Are the police receiving adequate training on mental illness

On February 3, 2012, a Toronto police officer shot and killed Michael Eligon, who was believed to be mentally ill. Eligon was admitted to Toronto East General Hospital on January 31, 2012 for a mental assessment and was supposed to be picked up by his foster mother on February 3, 2012. He walked out of the hospital in his hospital gown and walked around the neighbourhood looking confused and disoriented. He also had two pairs of scissors he took from a convenience store nearby. He attempted to enter into a number of homes and a few people called the police. The police arrived and an officer shot at Eligon three times when they finally found him, with one of the shots hitting and killing Eligon. 

This was a complete shock to the neighbourhood and brought an array of questions regarding the police and the adequacy of the training they receive on dealing with people who have a mental illness. Neighbours raised their concerns since these incidents keep occurring, as exemplified by the cases of Charlie McGillivary and Sylvia Klibingaitis that happened last year.

Charles McGillivary was unable to speak due to a childhood accident and communicated through sign language with his mother and used a handful of words only she could understand. He collapsed and died while being arrested by police. They mistakenly took him for another suspect and due to his large frame and the fact that he couldn’t speak, they took him down while arresting him. McGillivary fell into medical distress and was later pronounced dead at the hospital. He was walking with his mother when this occurred and the police wouldn’t listen to her pleas that he was mentally ill and couldn’t speak.

Sylvia Klibingaitis struggled with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and psychotic delusions. She had “peak anxiety” during the weeks prior to her death, and she made a 9-1-1 call for help during a mental crisis. She told the operator that she had a knife and that she was going to commit a crime. According to the S Investigations Unit (SIU), Klibingaitis burst out the front door with a large knife in her right hand when a police officer approached her home. The officer backed away from the house toward the curb. As she followed him toward the curb with knife in hand, he pulled his gun from its holster and repeatedly yelled, “Put the knife down!” She refused and moved closer. The officer fired three times. One bullet hit the garage door and another struck her in the chest, killing her.

The SIU was contacted in both cases, and in both cases the police officers were cleared of any wrongdoing.

It seems that front-line police officers are coming into more contact with people who have mental health issues, but they receive very little mental health support and training. On the Canadian Mental Health Association website, it states that a study by the London Police Department showed that between 1998 and 2001, the number of hours uniformed police spent dealing with people with serious mental illness doubled from 5,000 to 10,000. The same study showed that calls involving people with mental illness took up to $3.7 million of the $43-million London Police Department budget in 2001. The study also showed that the increase in calls was for minor nuisance crimes or no crime at all, and that violent crime among people with serious mental illness was actually decreasing.

In a resolution passed in June 2003, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police recognized that "the inadequate funding of community mental health services has resulted in vulnerable individuals being at risk of increased contact with the police and increased involvement in the criminal justice system."

Deputy Chief Michael Federico said all Toronto officers are given mental-health training each year when they have two days of use-of-force training. It includes instruction on how to calm situations down verbally and realistic role-play scenarios that mimic responding to someone with a mental illness. Additional training varies by specific job and the year, he said. Police in Halifax and York Region have adopted an intensive 40-hour training program, developed in Memphis, Tennessee. The program takes officers to a mental-health ward and gives them extra verbal techniques.

Mr. Pritchard, a retired co-director of Christian Peacemaker Teams is calling for existing crisis teams, which pair a mental-health professional with an officer, to be available throughout the city, 24 hours a day. As of now, they are available in 10 of 17 policing divisions for 10 hours a day. In Hamilton and other jurisdictions, such teams are available at all hours.

This leaves us asking a lot of questions regarding how equipped the police are in handling situations that involve the mentally ill. An important aspect to think about is the way in which those with mental health issues are viewed by others and if they may automatically be viewed as violent by the police. It begs the question of whether this is an issue of inadequate support and training, or a bias on the part of the police when it comes to handling interactions with those who are mentally ill. Many people believe that the police are treating people with mental illness like criminals and that something needs to be done in order to prevent further needless deaths of mentally ill people at the hands of the police.

