Toronto Police Service Releases G20 Policing Review

On the first anniversary of the Toronto G-20 Summit, the Toronto Police Service released a 70-page “after-action” report into the policing of that weekend.

The report boasts of many successes, including ensuring the safety of the G20 summit delegates and security of the summit sites at all times, but also recognizes that lessons were learned about improving officer training to more efficiently respond to “widespread criminality and mass public disorder”.Chief Blair also points out that the Toronto Police Service was given only “six months to plan for the largest security event in Canadian history”, and “there were no critical injuries or deaths during the G20 Summit”. Although the report later reveals that of the 1118 people arrested, at least “five suffered injuries that they required to go to the hospital”.

The report provides an operational chronology into the related events, activities and peaceful and violent demonstrations in Toronto during June 18 – June 27 that the public may not be aware of and which explains some of the many individual arrests the police made. However, on the highly publicized mass “kettle” or sweeping arrests that have been the subject of much media attention, legal actions and Charter challenges, Chief Blair highlights the need to improve training and communication during operations so that officers can “more effectively respond to criminal activity and public disorder” at the investigative, arrest and processing stages. 

This likely comes in response to the fact that some prisoners went hours without food and water, and faced delays of up to 36 hours before being taken before a Justice of the Peace and speaking with a lawyer, which the report described as a “breakdown in communication”.  The Toronto Star reported last Friday on the story of one man that was allegedly arrested in relation to the G20 and strip-searched.

Some, including well-known criminal and constitutional lawyer Clayton Ruby, have been quick to dispel time and training as justification for being unprepared and overburdened. “They spent a billion dollars, it is not possible for them to be overwhelmed […] my daughter could do better.”

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), a national organization constituted to promote respect for and observance of fundamental human rights and civil liberties, describes the G20 as the dawning of a new era of policing techniques being foisted on the legal system and a “test of our accountability mechanisms, whether they work appropriately and whether they are sufficient. And they are not.” The CCLA argues that given the volume of identifiable police officers and forces involved in the G20, a single body is necessary to review their conduct and impose sanctions where appropriate. 

Chief Blair’s report indicates that “108 officers have received disciplinary action for removal of identification” and “1 officer was charged under the Criminal Code for Assault with a Weapon”. Yet, the report does not disclose the nature of the disciplinary action and internal investigations the Toronto Police Service’s Professional Standards Unit is managing or supporting.

While the report does include ten laudable recommendations for improving the Toronto Police Service’s ability to police future large-scale events, the report does not address or answer many outstanding questions that linger after the G20. Improving communication within the Force and to the public, police training and policy will certainly help, but more will be required to ensure events do not repeat themselves and those guilty of wrongdoing are held accountable.

The apparent disregard of policies governing officer identification, use of force and searches during the G20 poses serious questions about how effective policy and deployment reform will really be in ensuring that the police “respect the democratic right of individuals to demonstrate” and “freedoms of thought, belief, opinion, expression and peaceful assembly”.  For example, the report does not go on to clarify why protocol was not followed for the kettling containment technique, which requires that “persons not involved in the event must have both a route of egress from and the opportunity to leave the affected area”.

The contention that mass arrests be undertaken to disperse crowds to prevent a small number of vandals breaching the peace is unlikely to pass constitutional scrutiny. Consequently, in a report entitled Caught in the Act, which was released in December 2010, Ontario’s Ombudsman Andre Marin labeled the G20 policing as “the most massive compromise of civil liberties in Canadian history”.

However, the Ombudsman also singled out Toronto Police, and the Chief in particular, for refusing to cooperate with his investigation into the “secret” Public Works Protection Act legislation and policing surrounding the G20 Summit. Now that Chief Blair and the Toronto Police Service have pledged to “cooperate fully” with independent reviews by the Special Investigations Unit, Toronto Police Services Board, Office of the Independent Police Review Director and former Chief Justice Roy McMurtry on behalf of the Province of Ontario, it remains to be seen how that will help bring about reform in the aftermath of the G20 and lawsuits facing the Toronto Police Service.

Posted by Jeremy Tatum (Windsor Law III)

CCLA Report on G-20 Public Hearings Released

Last week, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and the National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) released a joint report regarding police action during the 2010 G-20 Summit held in Toronto. The report was a result of public hearings that the CCLA and NUPGE held in Toronto and Montreal in November 2010, at which over 60 people recounted police misconduct they witnessed or experienced.

