove a causative connection elevates the legal burden on the claimant beyond what the SCC stated in Moore and would be inconsistent with the equality jurisprudence under the Charter.
[60]           The essence of discrimination is the disproportionate impact of a law or activity and, therefore, the focus of the legal test must also be on effects. The definitions of the prima facie test in both Coast Mountain and Moore do require claimants to demonstrate a relationship between the personal characteristics and adverse treatment. But proving a causative connection imports a “cause and effect” analysis; the claimant would need to establish that the protected ground was the factor that caused the adverse treatment, rather than simply a factor. This neglects the practical reality of situations in which discrimination is found. Adverse impacts are often the result of a constellation of factors, where the protected grounds are but one factor, but a factor nonetheless. The test in Moore properly recognizes this distinction. Furthermore, undertaking a “cause and effect” analysis could improperly focus on the design or intention underlying the actions or system at issue. As discussed below, this would be a further source of potential error, as one does not need to prove an intention to discrimination to find a violation of the Code.

I am not sure where the the confusion lies with some courts and/or tribunals, however, the common law is settled requirement of such a “causal link” is inconsistent with prevailing contemporary burden of proof in discrimination in Canada whereby it is only necessary to prove that a prohibited ground of discrimination is a factor in the challenge act or practice  (O’Malley v. Simpson-Sears, [1985] 2 SCR 536 at 28; Saskatchewan HRC v. Whatcott [2013] 1 SCR 467 at 54; Moore v. British Columbia [2012] 3 SCR 360 at 33).

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.

Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry - the William Gregory Smith passport issue and Laurie Lewis purported involvement

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 March 17, 2015

On March 27, 2015, the Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry heard from two witnesses, Anne Wagner the sister of Gregory Smith and co-author of "Assassination Cry of a Failed Revolution" and from Guyana Police Force Sergeant Alexis Adams.

In terms of Wagner's evidence several interesting facts emerged, who would have offered William Smith a new identity including birth certificate and passport? Why would he have returned in 1980 and 1982? Who was responsible for issuing the two passports Ms. Wagner produced that showed extensive travel including two trips into Guyana between 1980 and 1982 under the name Cyril Johnson? What was William Smith's emotional health like as he battled cancer? Did William Smith told Wagner everything? Was the omissions in the book sloppy work or intent to deceive? The salient themes of the cross-examination will be extracted below:

Re-availment in July 1980 and looking for Donald Rodney

Mr. Pieters: My understanding is that in July 1980 when he returned to Guyana, he was looking to have a conversation or a confrontation of sorts with Donald Rodney?
Mrs. Wagner: I did not get that question. Repeat that for me.
Mr. Pieters: When your brother returned to Guyana in July 1980, he was looking for Donald Rodney because he wanted to have a conversation with Donald Rodney?
Mrs. Wagner: Right.
Mr. Pieters: That is in your book?
Mrs. Wagner: Right.
Mr. Pieters: Do you recall…
Mrs. Wagner: Yes.
Mr. Pieters: The conversation you had?
Mrs. Wagner: With Donald Rodney, he did not meet with him.
Mr. Pieters: Right but he was looking for Donald Rodney. He went to a location where he taught he would find Donald Rodney. Do you recall that in your book?
Ms. Wagner: Yes, I recall that.
Mr. Pieters: Why would he do that?
10:51hrs
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Did he tell her?
Mrs. Wagner: He wants to get to some answers. He wanted him to tell the truth. I guess if he had spoken to him then we would not have this Inquiry now.
---------

Mr. Hanoman: Mistress. Good afternoon again. You have shared with us a passport issued to Cyril Johnson in 1980. You are aware of that document?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Hanoman: The original passport, do you have it?
12:54hrs
Mrs. Wagner: No, I do not have it.
Mr. Hanoman: Do you know where it is?
Mrs. Wagner: It is in Cayenne. That is the copy of the passport.
Mr. Hanoman: The passport itself is in Cayenne at this moment?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes.
Mr. Hanoman: Now, in your book you suggest to us that when Gregory Smith came back from Trinidad, that that very night, a passport was handed to him by a Mr. Fowler?
Mr. Chairman: You talking about his that the first visit or the second?
Mr. Hanoman: When he came back from Trinidad.
Mr. Chairman: Okay.
Mrs. Wagner: No, it was not the very night. Mr. Fowler had him at different hotels sleeping and walking and it was not the same night.
Mr. Hanoman: I wish to avert your attention to Page 42 of your book which is purportedly written by Gregory Smith. Do you have it?
Mr. Chairman: What is at Page 42 for the benefit of those who are following from a far? It makes it very hard when you do not say explicitly what you are talking about.
Mr. Hanoman: At Page 42 of your book, purportedly written by Gregory Smith it is stated that “he arrived in Georgetown between the hours of 07:00hrs and 08:00hrs and he immediately when to a house in Albertown. He approaches the gate of the house and saw the companion of the chauffeur who had taken me to the ship”. And then he goes on to say that he had left …
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: The second paragraph on Page [Inaudible]
Mr. Hanoman: … and then the second paragraph on Page 43, it goes to say that “after I had walked for about ten minutes when a car stopped. I approached the car, the door opened, the driver told me to get into the car” and then further to the bottom of the page “he then handed me a large brown envelope, the contents of which I examined. The envelope contained a passport in the name of Cyril Johnson”.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Sorry, what you left out in the third paragraph is that when he got in the car, he asked the man his name and the man said his name is Fowler. He said he was some kind of coordinator, his address not important and he said Mr. Fowler said in the fourth paragraph “I should not let my anger guide me”. Then he speaks to a conversation with Mr. Fowler and it is after that conversation that he says “he then handed me”, just so let everybody follows.
Mr. Hanoman:  Yes, do you follow that Mrs. Wagner?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Hanoman:  Do you agree that it was the very night when he arrived in Georgetown between the hours of 07:00 and 08:00 when he was taken into the car with Mr. Fowler that this brown envelope was handed to him with the passport in the name of Cyril Johnson?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes.
Mr. Hanoman: Do you agree that what Gregory Smith is saying here that the very night he returned to Georgetown he went to a house in Albertown, he spoke to this mysterious Mr. Fowler and then Mr. Fowler handed him an envelope with the passport. You agree with that?
Mrs. Wagner: This is what this book is saying, yes.
Mr. Hanoman: Yes. Did Gregory Smith tell you where Mr. Fowler would have gotten his photograph from?
Mrs. Wagner: No.
Mr. Hanoman: Did Gregory Smith ever tell you that he gave anybody a photograph of himself that could be used for a passport?
Mrs. Wagner: The guy took a picture of Gregory. A picture was taken of Gregory.
Mr. Hanoman: When was this picture taken?
Mrs. Wagner: This picture was taken … somebody took a picture of him. A picture was taken of him.
Mr. Hanoman: When, at what stage?
Mrs. Wagner: Around that same time.
Mr. Hanoman: From the time he left the ship to go to Mr. Fowler, the photograph was taken.
Mrs. Wagner: No, like probably the next day or something like that.
Mr. Hanoman: No …
Mr. Chairman: The question asked of you though, is that …
Mrs. Wagner: A picture was taken of him; a guy took the picture of him.
Mr. Hanoman: You have that included in your book or that is from your memory?
Mrs. Wagner: I cannot … it is in my head that is what I am recalling, yes.
Mr. Chairman: Now the question put to you is whether Gregory Smith, your brother, ever told you where the photograph and the new passport that he was given came from?
Mrs. Wagner: It came from Mr. Fowler.
Mr. Chairman: No, first of all, did he tell you?
Mrs. Wagner: He said he got it from Mr. Fowler.
Mr. Chairman: Yes, but he did not tell you where Mr. Fowler got it from? He did not know …
Mrs. Wagner: He did not know where he got it from.
Mr. Chairman: Very well.
Mrs. Wagner: It was given to him.
Mr. Hanoman: You and Gregory Smith had a conversation about this photograph or did he tell you?
Mrs. Wagner: No, he told me they took his picture.
Mr. Hanoman: He told you that they took his picture?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes.
Mr. Hanoman: Do you have an idea when this picture was taken?
Mrs. Wagner: It is in the book.
Mr. Hanoman: Let me suggest to you that there is nothing like that in the book. That immediately as Gregory Smith came from Trinidad Mr. Fowler had a passport with his photograph in it already.

