2012-11-08
Hundreds of individuals submitted police complaints in the wake of the massive rights violations that took place during the 2010 G20 in Downtown Toronto
By Penelope Chester
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is calling on several chiefs of Police and Ontario’s civilian oversight body, the Independent Police Review Director, to move forward on substantiated G20 complaints. The specific police complaints at issue are serious and involve substantiated allegations of unlawful detention and arrest, excessive use of force, and an illegal search. After written letters of concern to the OIPRD and Chiefs of Police were unsuccessful, the Association is now supporting court action on behalf of the complainants. Clayton Ruby and Gerald Chan of Ruby Shiller Chan Hasan Barristers are representing the complainants.
Hundreds of individuals submitted police complaints in the wake of the massive rights violations that took place during the 2010 G20. CCLA has been making a concerted effort to track these complaints and follow them as they move to disciplinary hearings against the charged officers
.
“The law is clear that a Chief of Police must pursue a disciplinary hearing for substantiated, serious police complaints,” said Nathalie Des Rosiers, General Counsel to CCLA. In at least two G20-related complaints, however, the OIPRD ordered the responsible Chiefs of Police not to hold a hearing – and the Chiefs of Police agreed. This morning court action was initiated seeking an order requiring the Chiefs of Police to pursue disciplinary hearings against the subject officers.
“We were dismayed to learn that several G20 complaints had been investigated, substantiated, and then dropped by the OIPRD and the Chiefs of Police,” Des Rosiers added. “These are very serious complaints: the independent investigations concluded there were substantiated allegations of unlawful detention and arrest, excessive use of force, and illegal search. They are emblematic of what took place across Toronto that weekend. It is critical to the public interest that the officers who engaged in misconduct be held accountable. And it is unacceptable that the OIPRD and Chiefs of Police – the very entities entrusted to uphold the police disciplinary system – be attempting to use their powers to pre-emptively end serious, substantiated complaints.”
CCLA wrote to both the OIPRD and the involved Chiefs of Police earlier this year outlining its concerns. The replies generally referred to a provision in the Police Services Act stating that, when an investigation takes longer than six months, the relevant Police Services Board must give its approval before a hearing can be held. This decision, however, is entrusted to the Police Services Board – a public civilian oversight body. These complaints were never brought before the Boards for approval. It is improper, and unlawful, for the OIPRD to end a substantiated complaint based on its own conduct during the investigation.
CCLA extends its sincere thanks to Clayton Ruby and Gerald Chan, who generously agreed to represent the complainants in these matters.