The report focuses on several aspects of the G-20 policing, including Regulation 233/10 passed under the Public Works Protection Act (PWPA) on June 2^nd, 2010. The regulation, which designated the streets and sidewalks inside the security perimeter a “public work” between June 21st and June 28^th, was passed behind closed doors and without input from any stakeholders, except the Toronto Police Service (TPS). The report criticizes the Ontario government for withholding notification of the regulation until after it had been passed and calls for the amendment or repeal of the PWPA.

The report also condemns the excessive use of arbitrary stops and searches of members of the public. Independent legal observers also recalled witnessing police searching people who clearly stated they did not consent to being searched.

Related to the numerous stops and searches, the report is particularly critical of the widespread arrests that occurred, especially those resulting from the raid on University of Toronto Graduate Student's Union building and the cornering of protestors and pedestrians at Queen and Spadina on June 27^th. The G-20 Summit resulted in over 1100 arrests, the largest mass arrest in Canadian history. The report calls the majority of the arrests excessive and unwarranted, serious violations of Charter protections. Public hearing participants also described the ridiculous nature of many arrests, including one woman being charged with burglary-related offences for carrying a piece of bamboo. Unsurprisingly, most of the arrested were not charged or had their charges dismissed.

Perhaps the most disturbing parts of the report relate to use of force and incivility towards the public. Observers reported seeing police officers charging into the crowd, grabbing, and dragging away peaceful protestors in an attempt to clear out Queens Park, the designated protest zone. In another incident, police officers arriving in unmarked vans dashed into the group of peaceful protestors gathered across the street from the Eastern Avenue Detention Centre, throwing several into the vans and speeding away. The protestors were then ordered to leave and fired upon by smoke-emitting projectiles. Personal accounts of excessive force include the experience of a man whose prosthetic leg was ripped off by police and was forcibly dragged away after explaining he couldn’t walk without it. The report also found the conditions and treatment of detainees at the detention centre to be deplorable, with overcrowded cells, lack of toilet facilities, and impaired access to legal counsel. Public hearing participants recounted particular incidents of misconduct, including the denial of insulin to a diabetic man until he collapsed and the strip searching of a minor. Particularly distressing, though not surprising, hearing participants recounted hearing racist, sexist, homophobic, and anti-Francophone comments made by police to demonstrators on the streets and in the Eastern Avenue detention centre, including a threat of rape at the detention centre.

At the core of the report is the recommendation that a joint federal-provincial public inquiry be convened to investigate the conduct of police and breaches of fundamental rights that were allowed to happen. Interestingly, the report also calls for an investigation into undercover police informants and limitations on what such persons can do. This raises the question of agents provacateurs and to what extent they contributed to the unruly behavior of some protestors. It is well known that infiltrators often provoke violent behaviour during otherwise peaceful protests, allowing for law enforcement to subsequently crack down, as seen during the August 2007 Security and Prosperity Partnership meeting in Montebello, Quebec. The report also recommends that a legislative framework be developed to deal with future public order policing of this nature. Even with the input of the public into such a framework, it seems unlikely that it would prevent similar misconduct in the future. Such misconduct is not exceptional but occurs daily, just on a smaller scale, and won’t end until the systematic nature of such misconduct is acknowledged and police officers are held accountable under the rule of law for violating “protected” rights rather than being shielded.  

Do you think the federal and provincial governments will ever agree to a public inquiry?

Is a public inquiry needed when other inquiries have taken/are taking place, such as the Independent Civilian Review by the Toronto Police Services Board, the Systemic Review by Ontario’s Office of the Independent Police Review Director, and the review of the Public Works Protection Act by Ontario’s Ombudsman?

Given that public inquiries do not have the power to force government action but can only make findings and recommendations, do you think an inquiry would result in greater accountability?

Aminah Hanif (Law I)

Increasing state intervention and the future of dissidence

In the aftermath of the G20 summit in Toronto, it occurs to me that the issue of the state’s increasing display of power may be a harbinger of the future of state intervention and could have deleterious effects on dissidence, freedom of speech, and freedom of association. The demonstration of power at the G20 summit in Toronto is the strongest display of state intervention against protest that Canada has seen. I don’t think it is a stretch of the imagination to say that Harper’s intention was to totally quash dissent.

In an earlier blog comment, I mentioned briefly the concept of fear. I think it is worth examining this concept in more detail. In fact we could not have known just how much manufactured fear through deception and brutality were awaiting the protestors. It is also important to consider the future of dissidence in the face of this growing state intervention. This blog will focus on Canada although I submit that Harper’s reaction to protest has implications for other countries.