William Gregory Smith's Own Words the conditions under which he would speak to the authorities in respect to Dr. Walter Rodney's Killing 

Mr. Pieters: Yes, [para.]46 [of your witness statement], you said that at some later point, your brother was aware of attempts to extradite him and he was always willing to return to Guyana to testify at trial under the condition that both he and Donald Rodney be subject to lie detector tests. “Additionally, Gregory was never reluctant to return to Guyana to face an investigation. He said so many times and reiterated that in his interview with the British Broadcasting Corporation.” Do you see that?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: My question to you is why within the two times that he was in Guyana, when he came here and knew that he was a person of interest, he did not avail himself to the authorities for that purpose, the investigative purpose? Did he explain that to you?
Mrs. Wagner: No.
Mr. Pieters: When he gave the interview on the BBC, which I listened to last night, he spoke of much more than the lie detector test. He spoke of security, he spoke about the lie detector test, he spoke of an impartial tribunal – I am getting old and blind – he spoke about amnesty for the four persons or the persons in high authority who he was going to expose; do you recall that?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, I recall that.
Mr. Pieters: Right. So, it was much more than a lie detector test?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: You would agree with me… Let me ask you this; you would accept that the issue of state protection or security, if someone had that concern it is nullified if the person re-availed themselves of a country for which they are claiming they will be persecuted, tortured or any crimes against humanity that exists? You would agree with that?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: And your brother re-availed himself twice without any security incident, as far as you know? Your brother was not tortured when he came back here in 1980? Your brother was not tortured or otherwise subjected to any sort of cruel and unusual treatment or any form of persecution, would you agree?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: And you would agree that the same applies when he came back here in 1982?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.

----------
Mr. Williams: Did you all ever discuss the question of him being extradited to Guyana?
Mrs. Wagner: I think that came up but the French Government had some stipulations and the Government never followed through with it.
Mr. Williams: Okay and that stipulation was, they would not send him back if there is a chance that he could be tried… whatever charge he is tried with eventuates in a sentence of death?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: Now, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) interview… Did he, in that interview, express his desire to return and face trial in Guyana?
Mrs. Wagner:  Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: What year do you recall that BBC interview was?
Mrs. Wagner: I think it was 1996, I am not sure.
Mr. Williams: 1996?
Mrs. Wagner: 1996, I think so.
Mr. Williams: And in fact, we were shown a warrant for 1996 purporting to be a warrant for his arrest. Remember you were shown a warrant?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes.
Mr. Williams: So it meant before that, you would agree with me, he was never charged for anything in relation to the death of Dr. Rodney …
Mrs. Wagner: No, not until that time.
Mr. Williams: … before 1996?
Mrs. Wagner: That is right, Sir.
Mr. Williams: So before 1996 there was no question of him having to return to Guyana to face his Trial? You agree with that?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, I agree with that.
Mr. Williams: And upon the issuance of the Warrant of Arrest in 1996 he right away indicated to the BBC that he was prepared to return to face any trial?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.

Omissions in Assassination Cry of a Failed Revolution by William Gregory Smith, William Gregory Smith & Anne R. Wagner 

Mr. Pieters: Very well. Now, you were also questioned at length about various omissions in the book. Do you recall that?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: I do not know if you recall at one point the Chairman said that the omissions in the book may play some part in assessing the credibility of the book. Do you recall that?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Let me finish the entire question before you answer. Would you characterise the omissions in the book as sloppiness or carelessness on your part?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes.
Mr. Pieters: Did you have any intent to deceive the public or the readership of your book?
Mrs. Wagner: No.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Mr. Pieters, your questions are very long even though her answers are short. So you have to give us a chance to write everything.
Mr. Pieters: Yes, Madame Commissioner.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: So she would credit it as sloppiness or carelessness on her part but it was not deliberate.
Mr. Pieters: No, the next question was: you had no intent to deceive the readership.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: And her answer was “no”? She had no intent?
Mr. Pieters: Correct.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Thank you.

---------

Mr. Pilgrim: Thank you Counsel. I will try to be more benign in my language. At page 138 about four or five paragraphs from the bottom, it begins “Smith confirmed that he travelled to Kwakwani to seek his father’s help.”
Mrs. Wagner: That is wrong.
Mr. Pilgrim: Right. That is not true you are saying?
Mrs. Wagner: That is not true.
Mr. Pilgrim: Did you or Gregory Smith ever contact Stabroek News to suggest that this was false?
Mrs. Wagner: I said yesterday, no.
Mr. Chairman: Again you are going back over very carefully traversed areas.
Mr. Pilgrim: I just want to get to the third question Mr. Chairman, which is this. Who are you saying is responsible for this distortion, just the Press at large or the WPA or anyone in particular?
Mrs. Wagner: I do not know. I cannot answer that, Sir.
Mr. Chairman: The article says it is a Stabroek News article.
Mr. Pilgrim: Indeed Mr. Chairman but…
Mr. Chairman: Reflecting the rap so to carry her to news at large and so on. It has a particular focus.
Mr. Pilgrim: Yes Mr. Chairman but she said yesterday…
Mr. Chairman: We are talking about the rap session with Gregory Smith.
Mr. Pilgrim: The Witness said yesterday that she put these articles in here to show that the press was distorting the facts and that there were various inconsistencies.
Mrs. Wagner: Inconsistencies.
Mr. Pilgrim: So I am just asking, are you saying that the press in general was distorting the facts for any particular reason or on the behalf of any particular person?
Mrs. Wagner: I cannot say that. I do not know that. All I know is that this particular article is inconsistent with what really happened. I cannot say if it was an error on the write or who.
Mr. Pilgrim: Especially since you made no effort whatsoever to correct it or question it.
Mrs. Wagner: This is not the only article. There are tons of them.
Mr. Pilgrim: I am only asking about one at this stage.
Mr. Chairman: The answer to that is on the record Sir. Grateful, Mr. Chairman.