It is important to prevent the criminalization of the mentally ill, which seems to be a big issue. A report by the Canadian Mental Health Association, BC Division, estimates that the percentage of mentally disordered offenders currently in jails and prisons range from 15 to 40%. This is a serious problem that needs to be genuinely addressed by the police. What solutions do you suggest for improving the ways in which police handle situations concerning people with a mental illness? Is more training required or should police receive more educational awareness regarding mental health matters, or both? As interactions between the police and the mentally ill increases, we will see if our concerns are going to be adequately addressed or not. 

Posted by Ada Vrana (Windsor Law I)

Case Highlights the Need to Break the “Code of Silence” Amongst Police Officers

Justice Nancy Backhouse, of the Ontario Superior Court, recently had strong words about the unconstitutional search and inaccurate testimony of police constable Ido Sukman during an application to exclude physical evidence of drug possession in R v Le, 2011 ONSC 6276.  Notably, Justice Backhouse accepted the contradicting evidence of Sukman’s partner, P.C. Yang, in finding a deliberate breach of the accused’s Charter rights “that cannot be tolerated because the police conduct brings the administration of justice into disrepute”.

After evaluating the contradictory evidence of P.C. Sukman and P.C. Yang, Justice Backhouse critically commented that “P.C. Sukman’s evidence does not make any sense. I had grave concerns about his evidence as he testified.  His version of the facts strikes me as highly improbable and inconsistent with the usual practice.”

Unfortunately, the position taken by the Crown in this case was that the version of events given by P.C. Yang should be found unreliable and rejected.  Justice Backhouse disagreed, instead finding that P.C. Yang’s evidence provided confirmation on key factual points in the case: the reason the accused was stopped was not because of his tail lights, but because P.C. Sukman believed that the owner of the vehicle was probably engaged in illicit drug activity, that P.C. Yang was able to see that there was nothing on the passenger seat of the accused’s vehicle, and that P.C. Sukman searched the accused’s vehicle before any drugs or drug paraphernalia were found.

There are two major issues of concern in the circumstances of this case: the illegal searches of Le’s vehicle and person, and the untruthful evidence given by a police officer.  The illegal search is an issue individual to this case, for which the remedy was the judicial exclusion of the evidence.  However, the inaccurate testimony engenders different accountability issues, and while a court can offer strong words, and charges may follow in rare cases, the underlying systemic problems have not been addressed.

When a search has been found to be unlawful, the court has both a test to measure the conduct, and a remedy to ensure that the unlawful search does not taint the trial. This case, however, reveals symptoms of a larger and more systemic problem.  By accepting the contradictory evidence of P.C. Yang and so strongly pointing out the improbabilities of P.C. Sukman’s evidence, Justice Backhouse essentially held P.C. Sukman’s evidence to be false.  This is the aspect of the case that has sparked media response.  Toronto newspapers noted the case under headings such as “Judge Finds Cop Falsified Evidence” (http://thetorontopost.com/news/judge-finds-cop-falsified-evidence/) and commentary websites bore headlines such as “Canada Judge Tosses Case, Rules Police Made Facts Up” (http://www.officer.com/news/10443994/canada-judge-tosses-case-rules-police-made-facts-up).  The problem of false evidence and the need for police officers to report on each other in such situations raises concerns with police culture and accountability.

The testimony given by P.C. Yang played an essential part in bringing the inaccurate testimony of P.C. Sukman to light.  The willingness and ability to report and contradict dishonest behavior by other officers is an important function of accountability, yet it is not behavior that has typically been associated with police culture.  This begs the question: in cases where the accused’s rights have been breached and inaccurate facts have been used to support the evidence, can the justice system and the public trust that officers will report on or give testimony contradictory to that of another officer? Reports on police culture suggest that such action would likely be met with resistance and discouragement from other members of the police force.