When I joined thousands who took to the streets in Ottawa in 1993 to protest the Free Trade Agreement during the Mulroney regime, we faced no pepper spray and no fear of arrest for marching and expressing dissent. We were protesting what we knew would be destructive and debilitating for third world and developing countries. The Free Trade Agreement, then embraced by the G7 has turned into exactly what we feared.

Dissent and protest were not met with violence and oppression. People felt free to express their disapproval of political agendas. There has been a drastic change in the climate of protest since then.

Currently, fear is present at several different levels. There is fear at the state level and fear among people who continue to oppose the government agendas. There is perhaps nothing more dangerous for those in power than a public that is aware and critical of government agendas. As Chomsky points out our current educational system is designed to stifle creative and analytical thought. This is of course, no accident. Education conditions our thinking at an early age so that we do not analyze and more importantly ensure that we all think along similar lines.

If the majority of the general public knew or understood what the G8 and G20 agenda is I think the reaction would have been generalized outrage. The media is crucial in their role of anesthetising the general public with misinformation which leads to indifference and lethargy that is antithetical to critical thinking. The “mainstream” media is crucial for the state to continue its agenda.

While alternative media attempted to show the public another side of the summit, the mainstream media concentrated on continuously showing the one, maybe two burning police cars, and the smashing of windows by a few people. Unfortunately, these are the images that are indelibly imprinted in the minds of a majority of people. As well, it was probably no accident that many alternative journalists were arrested. This effectively silenced the voices of those who would give the public another side of what was happening.

It was necessary for Harper to have the public believe that the price tag for security was in the end, necessary. The media’s continual portrayal of the burning police car had the desired effect. But do people look beyond this to question how it is that no explosion occurred? Do people question why it is that while a few people were smashing windows of selected stores (Nike, Starbucks and other symbols of globalization), no arrests were made at that moment by the police? In fact why are people not questioning the total absence of police in the video footage of these acts?

Most citizens in Toronto and perhaps around the world would conclude that indeed the measures of state control were justified. In a climate like this, what is the future of protest, freedom of assembly and freedom of speech? Will the next country that hosts the G20 and G8 summit have to exceed the state intervention seen in Toronto?

Along with a media that ensures misinformation is spread to the public in the form of “news”, the state uses other means of quashing public protest. The police and military are strong elements of control.

Many brutalities by police have been well documented in previous blogs. However, it is important to note some police powers that have not been discussed in this blog space. In “Policing of Dissent-The Use of Breach of the Peace Arrests at Political Demonstrations”, (2002), 1 University of Toronto Journal of Law and Equality 246, Jackie Esmonde examines a powerful tool that police officers have discretion to use. Her paper outlines the fine balance between keeping peace and questionable, heavy handed arrest tactics. She explains that the term “breach of peace” is not clearly defined and there is much discretion in arresting someone who “may” in the opinion of the police, “breach the peace.” Particularly interesting is the discussion of the power that police have to pronounce a demonstration or protest a “breach of the peace” often before the protest has even begun.

In an equally compelling article, “Bail, Global Justice, and Dissent”, (2003), 41 Osgoode Hall L.J. 323, Esmonde examines the use of bail conditions to further criminalize dissent. She outlines how onerous bail conditions often curtail the civil rights of people who have been unreasonably detained. Bail conditions that prevent people from associating with other people in certain groups is one example of a violation of civil rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

At this point it is useful to examine an example of the use of these powers. The treatment of Jaggi Singh at the G20 summit in Toronto illustrates these powers at work. A warrant for Singh’s arrest was issued on conspiracy related charges. Yet Singh, from all accounts, had done none of the things that were alleged. This is an example of arrest based on the supposition that he might have done something to breach the peace. His bail conditions were also onerous. Bail set at $10,000 was excessive and the conditions of his bail were that he;
• Stay with one of the three people acting as his guarantors.
• Turn in his passport.
• Not use a cell phone.
• Not have any contact with other protesters
The guarantors had to provide $75,000 to obtain his release and ensure that he abide by the above conditions. I think we could say that Jaggi Singh, a protestor, was treated by the police as if he were more dangerous than any terrorist.

These are some of the tactics that police can use to criminalize dissent and to target people who are outspoken about the real agenda of the G20 and G8. What effect could these tactics have on other protestors?