On William Gregory Smith's Emotional Health

Mr. Pieters: The later part of your interviews or conversations with your brother, he would have been ill with cancer?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: And we know that he died before your book was published.
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: What was his emotional health like while you were interviewing him in the later part of his life?
Mrs. Wagner: It was very difficult to watch him suffer.
Mr. Pieters: And what was his emotional health like, we know that physically…
Mrs. Wagner: Physically, you had to be extra strong to be around him because he did not want to see you cry, you had to appear as if you were happy. This is how he was, but looking at him it was the hardest thing for me.
Mr. Chairman: You are answering about your emotional state, but you are being asked about his.
Mrs. Wagner: His condition was very poor.
Mr. Chairman: Very well.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: When you say he would not want to see you cry, you had to appear to be happy.
Mrs. Wagner: You had to appear as if everything is alright.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Alright then, what would be his reaction if he saw you cry?
Mrs. Wagner: He would actually said, “Don’t you do that” and that sort of thing.
Mr. Chairman: In saying that his condition was very poor, is that physical and emotional or…
Mrs. Wagner: He was physically, yes, and emotionally he was still like a fighter. You would go to see him and you want to cry because what you are seeing, but you cannot, he would not allow you to do that.
Mr. Williams: [Inaudible]
Mrs. Wagner: Yes!
Mr. Chairman: But that is not the only thing on record that his emotional health was poor as well as his physical condition in the later part of his life, but she said he was still a fighter also.
Mr. Pieters: Let me ask you this, Madam.
Mr. Chairman: What is your record please?
Ms. Rahamat: She indicated that the emotional condition of her brother was very poor.
Mr. Chairman: Those are my words too, but we will abide by the transcript.
Mr. Williams: [Inaudible]
Mr. Chairman: Yes, his condition was very poor and that is why…
Mrs. Wagner: This is what I meant his condition was very poor if you look at him, you will see the frailty in him and his health conditions. He was still portraying that strength to us as if he was doing good.
Mr. Chairman: Still trying to play a soldier.
Mr. Pieters: Strong.
Mr. Chairman: Very well.
Mr. Pieters: He had four young children; my understanding is at that material time.
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: I am sorry, Mr. Pieters, because you put a general question to her in the latter part when you visited him and you have not defined what you meant by “latter part”. I am looking at her statement at paragraph 48 and I am wondering if that later part relates to the July visit for a month, or if she is going back to September, 1999, so perhaps you can clarify for us what you meant by the “latter part” when you ask her that question.
Mr. Pieters: Madame Commissioner, when I say the latter part, I am asking her about the time when she spent a month with him.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: [Inaudible]
Mr. Pieters: I was not clear as I should have been, Madam.
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: I do not think you have given us a direct answer with respect to his emotional health which is the question for which I seek an answer. Can you tell us what his emotional health was like during the month in which you spent with him, can you tell us whether he appeared vulnerable, whether psychologically, he was strong, whether he was lucid, whatever you can tell us about his emotional health?
10:36hrs
Mrs. Wagner: His emotional health was very strong. I was not the strong one.
Mr. Pieters: So you saw no signs of vulnerability emotionally?
Mrs. Wagner: No. He kept telling me exactly what I have been saying here a couple minutes ago.
Mr. Pieters: And all…
Mrs. Wagner: And he started talking from day one all the way on.
Mr. Pieters: And all his faculties were intact?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes. At the end of every day we would pray. His youngest daughter would start the prayers and he would finish it.
Mr. Pieters: I asked you that question because when Mr. Pilgrim questioned you and Mr. Ram questioned you, they questioned you about certain omissions and why you did not ask certain questions, and so, I was attempting to ascertain whether it was because of his emotional health or you did not pursue a certain line of inquiry with him.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: But she has given her answer. She said he was strong. She said she was the weak one.
Mr. Pieters: No, I appreciate that now. I did not get what his emotional health was prior to now.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: So she has answered.
Mr. Pieters: Yes.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: But she says she was traumatised.
Mrs. Wagner: I was the weak one.
Mr. Pieters: So is it…
Mrs. Wagner: There are certain questions that I should have asked. I could not ask because I was not capable of doing it.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: I understand.

----------
Mr. Hanoman: Did you ever consider that perhaps your brother was telling you his story in order to gain sympathy from you and financial assistance?
Mrs. Wagner: No, Sir. That is not my brother.
Mr. Hanoman: Now, according you your book, you agree with me that the picture that Gregory Smith painted of himself is that from the beginning of his adult life, he was a victim. He was a victim of Mr. Bonny Elphage, He was a victim of the PNC, he was a victim of the Army, he was a perpetual victim. Do you agree with that?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, it is what it is and we have called it as we see it. If you are going through it, you have to say what you are going through.
Mr. Hanoman: So for most of his adult life he has been victimized. Do you agree with that?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: He had a victim complex? You can get that far.
Mrs. Wagner: I guess because he was easy going and he has too much… when you are dishonest, you can get through this world very easy. When you do honest, you have a problem.
Mr. Chairman: Ma’am, you thought he had a victim complex?
Mrs. Wagner: I do not know.
Mr. Hanoman: Do you agree in your conversation with him especially after June, 1980 that he was constantly on his guard because of everything that was happening?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes.
Mr. Hanoman: Did he ever confide in you that he had difficulty sleeping?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, he had difficulty sleeping.
Mr. Hanoman: Ma’am, do you know that all of those questions that I just I just asked are the classic symptoms of schizophrenic paranoia, a clinical sickness?
Mrs. Wagner: No, Sir.
Mr. Hanoman: Did it ever cross your mind?
Mr. Pieters: Stop, again there is no factual foundation, no basis for that line of questioning or suggestion of the symptoms of mental illness on the part of Gregory Smith, none whatsoever.
Mr. Hanoman: Ma’am, do you agree that your brother was paranoid?
Mrs. Wagner: No, he was not.
Mr. Hanoman: Do you know if he ever went to Psychiatrist?
Mrs. Wagner: He did not have any reason to.
Mr. Hanoman: Was he traumatised by the death of Walter Rodney in any way as far as you can tell?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, he was upset by it.
Mr. Hanoman: Did he express to you any remorse about the part he played in Walter Rodney’s death?
Mrs. Wagner: I would say, yes.

