2007

 

Ontario's Bill 103: civilian complaints against police

The Ontario government is presently conducting legislative hearings on a Bill to modernize the current procedure for civilian complaints against police. Public input is not a priority: the hearings are being held only in Toronto, for three days, and there is pre-screening of those who wish to appear.  

Bill 103 is the government's response to Justice Patrick LeSage's Report on the Police Complaints System in Ontario , submitted on April 22, 2005 to the Attorney General. Justice LeSage consulted with concerned citizens, community watchdog and human rights groups, and the police themselves. On this basis, he proposed creating an independent civilian review agency to manage public complaints against police . 

The agency would have broad investigative powers, (with only 50% of investigators being former police officers) but this wouldn't preclude internal police investigations. It would operate in the regions, assisted by community advisory boards. Third-party complaints would be permitted, hearings would be open to the public, and decisions posted on the Internet. Police officers would wear prominent ID, the better to enable citizens to lodge complaints in the first place. Justice LeSage also recommended outreach to Aboriginal communities.

Bill 103 goes part of this distance, but it is silent on community advisory boards of the type that Justice LeSage contemplated, agency investigators, police officer identification and Aboriginals. It does not mandate a regional presence for the new agency either, leaving that to the discretion of the Independent Police Review Director (IPRD) who would head it.

Why do we need an independent complaints review agency? Briefly, the current system, in which police police themselves, is a dismal failure from the accountability perspective. The number of complaints upheld is miniscule, and too often the investigations and dismissals of public complaints appear cursory. Even when complaints are upheld, the penalties can be wrist-slaps: a one-day suspension for Tasering an Ottawa man lying on the ground in handcuffs, a one-month suspension for brutally assaulting a Toronto man, and attempting to frame him into the bargain. Meanwhile, the shocking news stories continue: a four-month-old baby pepper-sprayed, an unresisting man in a Tim Horton's being beaten.  

To be effective, Bill 103 must be strengthened. First, a complainant is granted a hearing only after he or she has cleared a number of hurdles. There should be a hearing right at the start, which would act as a filter, revealing to both parties the strengths and weaknesses of their respective cases, and in many instances either precluding further action on the part of a complainant or encouraging immediate remedial action by the Chief of Police. (With the possibility of third-party investigations and reviews always present under the proposed legislation, there is motivation for police services to keep their internal processes—investigations and hearings—above-board.)   

A complainant's right of appeal is severely circumscribed under the current Bill. An appeal to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC) is permitted once a hearing has been held and a complaint has been dismissed. But if the IPRD chooses to investigate a complaint (rather than referring it to a Chief of Police for investigation), or upholds the police after being asked to review a police investigation, there is no specified right of appeal. This places too much power in the hands of one individual: again, for the sake of accountability, there must be appeal rights against his or her decisions.  

The right to a hearing in front of the OCPC exists only if the complainant appeals against the dismissal of a complaint. There is no right to a hearing if, after a successful complaint, the complainant feels that the penalty imposed by a Chief of Police is derisory. For there to be public confidence in the new system, misbehaviour by the police needs to be appropriately dealt with, and victims of it should have a right to be heard on that issue.  

The legislation vests tremendous power, authority and discretion in one person, the IPRD, to breathe life into it. The agency's effectiveness, therefore, will very much depend upon that official's mindset.  Success will also require a visible public presence, and easy access—the Bill should mandate regional offices for precisely that reason—and sufficient funds to operate. Finally, the agency will require public confidence: hence the legislation should adopt Justice LeSage's recommendation that no more than half of its investigators be former police officers.  

Police, like other public employees, must be accountable to the community that they serve. An improved Bill 103 could go some distance to making that a reality.

 

-- January 22, 2007 . From the Ottawa Witness Group, an Ottawa community association interested in police activity and governance issues . Their presentation to the legislative committee may be found here: http://www.ontla.on.ca/committee-proceedings/transcripts/files_html/2007-01-31_JP038.htm#P333_89398

 

 

 

 

 

Back To Top

 

 

 

 

Reviews | Posting Regulations | Current Issues and Interests |