Finally, the last concept that is important to consider is the state’s trend toward secrecy as a method of controlling dissent. This is yet another way of keeping the public misinformed. It was during the time that Harper prorogued Parliament, that he announced that the G20 summit would be held in Toronto. At the provincial level, McGuinty passed an expansion of the existing Public Works Protection Act through the Cabinet. This disallowed any opportunity for debate about the controversial measure. What additional police powers were actually granted? This measure was both secretive and added to the uncertainty of what powers the police actually had. This is a very powerful combination which ensured that those who protested did not know which actions were legal and which were not.

Intimidation through unprecedented security spending, enhanced police powers, misinformation through mainstream media, an educational system that discourages independant thought, and a government at both provincial and federal levels that employs increasingly secretive and clandestine attempts to keep the public in the dark are all tactics that could very well in the end have the desired effect—the end of dissidence and so the end of freedom of association and expression. Is Harper showing us his vision of democracy in Canada?

Do you think that Harper intends to quash dissent and protest?
How do you think increased state powers will affect dissent?
What do you think can be done to counter growing state power?
What do you think can be done to counter mainstream media’s misinformation?
How can the general public be informed about both sides of political issues?

Posted by Elayne Francis (Windsor Law II)

Marching toward accountability?

On Saturday, July 10th 2010, I joined over a thousand people outside the Ontario Legislature to demand there be an independent public inquiry into security at the G20, and to support our right to civil liberties in Canada. I attended the rally at Queen’s Park because, like many, I am still outraged by what transpired during the summit, and I am still calling for accountability.

As I listened to speakers from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Toronto’s Community Mobilization Network, and the Canadian Labour Congress, I was reminded of serious rights infringements that occurred only weeks ago. I am still disturbed by the fact that 1,000 people were arrested, many who were simply exercising their democratic right to protest, or, worse still, innocent by-standers. Perhaps even more disconcerting, is that several individuals are still being detained on G20 related charges and have not yet had bail-hearings.

As we marched through the streets of Toronto, en route to the site of the G20 conference, I couldn’t help but be struck by the energy and determination of those around me. It has been two weeks since the climax of G20 confrontations, and it is obvious that people’s frustrations have not been quelled. Despite Bill Blair’s promise to internally review 'all aspects’ of policing practices and the Toronto Police Services Board’s Inquiry many remain unsatisfied.

In an apparent attempt to satiate public demand, Ontario’s Ombudsman has added his name to the growing list of G20 inquirers. On Friday, July 9th, Andre Marin announced he will investigate the enactment of the controversial ‘five-metre-rule’, which supposedly gave police the power to arrest any individual within five metres of the security fence who refused to be searched or provide identification. Marin’s office has received twenty-two G20 related complaints, which “so far raise serious concerns about [the] regulation and the way it was communicated…”. According to the Ombudsman, “there is a very strong public interest in finding out exactly what happened and how that affected the rest of the events of the G20 weekend.”

The Ontario Ombudsman’s mandate is “to ensure government accountability through effective oversight of the administration of government services.” Impartially is one of the cornerstones of the Ombudsman’s office, which should satisfy those calling for objectivity. But what will really come from the Ombudsman’s investigation?

It is important to remember, the Ombudsman only has investigatory powers. Regardless of what Marin uncovers, his recommendations are not binding and he cannot enforce change. Marin’s power lies in public ‘naming and shaming’; ideally, he will be able to clearly outline grievances, identify perpetrators, and bring misdeeds to light in the public arena. But, is this enough?

Many have stated public condemnation is not enough; instead, they want resignations and dismissals.

Of course, discharging select individuals does not guarantee justice is served. There will always be a danger that some will become scapegoats, and the system, policies, and procedures will remain unaltered.

Only time will tell if any of the proposed investigatory mechanisms prove to be effective. Hopefully, we are headed in the right direction. In the meantime, it seems Canadians will continue marching.

Posted by Ashley Henbrey (Windsor Law II)

What Did a Billion Dollars Buy?

When it was first announced that the City of Toronto would host the 2010 G20 summit, the theme “Recovery and New Beginnings”, some Torontonians were proud to showcase the city to the world. The G20 summit is now over, world leaders are home and for the City of Toronto the cost of clean up is daunting; parts of the core city remain damaged and many questions linger regarding the police ‘reaction’ to the summit’s protesters.

Initially, over thousands of protesters took to the streets of downtown Toronto marching peacefully as an expression of dissent towards a 9 foot security fence erected to keep them from the site of the G20 meetings. It didn’t take long for the City to turn into frenzy dividing into security perimeters and designated spaces for free speech. On Saturday, the Integrated Security Unit (ISU), the police unit given the task of securing the G8 and G20 summit, was heavy criticized for allowing the ‘Black Bloc’, an anarchist group, to run amuck on the streets of Toronto, destroying property and setting police cars on fire.