See, New Guyana Media, Walter Rodney Commission of Inquiry Highlights of the March 27th 2015, Youtube video sitting

******

The Laurie Lewis Factor

In terms of the evidence from Guyana Police Force Sergeant Alexis Adams several observations are appropriate. Firstly, counsel for the parties present at the Inquiry were given no notice up to the time the Immigration Officer was called that such a witness exist. Secondly, the documents were sprung on us at the very last moment. Third, the witness Sergeant Sealey exists and still serves in the Guyana Police Force, she should have been brought to be cross-examined about the application. Fourth, even if a command is given by a superior officer, if it illegal a rank does not have to comply (remember the Paul Slowe/Gajraj issue with returning a firearm); Fifth, even if a direction is given to a rank to process an application, it is the ranks duty to ensure all the necessary requirements are complied with.

P.M. Hinds; Pres. Jagan
and Commissioner L. Lewis

An extract of some of my questions follows below simply to illustrate that one cannot accept things at face value.

Mr. Hanoman: Do you know that this passport was issued on the direction of Laurie Lewis even though none of the usual formalities were followed?
Mr. Pieters: Mr. Chairman, I step in at this point because that is a problem. None of the other Counsels had this prior to the Commission’s Counsel’s examination. I do not know why the Commission’s Secretariat would not have distributed this document earlier and now we are hearing Laurie Lewis’s name come into the picture and there is no evidence of the source of this knowledge but we just got a document handed to us after our cross-examination has been completed.
13.09hrs
Mr. Chairman: I do not know if it is any consolation to you but I do not …
Mr. Meertins-George: Mr. Commissioner, did Laurie Lewis give evidence to this Commission?
Mr. Chairman: Yes, I think he is to come back.
Mr. Hanoman: Laurie Lewis died, I believe in 2002.
Mr. Meertins-George: He is dead. [Laughter]
Mr. Chairman: Who is to come back? He is dead.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: It is James that we are thinking about, Mr. James.
Mr. Chairman: No man, a senior officer was to come back.
Mr. Jairam: Mr. James.
Mr. Chairman: No man, not Leslie James, a senior officer at the time, McLean? Whose name you say is that? Whose name?
Mr. Hanoman: Laurie Lewis.
Mr. Chairman: Where is that contained?
Mr. Hanoman: I will give an undertaking that the next witness to be called after this one will supply that information. We have an application form that led up to this passport that we are presently circulating among the participants to establish how that passport came about.
Mr. Pieters: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to interrupt my Friend’s cross examination, I really do not want to do that but now we have an application. Is there any other document that is going to be served on us in the course of this Witness’s cross-examination that was not previously disclosed to her Counsel or any other Counsel before the Commission?
Mr. Chairman: Well, I was not aware of this either.
Mr. Pieters: I appreciate that, that is why I raised the point because it is a matter of fairness.
Mr. Chairman: You sure contributed it to it, Counsel, you really should not have.
Mr. Hanoman: Well, I do agree but it is my Friend, Mr. Meertins-George that brought this passport to us.
Mr. Chairman: But do not mind, from the time you got it, whatever you are going to …
Mr. Hanoman: Well, I would have imagined my Friend would have distributed it to everybody.
Mr. Chairman: No, no.
Mr. Meertins-George: That is not my responsibility. That is not my role.
Mr. Chairman: The Commission does that. Do not let us quarrel about it. Are there any other documents that you want to disclose?
Mr. Hanoman: Yes, we did get some statements from an immigration officer yesterday that we are about to circulate as well as two application forms for Guyana passports. All of this information we received within the last two days.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman: What you are putting to her is that this 1999 passport, the second passport …
Mr. Hanoman: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: … that was issued to her brother, that the application form was prepared by Laurie Lewis.
Mr. Hanoman: That the passport was issued under the authority of Mr. Laurie Lewis
Mr. Chairman: Where is that demonstrated?
Mr. Hanoman: There is information on the application form that is not yet in evidence.
Mr. Chairman: I was hoping that we could finish here before we … but that is not in evidence and you are putting it to her? I do not know whether you are putting fiction or fact. I suggest that you put …
Mr. Hanoman: Well if it pleases you, I have an Immigration Officer here that I could seek to interpose to try and lead all of this evidence.
Mr. Chairman: Is it in any of the documents?
Mr. Hanoman: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: That you just handed out?
Mr. Hanoman: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: You could point us to it.
Mr. Hanoman: There is an application form that has no signature on it of the applicant, that has no guarantor on it that states on its face from COP, which I am instructed stands for Commissioner of Police and I am further instructed that in 1999 the Commissioner of Police was none other than Mr. Laurie Lewis.
Mr. Chairman: The application form in relation to the second passport dated 21st May, 1999 has a notation on page 3, that the …
Mr. Hanoman: That the application was transmitted directly from COP which I am informed stands for the “Commissioner of Police” and the Head of the Immigration.
Mr. Chairman: Documents produced from COP, part of it is in …
Mr. Hanoman: Yes, please.
Mr. Chairman: … in hand and the other are documents produced relating to a stamp.
Mr. Hanoman: Yes, please.
Mr. Chairman: From COP in handwriting but where is Laurie Lewis, Commissioner of Police? Are you saying that the evidence was that he was the Commissioner of Police?
Mr. Hanoman: Yes, I intend to introduce that evidence through the immigration officer who located these application forms.
Mr. Pieters: Mr. Chairman, can I …
Mr. Chairman: You go ahead.
Mr. Pieters: Mr. Chairman, can I ask a preliminary question? What use Commission Counsel intends to make of these documents with this Witness?
Mr. Hanoman: Well, the very application form has a photograph of an older Gregory Smith that I would like for the Witness to look at. I have the original, I am not sure …

Mr. Hanoman: Do you know that this passport was issued on the direction of Laurie Lewis even though none of the usual formalities were followed?
Mr. Pieters: Mr. Chairman, I step in at this point because that is a problem. None of the other Counsels had this prior to the Commission’s Counsel’s examination. I do not know why the Commission’s Secretariat would not have distributed this document earlier and now we are hearing Laurie Lewis’s name come into the picture and there is no evidence of the source of this knowledge but we just got a document handed to us after our cross-examination has been completed.
13.09hrs
Mr. Chairman: I do not know if it is any consolation to you but I do not …