One such report, generated from the combined initiatives of the RCMP Research and Evaluation Branch and the Community, Contract and Aboriginal Policing Services Directorate (http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/PS64-27-2006E.pdf) talks about “the Blue Code of Silence” embedded in police subculture, along with the pressure not to breach it.  The report states that “the code of silence...it is argued, is a part of police socialization [and] imposes negative consequences for those who break it” (page 7 of the report).  In a sample of police officers in the United States, questions relating to the code of silence found that 64.7% of officers who report incidents of misconduct are likely to be given the cold shoulder by fellow officers (page 8 of the report).   One U.S. report notes that police culture is not only characterized by silence about misconduct, but also “unquestioned loyalty to other officers” (page 12 of the report).  Because this code of silence was broken in R. v. Le, crucial findings were made with regard to unlawful police conduct in obtaining evidence against a member of the public. 

There is also something troubling about the Crown’s decision in this case, in the face of conflicting police accounts, to urge the court to accept the testimony that would bolster its own case and entirely reject the sworn testimony of another police officer that would support finding an unreasonable search and inaccurate testimony. Such a position would seem to be at odds with the role of the Crown to be an impartial Minister of Justice.

Would some effort in fact-checking and investigation on the part of the Crown have resolved or shed light on the truth behind some of the evidentiary inconsistencies?  With regard to the issue of police misconduct and the surrounding culture of silence, the question becomes: beyond strong words, excluding evidence or staying charges, do the courts have a remedy at their disposal to discourage dishonest behavior on the part of the police, or in any way change the culture that enables it?  

Posted by Laura Burkitt (Windsor Law III)  

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)

First human rights finding of Aboriginal profiling

In a landmark decision, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has concluded that the police treatment of Garry McKay during a bike and id check constituted racial profiling. Some of the relevant excerpts of the tribunal's decision include:

...

[2] The complainant, Garry McKay (“McKay” or “the complainant”), self identifies as an Aboriginal man. He alleges that he was subjected to racially biased policing by the personal respondent, Christopher Fitkin (“Fitkin” or “personal respondent”), a police officer with the Toronto Police Service. The Complaint stems from an incident in the early morning hours of July 9, 2003, when police stopped and questioned McKay and a friend while the two men were walking in a laneway. During the encounter, Fitkin investigated McKay and McKay’s bike and, soon thereafter, arrested McKay for possession of stolen property (the bike). Eventually, McKay was released, however, McKay alleges that Fitkin threatened to re-arrest him if he did not produce a receipt for the bike. 

[3] The personal respondent submits that, given the time of the day and the laneway location, the police questioned McKay and his friend as a matter of routine patrol. McKay was initially arrested because a police records search indicated that a bike, bearing the same identification number as McKay’s, was stolen. Fitkin later released McKay because further searches revealed the bike was reported stolen in Winnipeg.

...

Summary of Prima Facie Findings

[160] In summary, the evidence indicates that Fitkin’s instant distrust of McKay exerted a powerful hold over how the encounter evolved, and led Fitkin to arrest McKay for the wrong bike. In particular, it appears that Fitkin’s heightened suspicions derailed consideration of the available information that substantiated McKay’s explanation and established that McKay’s bike was not the reported stolen bike. I find that Fitkin hastily arrested McKay based on erroneous and deficient information. I also find that McKay was required, despite being released, to submit proof of the bike receipt. I further find that the officers undertook unnecessary and multiple criminal records searches of McKay post release.

[161] I conclude Fitkin’s investigation and the arrest were shaped by negative stereotypes of Aboriginal people being untrustworthy and involved in criminal activity. I reach this conclusion based on the specific and overall circumstances of the case against the backdrop of the social context evidence confirming the pervasive negative stereotypes about Aboriginal people lacking credibility and prone to criminality. See Williams. I am persuaded that, taken as a whole and/or at the individual stages of the encounter, there is a prima facie case that the interactions between Fitkin and McKay were permeated by racial bias and stereotyping, now necessitating an explanation from the respondent.

[162] I accept that McKay’s perception that he was subjected to unfair treatment and was unduly scrutinized. I found McKay to be a respectful and sincere witness. He provided his testimony in a clear, honest manner, and he had a reasonably good memory of the alleged events, which, based on his evidence, clearly affected him. I accept that McKay felt especially vulnerable and targeted because of the arrest and his fear of re-arrest.