By Sunday, the City of Toronto resembled a police state. Officers were cracking down hard on protesters. Tear gas was fired for a second straight day in a row. There were reports that throughout downtown Toronto - often areas distant from the G20 meetings - police were demanding identification, searching bags and conducting arbitrary detentions. Stories ranged from hundreds of people being detained at the Eastern Avenue film studio while they spent hours waiting for food, water, or a phone call for counsel to the lack of medical care, harassment and verbal and physical abuse by the police to the strip searching of females by male officers. All the while the ISU officers were citing the 5 metre rule to defend their actions.

On Monday, the focus shifted as thousands of demonstrators marched outside Toronto Police headquarters to protest what they said was excessive use of force, as well as mistreatment of individuals detained.

What exactly went wrong?

Overall opponents have criticized the choice of the summit’s location, the inaction of the policing of the rioters and the violation of peaceful protesters and innocent bystander’s rights.

In the last few days, it has become clear that not only did the provincial government place limits on civil liberties without informing the public, they appeared to turn a blind eye as the police abused their expanded powers.

On Friday, the story broke that the Ontario Cabinet gave the ISU the temporary power to stop and search anyone coming within 5 metres of the G20 security fence between June 21 and 28. For several days, most people were under the impression that the province which had secretly given the police the power to conduct searches, demand identification and detain members of the public within 5 metres outside of the security fence created for last weekend’s G20 summit. However, as the Globe and Mail reports, Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair has recently admitted that there was never a 5 metre rule that had the public fearing arrest if they came to close to the G20 security perimeter. Both the police and the province confirmed that the regulation through the Public Works Protection Act applied to the area within the fence.

The Ministry of Community Safety has responded that cabinet updated the law that governed entry to courthouses to include the specific area contained within the G20 fences. A spokesperson for Ministry has stated that the updated law was not about increasing police powers. When asked if there was a 5 metre rule given the Ministry clarification, Chief Blair said “No, but I was trying to keep the criminals out”.

As noted in the Globe and Mail article, Premier Dalton McGuinty has yet to explain why cabinet passed the regulation in secret.

In general, the police have maintained that their actions were necessary to prevent another eruption of violence. Opposition critics, civil libertarians, and many from the general public are outraged that the Liberal Cabinet not only gave the police extra powers to question, search and detain people, but that they did so in secrecy and kept it a secret. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) says that the secret law was a factor when police decided to make massive arrests after cars were set on fire and windows were smashed on Saturday.

Police announced Tuesday morning that they are conducting an internal review of police actions during the summit, but groups – including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Amnesty International – are calling for an independent inquiry. A report from the CCLA entitled “A Breach of the Peace” asserts police conduct in relation to summit security was at times “disproportionate, arbitrary and excessive,”. General Counsel Nathalie DesRosiers added that while there are understandable challenges to policing a large-scale international summit, the violation of individual rights during summit policing “exceeded the threshold of a few isolated incidents”.

The Integrated Security Unit has reported that over 900 people were arrested – which the CCLA has said to be the largest mass arrest in Canadian history. ISU has reported that approximately eight officers and six civilians suffered minor injuries.

While the 2010 G20 Summit “Recovery and New Beginnings” primarily addressed the world economy, issues of policing, security and transparency in state actions were rather brought to the world stage. At the expense of constitutional rights, this past weekend was a failure in security measures.

Join the Discussion:
1. What are your thoughts on the events that occurred in Toronto during the summit?
2. In 2010 how effective is protesting?
3. Should anyone be held accountable for what occurred during the G20 summit?
4. Mayor Miller has been quoted as saying the police had an “extraordinarily difficult” task during the summit; was this simply poor planning on the part of the Ontario government or the police?
5. What are your views on the government responsibility to announce changes to the law?
6. Do you think the public was allowed to think (throughout the weekend) that increased police powers existed when they didn’t?
7. Do you think the government is ducking its responsibility for the events that occurred during the summit? (e.g. for giving police powers they never had)
8. CCLA is calling for an apology for government for the process used to adopt the designation pursuant in the Public Works Protection Act. Is an apology sufficient? What would be an appropriate response?
9. There are calls for a review of the security measures. Is an inquiry into the police actions necessary? What will it resolve?

Posted by Andrea Anderson (Windsor Law, 2009)