President D. Ramoutar and
retd Commissioner L. Lewis

Mr. Hanoman: I will give an undertaking that the next witness to be called after this one will supply that information. We have an application form that led up to this passport that we are presently circulating among the participants to establish how that passport came about.
Mr. Pieters: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to interrupt my Friend’s cross examination, I really do not want to do that but now we have an application. Is there any other document that is going to be served on us in the course of this Witness’s cross-examination that was not previously disclosed to her Counsel or any other Counsel before the Commission?
Mr. Chairman: Well, I was not aware of this either.
Mr. Pieters: I appreciate that, that is why I raised the point because it is a matter of fairness.
Mr. Chairman: You sure contributed it to it, Counsel, you really should not have.
Mr. Hanoman: Well, I do agree but it is my Friend, Mr. Meertins-George that brought this passport to us.
Mr. Chairman: But do not mind, from the time you got it, whatever you are going to …
Mr. Hanoman: Well, I would have imagined my Friend would have distributed it to everybody.
Mr. Chairman: No, no.
Mr. Meertins-George: That is not my responsibility. That is not my role.
Mr. Chairman: The Commission does that. Do not let us quarrel about it. Are there any other documents that you want to disclose?
Mr. Hanoman: Yes, we did get some statements from an immigration officer yesterday that we are about to circulate as well as two application forms for Guyana passports. All of this information we received within the last two days.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Thank you.
.....
Mr. Pieters: Yes Mr. Chairman. Good Afternoon, Madam.
Sergeant Adams:  Good Afternoon, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: My name is Selwyn Pieters and I represent the Guyana Trades Union Congress. Let us take a look at ARW 3, that is the Cyril Johnson application for passport in 1999, I believe. Do you have that document in front of you?
Sergeant Adams: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Okay, let us take a look at page three of that document and where you see from COP are you looking at that?
Sergeant Adams: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: There is some writing at the bottom seem like a signature date and some other writing. What is that say?
Sergeant Adams:  M. Sealy, she received it on the 21st May, 1999. She was then a Corporal of Police Regulation number 16385.
Mr. Pieters: Right, Officer Sealy was at the rank of Corporal?
Sergeant Adams: Very well, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: And she was a very junior officer, she would have been two promotions away from Constable?
Sergeant Adams: Very well, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: And a significant of promotions away from Commissioner?
Sergeant Adams:  Exactly, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Very well, and do you know whether 16385 Sealy is still a member of the Guyana Police Force?
Sergeant Adams:  Yes, Sir, she is a Sergeant of Police; she has been promoted.
Mr. Pieters: She is a Sergeant now, very well, and where does she work?
Sergeant Adams:  She is stationed at the Timehri International Airport, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: So she is still an Immigration Officer or an Immigration Supervisor, I should say?
Sergeant Adams: Yes, Sir, you are correct both ways.
Mr. Pieters: Pardon?
Sergeant Adams:  You are correct both ways.
Mr. Pieters: Thank you.
Sergeant Adams:  You are welcome.
Mr. Pieters: Now, when you did your investigation in respect to this application, did you speak to sergeant Sealy?
Mr. Pieters: No, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Why did you not speak to sergeant Sealy?
Sergeant Adams:  Because my boss told me to come here so it is his duty to may be call her.
Mr. Pieters: No, you were coming here today to give evidence or I should say a few days ago because I think I saw you here yesterday and the day before.
Sergeant Adams:  Yesterday and today only.
Mr. Pieters: Very well, did you not thought it best to call Sergeant Sealy to find out whether she obtained instruction directly from the COP, or whether through the chain of command someone told her that the COP or the Commission of Police instructed that this application be processed and expedited?
Mr. Chairman: Was that part of your remit though? Investigate that? She was asked to come here and bring those forms, but I do not if know she was given any specific remit in relation to that. Just asked to search for records and if you find them, you could come. She was not asked to investigate that.
Mr. Pieters: Well I cannot get the evidence from the Commission. Let me get it from you. You were not asked to determine how the order would have come down to Corporal Sealy in respect to this application?
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Mr. Pieters, the Officer’s statement is in evidence and she also told us what her remit was orally from the witness box; it is not coming from the Commission. She said that was instructed by the Deputy Chief Immigration Officer to carry out checks for applications forms for Mr. Williams Smith and she gave us her date of birth and Mr. Cyril Melton so she told us the parameters of her remit.
Mr. Pieters: Very well and certain you would agree with me that the best person to give evidence in respect to  this specific application is Sergeant Sealy who is currently serving in the Guyana Police Force?
Mr. Chairman: No, that is not a proper question to put to her. She was just asked to search for files and bring them here if she could.
15:14hrs
Mr. Pieters: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. I am speaking about the content of the application now. She cannot give…I appreciate what she just said…
Mr. Chairman: If she cannot answer your question, she says so.
Mr. Pieters: She said what?
Mr. Chairman: She is entitled to say, she is not able to answer.
Mr. Pieters: Well you just testified that Sergeant Sealy works at the airport, correct?
Sergeant Adams: Yes I did.
Mr. Pieters: And that she is a supervisor in the Immigration Department?
Sergeant Adams: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: And Sergeant Sealy’s name and her number is on this application as receiving instruction from the Commissioner of Police?
Sergeant Adams: Whenever a form comes from the Commissioner of Police, it goes directly to the officer and the officer would now instruct a rank to do the application.
Mr. Pieters: Right.
Sergeant Adams: So I guess Sergeant Sealy was instructed by the Officer to accept this application, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: But she would be in the best position to testify as to who the instructions came from in respect to this particular application.
Sergeant Adams: Well I guess you are right in saying that, Sir.
Mr. Hanoman: If I may, sorry to interrupt, we will try our best to have this immigration officer present on the next occasion. Obviously time did not allow us.
Mr. Chairman: I do not know what form but I am happy to accept your advice but I do not know what form.
Mr. Pieters: You do not know what form?
Mr. Chairman: I do not know what form.
Mr. Pieters: Very well Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: What is troubling you is not troubling me.
Mr. Pieters: I understand that.
Mr. Chairman: Very well but you are free to question.
Mr. Pieters: We make submissions from this end. We get the evidence and it is your decision at the end of the day.
Mr. Chairman: The actual submissions had not yet come here.
Mr. Pieters: Very well. Now, let me ask you this. What is the legislation that governs the issuance of passports in Guyana? Okay, let me frame it differently for you. Under what authority are passports issued in Guyana?
Sergeant Adams: At the authority of the Commissioner of Police.
Mr. Pieters: Do you have a Passport Order? Do you have a Passport directive? Do you have legislation that governs the issuance of passport?
Sergeant Adams: Just the Immigration Act, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Very well. That is the answer I am looking for. Do you have any provisions that control for what would make a person ineligible to receive a passport or a renewal of that passport?
Sergeant Adams: I guess the same Act would help you with that, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Very well. Do you know off hand any provisions that would or any bar to the renewal of a passport?
Sergeant Adams: I guess when the person does not submit the correct information.
Mr. Pieters: So that an incomplete application would be a prima facie basis for the rejection of an application?
Sergeant Adams: Yes Sir.
Mr. Pieters: Would an outstanding warrant be basis for the rejection of a passport application?
Sergeant Adams: If the office is aware of it. You have to have reason from stopping him from getting a passport. If he is eligible to getting a passport, he will get it.
Mr. Pieters: Well do you have a system of tracing or whatever you call it here in respect to persons who apply for a passport. Do you check to see whether that person is wanted by the authorities or in any way whether it is by court order or otherwise barred from having a renewed passport?
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: You are talking about what year?
Mr. Pieters: 1999, Madam Commissioner.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Right.