...

CONCLUSION

[201] To sum up, I reject the personal respondent’s explanations and conclude that Fitkin treated McKay in a racially biased manner because of the following factors:

• Fitkin’s instantaneous disbelief of McKay’s explanation of his presence in the laneway;
• Fitkin’s disregard of the fact that Mack and the flyers corroborated McKay’s explanation and his interpretation of flyer delivery as a good cover story;
• Despite CPIC clearance, Fitkin’s further investigation of McKay on what was effectively a hunch;
• Fitkin’s investigation was imbued with unfounded and heightened suspicions;
• Fitkin’s discounting of McKay’s assertion of ownership and details of the bike store demonstrated a closed mind;
• Fitkin disregard of the bike’s actual blue colour and rationalization of the colour discrepancy to support his
suspicions disconfirming McKay’s ownership of the bike;
• Fitkin’s acceptance of one out of two possible number matches as a sufficient basis to arrest McKay;
• Fitkin’s indifference of, and failure to, verify the bike’s speed;
• Fitkin’s hasty arrest of McKay;
• Fitkin’s requirement that McKay provide proof of the receipt after the release; and
• The multiple criminal records searches of McKay after release.

[202] In conclusion, I find that the complainant’s race was a factor in his arrest, and that the personal respondent’s treatment of him was influence by an underlying racial bias, which shifted the encounter from a routine patrol stop to an incident of racial discrimination.

[203] The hearing was bifurcated and, as such, the issue of Board liability and remedies remain outstanding. 

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)

Project Charter between TPS and OHRC Ends

On Monday May 17, 2010, the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Toronto Police Service and Toronto Police Services Board celebrated the formal conclusion of Human Rights Project Charter. Human Rights Commissioner Barbara Hall, Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair, and Toronto Police Services Board Chair Dr. Alok Mukherjee composed the Sponsor Group and oversaw the execution of the Project Charter.

Commenced in 2007, the Human Rights Project Charter was a joint initiative between the OHRC, TPS and TPSB. The objective was to reform the institutional culture of the Toronto Police Service, integrating an equity lens in all policies, procedures, training and community relations. The Charter also served as a public interest remedy to numerous human rights complaints against the Toronto Police. Under the leadership of Chief Bill Blair, the TPS says it is committed to being an organization free of bias and discrimination, and hopes the community will have “more confidence” in its handling of issues such as racial profiling.

Publicized achievements include:

• Revised human resources policies on recruitment, selection, promotion and retention;
• New training for all TPS staff and officers on “Human Rights 101” and “Racially Biased Policing and Racial Profiling”; and,
• Complete overhaul of internal investigation of complaints, integrating a human rights code analysis.

It is unknown if the changes celebrated will have a sustainable impact on police culture.

Although the organizational overhaul of Toronto Police is impressive, a comprehensive public report on the status of the Charter has yet to be released. Furthermore, Charter representatives failed to provide a sufficient answer as to how TPS will measure the success of the changes per division/officer. This is of significant concern to activists and residents considering the suspicious death of Junior Manon at York University, who was chased and allegedly assaulted by Toronto officers on May 5, 2010. The Special Investigation Unit is currently investigating Mr. Manon’s death.

Hamlin Grange (of the Board), and other members of the project spoke to work that remains to be accomplished including public education. In regards to buy-in by Toronto Police’s 8,000 employees and City residents, Mr. Grange insisted that most employees support change if they can understand it, and stakeholders will appreciate change if it is substantive.

The Human Rights Project Charter appears to be a promising step forward for Toronto Police Services, the City and policing in general. The partnership between the Commission, Force and Board illustrates “risky relationships are worth forming when the objective is social justice”, as Commissioner Hall stated. A culture of transparency and bias-free policing can only result if the changes initiated by the Charter are practiced by the entire Force and appreciated by residents. In the end, success of the Charter will be best exemplified by the quality of community relations between officers and the communities they serve.

Posted by Nicole Myers (Windsor Law I)