The Friends of Dufferin Grove submission to the Ontario Police Complaints Review (Mr.Justice Patrick Lesage)

June 20, 2004

Presented by Jane Price

1. Long term – Legislative changes

It appears that changes to the existing legislation may be part of a long-term means of making the public complaints process responsive to the citizens whom it is intended to serve. It’s our hope that any legislation will be very carefully and sparingly drafted to avoid creating a situation which is no better, and perhaps even worse than the one we have now.

2. Short term – Pilot project – Dufferin Grove Informal Resolution Process

The following part of the existing legislation is of particular interest to us:

58. (1) If, at any time before or during an investigation into a complaint about the conduct of a police officer, the conduct appears to be obviously conduct that is not of a serious nature, the chief of police may resolve the matter informally, if the police officer and the complainant consent to the proposed resolution.

Context:

The experience of the Friends of Dufferin Grove Park over many years is that when there is a concern about inappropriate police behaviour in the park, we seek an opportunity to discuss the event with the police officers involved. In our experience with different people and groups who use the park, we feel that most difficulties we encounter are best resolved (or at least, have greater long-term chances of resolution) when the people involved talk to one another, rather than immediately resorting to formal legal means.

Our concerns and the types of difficulties we encounter with the police are basically two-fold (see Appendix 1 for details):

a. the police and the people in the neighbourhood have very different priorities and ways of approaching situations; b. to date, we have had no success with the way the existing “informal complaints” process is handled.

Our short-term suggestion is to run a pilot project with a view to opening up the existing informal complaints process. This trial project would, in turn, give citizens, police and people charged with drafting policies or legislation in the area a sense of what possibilities there are in the existing legislation.

Framework:

We would like to propose a limited experiment in complaints resolution based on the existing informal complaints process, specifically, the authority of the Chief of Police to resolve complaints informally (s. 58 (1) -- with the following changes to current practice: - include the option for a citizen or citizens to request the informal process, through the Friends of Dufferin Grove Park, even in cases involving conduct of a “serious nature” (s. 58 (1)) - give a wider interpretation of the definition of a citizen who is “directly affected” by the police behaviour (s. 57 (1); s. 59 (5)) - include the option for the informal process to deal, on a local level, with complaints that are deemed to be either “about the policies or services provided by the police” or about the “conduct of an officer” - the introduction of an independent 3rd party (from the AG’s office?) into the entire informal process (e.g. from receipt of the complaint, through the entire fact-finding process or investigation, with access to all records and all parts of the decision-making process, authority to obtain information into police reports, etc. when required, and responsible to report on the on-going successes and failures of the informal process) - structure the “concerns process” in a way that makes it clear that responsible citizens’ involvement is actually a cornerstone of ensuring that police use their significant power wisely, sparingly and responsibly. A few ideas are: o there must be no potential prejudice to the officer(s) about whom the complaint is made by proceeding in an informal fashion (e.g. none of the information gathered from the informal session could be used in a later legal proceeding) o hold the informal meeting in the park, where or close to where the incident occurred, rather than in the police station o keep the meeting truly informal, e.g no taped interviews o be open to participation by other citizens who witnessed the situation complained about, or have had other dealings relevant to the concern being discussed o ensure that the actual parties directly or indirectly involved (e.g. police officers and people with concerns, other witnesses, people with relevant information, etc.) are sought and have an opportunity to talk to one another about the matter of concern o all parties operate on the premise that the people meeting are on an equal footing and come in good faith Appendix 1:

Our concerns and the types of difficulties we encounter with the police are basically two-fold:

1) the police and the people in the neighbourhood have very different priorities and ways of approaching situations. For example,

a. people in the neighbourhood have a lot of knowledge and experience about what has happened before and what goes on in the park now. Because it is their neighbourhood, they sometimes have good sense about what will and will not work when a difficult situation arises. The police have rarely shown interest in the history of current difficulties, nor a desire to work with the people who know the lay of the land.

b. people in the neighbourhood want timely police response in the following situations:

• any situation involving violence; • less than trivial vandalism; • breach of city by-laws which attempt to balance the interests of different people and groups who use the park (e.g. enforce noise by-laws, etc.)

c. people who use the park find that police priorities and behaviour are at odds with people’s peaceful enjoyment of the parks. Police activities sometimes put people who use the park in needless difficulty or even in danger. For example: • police frequently approach people of colour for their identification - out of the blue - in case they might be arrestable • police very frequently (often several times a day) drive their cars through the park, sometimes quite fast (e.g. 30 kms/hour (note: generally speaking, there is no car traffic in the park, except for the Farmers who sell produce at the Farmers’ Market, or Parks vehicles for the purposes of doing different work in the park, etc.) Existing City by-laws require all vehicles in parks to go no faster than 5 km/hr., with a park staff person walking in front of the vehicle. Police cars often go much faster, without a walking escort and without their sirens or flashers on. • police often seem to regard observers as a threat to police officers and as unwelcome meddlers with little or no credibility; in fact, they are sometimes threatened with charges of obstruction

2) To date, we have had no success with the way the existing “informal complaints” process is handled. In our experience, the Chief of Police can and has chosen to diminish the informal process in the following ways:

• he does not have to “deal with any complaint made by any member of the public if he… decides that the complainant was not directly affected by the policy, service or conduct that is the subject of the complaint.”
• matters of serious concerns to members of the community are treated as isolated incidents
• actions by the police are inevitably deemed “appropriate and lawful” -- without any indication of the steps that may have been taken or matters that were considered in arriving at this conclusion
• an informal process is formalized, e.g tape the interview, write extensive reports of little substance, etc.
• little or nor credence is given to the reports of people in the park, and no explanation of why the police versions of an incident are accepted as the official story