Sergeant Adams: The purpose of the records is to check to see if that person is eligible to get a passport. Let us say someone apply for a passport and they did not declare that they had one before, that is one of the reason we can stop them from getting another passport because they did not declare that they had one before. No one is allowed to have two valid travel documents at the same time.
Mr. Pieters: Let me ask you this, it might be a fine point or it might be something that might be quite clear. Now, if the Commissioner of Police gave a direction and a Corporal received that direction, are there transmission memorandums upwards or downwards?
Sergeant Adams: As I said before, Sir, whenever a document comes from the Commissioner, it goes directly to the Officer in Charge. So that officer now gives directive to whomever.
Mr. Pieters: Those directives are oral or in writing?
Sergeant Adams: It is oral.
Mr. Pieters: Would the officer make a notation of the entry on his or her…
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: I am just asking, what was the answer, was it oral or in writing? What was the answer?
Sergeant Adams: I said oral.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Thank you. I did not hear.
Sergeant Adams: It is alright.
Mr. Pieters: Madam Commissioner, I should be looking at your pen. Sorry about that. If an oral direction is given, does the officer make a notation in his or her memorandum book?
Sergeant Adams: I do not think the rank should because the directive would have come from the Officer in Charge. I have never known of any rank making a note unless they are uncomfortable with it, maybe they would make their own personal note.
Mr. Pieters: Now, how would your account for your daily activities or your instructions if you do not diarize oral directions in your memorandum book if you are called for example to testify at a forum such as this?
Sergeant Adams: Well you have books that you would put documents in. You know if you have an application, you would put on today’s date that there is an application. There is a book to indicate that this application would have been tendered on that specific date. So there is a book to indicate that the application was tendered.
Mr. Pieters: From looking at the original applications presented, you have a system of hard copy but you do not have an electronic system for storing applications, is that correct?
Sergeant Adams: Well at that time of the application, there was not a computer system but we have same as we speak.
Mr. Pieters: So the applications are now digitised?
Sergeant Adams: Very well, Sir.
Mr. Pieters: In respect to the application that you said is missing was that the only application that was missing from the series of numbers?
Sergeant Adams: Well I did not find it so I will not be able to answer that.
Mr. Pieters: But did you look to see whether the number previous to that number was on file and the number that followed was on file? Did you look for any anomalies?
Sergeant Adams: What happened was that whenever applications come, there is 1000 in that series. For example, the number 268, there is an entire series. 268 it starts from zero so you would have zero to 99 and the same goes to 268999 so there is always 1000 application forms with a series, the first three numbers I just called.
Mr. Pieters: Let me ask you this question and you may be able to answer it. It is going to be a tough question. Could a corrupt Police Office, let us say a corrupt Police Officer who received a bribe or who received some inducement from a member of the public process and application under the pretext that the Commissioner provided that instruction that the application be issued on an expedited basis?
Mr. Chairman: You are sure that you are not asking her to speculate on improprieties and how an officer who is conducting himself improperly may want to conduct himself. Are you sure…
Sergeant Adams: Can I…
Mr. Chairman: We need to go into that? Are you sure that is relevant to what we are dealing with? Where are we entering now? If somebody gets a bribe what they will do and not do, can you answer anything about that?
Sergeant Adams: I will try to answer him. If someone is corrupt, obviously that person would try to be seclusive in terms of not getting caught.
Mr. Chairman: But is that relevant for us to this business of the Commission before us?
Mr. Pieters: Let me ask you this and maybe that might alleviate the Commissioner’s question.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Sorry, while you are asking, may I look at the original document while…
[Court Marshal passed the original document to Commissioner Mrs. Samuels-Brown]
Mr. Pieters: Assuming that there were influential persons within the WPA that had a link up or a connection to the passport office. Assuming that existed, could they have influenced that Police Officer or more than one police officer to issue a passport to a person such as James Milton for example?
Mr. Chairman: Can she properly speculate on that? I do not know that. We are now into a permissible area of questioning.
Mr. Pieters: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. That is the end of my questioning.
Mr. Jairam: One question I have with what arises with what Mr. Pieters was asking you. When the Officer in the Immigration Department received an application form for a passport, in this case, Ms. Sealey, is there a Supervisor who has to when the document is ready to be issued and so on, a Supervisor who would now double check the form and passport to make sure or you are left to your devices?
Sergeant Adams: No, the procedure is that the Supervisor is supposed to check it before left the Officer.
Mr. Jairam: And the Supervisor is a higher Rank?
Sergeant Adams: Yes.
Mr. Jairam: Or always of a higher Rank?
Sergeant Adams: Yes, most times, unless if Ms. Sealey was in charge at that time, meaning that there is no one senior than her because at her level as a Corporal she is also Supervisor.
Mr. Jairam: I see so that, if she were a Supervisor there will be no else to check her work?
Sergeant Adams: Say that again, Sir.
Mr. Jairam: If she were a Supervisor at the time there will be no other Officer to check?
Sergeant Adams: Well, because there is Commissioner of Police [COP], an application that came from the Commissioner, she will have to now to relate to the Officer in charge to say well I would have completed and then it would have been sent to the Commissioner.
Mr. Jairam: Okay, thanks, that answers …
Mr. Chairman: The document, application for Guyana passport before you. I am trying to get the date here, Cyril Johnson 1999 at page three.
Sergeant Adams: I do not have…
Mr. Chairman: They are not so marked but they are only four sides so it would appear in the middle of that page $1000 dollars was paid.
Sergeant Adams: Yes at that time.
Mr. Chairman: To get the passport.
Sergeant Adams: Applying for a passport, you had to pay $1000 dollar revenue stamp.
Mr. Chairman: Yes. But it would appear that the $1000 came from the Commissioner of Police?
Sergeant Adams: Well I guess because they had to pay for the…
Mr. Chairman: Is that a reasonable inference from what is noted there?
Sergeant Adams: Yes $1000 dollar stamp.
Mr. Chairman: $1000 dollars from?
Sergeant Adams: Well it had to come with the…
Mr. Chairman: From whom according to the document?
Sergeant Adams: Well it had to come from the Commissioner’s Office, Sir.
Mr. Chairman: It came from the Commissioner’s Office?
Sergeant Adams: Yes with the application.
Mr. Chairman: That is all I wanted to clarify. The Commissioner of Police it would appear, paid for the application?
Sergeant Adams: Not necessarily Sir. At that time, whenever you were applying you had to get $1000 revenue stamp so the ST there represent $1000 dollar stamp. It is not actual $1000.
Mr. Chairman: But beside, it is from COP, that is what I am putting to you? I have not created anything. What do you understand that to mean?
Sergeant Adams: No. It indicates that the application form came from him along…
Mr. Chairman: Yes but what about the $1000 dollar that is supporting the application form?
Sergeant Adams: The $1000 dollars is not an actual $1000 dollar Sir. It is $1000 dollar revenue stamp. It is not money of itself but it is a stamp so the ST there stand for $1000 dollar stamp. So whenever you look in the passport, there is a …if I can see the passport to show you please?
Mr. Chairman: So this does not say from whom the $1000 dollar came?
Sergeant Adams: Well the application came from the Commissioner’s office so I suggested that it came from there.
Mr. Chairman: Very well.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: So when the application is submitted, the stamp
Sergeant Adams: Yes.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: It comes along with it.
Sergeant Adams: The stamp.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Before it can be processed.
Sergeant Adams: Yes, the stamp along with the pictures.
Mr. Chairman: But the stamp here on another document is $1000 dollar stamp.
Sergeant Adams: The stamp is actually on that stamp. The stamp is there.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Alright. So the stamp we are talking about is an Impress stamp, it is not…
Sergeant Adams: No, it is revenue.
Mr. Chairman: Revenue stamp.
Sergeant Adams: It came from the post office. It is an actual stamp.
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Okay, thank you.
Mr. Chairman: I was trying to get from you the source of the $1000 dollar that accompanied the application but you do not seem keen to help me or able to…
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: She is not able to. I do not know that she is not keen.
Mr. Chairman: Very well. No more questions from me. Commissioner Mrs. Samuels-Brown would like to question you.

The Greatest Hoax or is it?

Mr. Williams: Okay, this situation with the package with the contents… You said that he was given that package at the airport when he was going out...
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, when he was going out.
Mr. Williams: And, he was being forced to go out, to travel?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes.
Mr. Williams: He was not voluntarily travelling?
Mrs. Wagner: That is right.
Mr. Williams: And, he was being forced to travel out to get him out of the way, to put him out of the way? That was Gregory, he was being sent out of the country.
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: Now, who was forcing him to travel out of the country?
Mrs. Wagner: It was the WPA operatives or whoever... doing... getting all of those stuff together for him and taking him to the airport and doing everything else.
Mr. Chairman: By the, “WPA or whoever...”
Mrs. Wagner: The group. I do not know. I do not know who... I cannot say. I do not know. All I know is what he told me, it was the WPA.
Mr. Williams: Alright, that is what we wanted to confirm. So Gregory never told you he went and obtained this passport?
Mrs. Wagner: No. it was brought to him.
Mr. Williams: Now, let us go to –I would like to refer, Mr. Chairman, the witness to page 44 of the book, page 44 of the book.
Mrs. Wagner: Okay, got it.
Mr. Williams: The second paragraph...
Mrs. Wagner: “Mr. Fowler”?
Mr. Williams: Yes. Read from the beginning of the second paragraph, on page 44.
Mrs. Wagner: “Mr. Fowler was the head of state...”
Mr. Williams: No, we are looking at page 44 of your book.
Mrs. Wagner: Page 44 in...?
Mr. Williams: Page 44 of your book.
Mrs. Wagner: …of the book.
Mr. Williams: Yes, page 44.
Mr. Pilgrim: “Mr. Fowler said that the heads of state of the Caribbean did not find…” Is that the part you want?
Mr. Williams: No, I have 44 here
Mr. Chairman: Are you invited to read, Mr. Pilgrim?
Mr. Williams: “He told me he would bring me up…” Something is wrong with my learned friend, this morning, Sir. Because, I said page 44 several times.
Mr. Pieters: [Inaudible] …the first paragraph.
Mrs. Wagner: No, the second, he is right.
Mr. Williams: I am talking about the second paragraph. I have it.
Mr. Jairam: The first paragraph.
Mr. Williams: “He told me he would...” Well, I always called whatever is at the top as the first...
Mr. Chairman: You...
Mr. Williams: What do you call that?
Mr. Chairman: In the same way that the batsman does not have to play at every ball...
Mr. Williams: [Laughter]
Mr. Chairman: …you do not have to respond to everything that is said by a colleague.
Mr. Williams: [Laughter] That is a unique one. Okay... To be safe, could you read the paragraph beginning with, “He told me he would bring me up...” Are you seeing that?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Mrs. Wagner: “He told me he would bring me up to date with the developments. I was afraid to interrupt him at any point if I did not understand. He said… carefully consideration [may be] the best brains in the party...’”
Mr. Williams: No, no, no. he said, “…after careful consideration...”
Mrs. Wagner: Oh, yes. “He said after careful consideration by the best brains in the party (the WPA) they had devised a strategy to change history. He said the strategy would involve using the accident to our advantage; turning our loss to out gain. Mr. Fowler said they would use the death of Dr. Rodney as a platform to launch the revolution. He said history would show that the PNC Government provoked the revolution. Mr. Fowler said they needed some more time to organise their plan, and [work without any] problems.”
Mr. Williams: “...without many problems.”
Mr. Chairman: “…while working...”
Mr. Williams: Now, from your understanding of this… Your brother told you this?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: And, your understanding of this is that he was saying Fowler was telling you the WPA had intended to set up the PNC, the Government of the day?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: And, to blame them wrongfully for the death of Dr. Rodney.
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: In other words, all of these years, what was put out about the Government of the day causing the death of Dr. Rodney was the great hoax?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: I would probably say the greatest hoax in the history of this country.
Mrs. Wagner: I would say so, too.
Mr. Williams: I wish to refer you to page 24 of your book.
Mrs. Wagner: I got it.
Mr. Williams: What I am actually doing, counting by my finger... the fourth paragraph from the top.
Mrs. Wagner: Okay.
Mr. Williams: Beginning with, “Dr. Rodney said....” you see that?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes.
Mrs. Wagner: “Dr. Rodney said...”
Mrs. Samuels-Brown: Page what?
Mr. Chairman: What page are you on now?
Mrs. Wagner: 24.
Mr. Williams: I am at page 24, one, two, three, four, the fourth paragraph. My colleague cannot take it...
[Laughter]
Mr. Williams: But, you could read this. I hope that he survives. The reading, “Dr. Rodney said the time had...” That sentence.
Mrs. Wagner: Okay, okay.
Mr. Williams: Could you read the whole paragraph?
Mrs. Wagner: Okay. “Dr. Rodney said the time had come for Burnham regime to pay for its crimes, and it was our duty (the WPA) to stop him (Forbes Burnham) before he ceases the absolute power by changing the Constitution. Dr. Rodney said that several stages of the revolution were already completed; we would [not] put the final stages in place soon. He was looking forward to go one phase of the revolution, with special interest. This was capturing of Forbes Burnham and some of his close colleagues...”
Mr. Jairam: madam, you included a ‘not’ when you read after the semicolon. “We would put...” You said, “We would not...”
Mr. Williams: Now, your brother told you this?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: And, this was the plan of Dr. Rodney and the WPA to capture, actually capture Forbes Burnham and some of his close colleagues.
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: Do you understand it to mean that they were planning to physically capture Forbes Burnham and his close colleagues and have them as what, prisoners? That is what you understood?
Mrs. Wagner: That is what they are saying. [Laughter]
Mr. Williams: It is cross-examination, I am not leading...
Mr. Chairman: She has not answered as yet.
Mr. Williams: No, I am waiting for her. She was distracted by the laughter; nervous laughter, I must say.
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, it certainly is.
Mr. Chairman: What is her...
Mr. Williams: This is capturing them by force. Do you understand that?
Mrs. Wagner: This is what I understand it to be.
Mr. Williams: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: What I wanted to inquire of you, Mr. Williams, is whether you understood that you were among those colleagues?
Mr. Williams: I was not around, Sir. I am not sure why you all want to put me in that period. I was never around there, Sir.
Mr. Chairman: Very well, Mr. Williams. [Laughter]
Mr. Williams: I do not know if my learned friend, behind me, could say that. Yes. I must say I am sorry I missed the period, because I missed a great man. I never had the opportunity to actually see him and hear him. Yes. Continue to the next paragraph.
Mrs. Wagner: “Dr. Rodney spent a few minutes talking about Forbes Burnham. He said Forbes Burnham had three houses, with three means of escaping from each. Burnham could escape by helicopter, by car or by boat. Dr. Rodney said that he had seen the plans of Burnham’s escapes routes. He explained how we (the WPA) would prevent Burnham from escaping by helicopter or by car and this would Burnham to escape by boat. Dr. Rodney said we [could] force Burnham to flee by boat.”
Mr. Jairam: “…we would…”
Mr. Williams: Your brother told you this, also?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: “…force him to flee by boat.” Now, you understand that causing him to flee by boat would not be by words. They would not intend to use words to make him flee by boat. Do you agree with that, from this paragraph?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: Again, force was contemplated here.
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: Also, when you look at this paragraph and you read it, do you understand it to say to you that the WPA had Burnham under surveillance?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes.
Mr. Williams: Deep surveillance, too.
Mrs. Wagner: Yes.
Mr. Williams: Could you read the next paragraph?
Mrs. Wagner: “Dr. Rodney said he would prefer to humiliate, President Burnham, with the use of judicial system by convicting the President...”
Mr. Williams: No. that is not the next paragraph, the one above it.
Mrs. Wagner: [Laughter]
Mr. Williams: Do not miss the one above it. The one above it is more potent.
Mrs. Wagner: Okay. “President Burnham fleeing by boat in the night would expose himself to the risk of a serious accident. He would rather take the risk of a serious accident by boat than to allow the WPA to capture…”
10:21hrs
Mr. Williams: To allow, to allow us.
Mrs. Wagner: I cannot even see anymore.
Mr. Williams:  “He would rather take the risk of having a serious accident…” continue form there.
Mrs. Wagner: “…accident…”
Mr. Williams: Take your time and read “…by boat…”
Mrs. Wagner: “…accident by boat that to allow us, the WPA to capture him. However, he said it would be too bad if he should die while trying to escape.”
Mr. Williams: Your brother told you this?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: Do you understand this is to mean that from reading this paragraph that the WPA was foreseeing that he could die, Burnham could die?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: Whilst fleeing by boat?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.  
Mr. Williams: And they would not be unhappy if that event occurred? You have to speak into the microphone.
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: Yes what?
Mrs. Wagner: This is what he said.
Mr. Williams: This is from what you are reading here when he said, “Too bad…” he said it would be “too bad if he should die while trying to escape”. Is this saying to you that they are saying… it would be too bad if he died? In other words they would not be disappointed if that happened. Did you understand that to…
Mrs. Wagner: This is what I understand it to be.
Mr. Chairman: …Mr. Williams, I thought you were saying the great preference would be to have him alive, so it would be too bad, highly unfortunate…
Mr. Williams: I am sorry, Sir, I do not get that interpretation, the Witness does not get that either. The Witness is answering. Now read the next paragraph. “Dr. Rodney said he would prefer…”
Mrs. Wagner: “Dr. Rodney said he would prefer to eliminate him the President Burnham with the use of the Judicial System and convicting President Burnham for his crimes would end his political career. Dr. Rodney had mentioned several crimes that President Burnham had committed. Some were done through instructions. The crimes that Dr. Rodney had mentioned were murder, torture, sexual harassment of women in his employment and conversion of public funds to his personal use.”
Mr. Williams: Now…
Mr. Chairman: I would just say that that paragraph seems to support my interpretation.
Mr. Williams: Yes, I am not hiding anything from you. I am reading the paragraph as how it is supposed to be read. But I am asking her what she thinks. It does not mean if Rodney says this is the next paragraph, they did not contemplate that.
Mr. Chairman: No, but the paragraph speaks for itself. My judgment is that they contradicted nearly a paragraph, my interpretation of it.
Mr. Williams: Okay, but could I ask her this, Mr. Chairman, I am not dividing with you on it but I am saying that we are trying to get into the Witness’s mind which we understood her brother was telling her. Now, reading this paragraph, did your brother tell you whether Mr. Burnham was charged for any offences of this nature?
Mrs. Wagner: Was charged…?
Mr. Williams: If he was charged with murder, torture, sexual harassment, all of those things?
Mrs. Wagner: No, I was not told of that.
Mr. Williams: And therefore, since he was never charged with these offences, this was a figment of the imagination of Dr. Rodney?
Mrs. Wagner: I do not know, I guess so. I do not know.
Mr. Williams: She said she guess so. Now, the first paragraph on page 25 just read that.
Mrs. Wagner: “At one of our meetings…”
Mr. Williams: “Dr. Rodney said…” at page 25
Mrs. Wagner: Page 25, the first paragraph, “Dr. Rodney said that if the President Burnham escaped, he would seek political asylum. He said that political asylum would give President Burnham absolute protection, however, he would become a constant threat to our Government. We cannot allow this criminal Burnham to escape.”
Mr. Williams: In other words, you understand it to say that they would get Burnham by any means necessary?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: But alive not dead.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman is that not the same thing?
Mr. Chairman: I will try to follow like everybody else, alive not dead.
Mr. Williams: Of course, your brother told you that, that is what he told you?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: Alright I am not going to detain you.  You had the pass three days now, this is the fourth day.
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: My final question to you is that you believed Gregory Smith, your brother, what he told you and you have in this book here, was the truth?
Mrs. Wagner: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Williams: No other questions.