The OHRC is inquiring into the practices and activities of the TPS between January 1, 2010 and June 30, 2017, to assess whether they are consistent with racial profiling and racial discrimination against the Black community, including in the areas of:
The OHRC is also examining the TPS and TPSB’s culture, training, policies, procedures and accountability mechanisms relating to racial profiling and racial discrimination.
The OHRC is conducting research, retaining experts, consulting with key stakeholders, and receiving information from affected individuals, interested groups and organizations.
To participate, contact info@ohrc.on.ca or 416-314-4522.
OHRC Inquiry Announcement https://t.co/p1LGnmlfT8
— The OHRC (@OntHumanRights) November 30, 2017
Inquiries
31 (1) The Commission may conduct an inquiry under this section for the purpose of carrying out its functions under this Act if the Commission believes it is in the public interest to do so. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Conduct of inquiry
(2) An inquiry may be conducted under this section by any person who is appointed by the Commission to carry out inquiries under this section. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Production of certificate
(3) A person conducting an inquiry under this section shall produce proof of their appointment upon request. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Entry
(4) A person conducting an inquiry under this section may, without warrant, enter any lands or any building, structure or premises where the person has reason to believe there may be documents, things or information relevant to the inquiry. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Time of entry
(5) The power to enter a place under subsection (4) may be exercised only during the place’s regular business hours or, if it does not have regular business hours, during daylight hours. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Dwellings
(6) A person conducting an inquiry under this section shall not enter into a place or part of a place that is a dwelling without the consent of the occupant. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Powers on inquiry
(7) A person conducting an inquiry may,
(a) request the production for inspection and examination of documents or things that are or may be relevant to the inquiry;
(b) upon giving a receipt for it, remove from a place documents produced in response to a request under clause (a) for the purpose of making copies or extracts;
(c) question a person on matters that are or may be relevant to the inquiry, subject to the person’s right to have counsel or a personal representative present during such questioning and exclude from the questioning any person who may be adverse in interest to the inquiry;
(d) use any data storage, processing or retrieval device or system used in carrying on business in the place in order to produce a document in readable form;
(e) take measurements or record by any means the physical dimensions of a place;
(f) take photographs, video recordings or other visual or audio recordings of the interior or exterior of a place; and
(g) require that a place or part thereof not be disturbed for a reasonable period of time for the purposes of carrying out an examination, inquiry or test. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Written demand
(8) A demand that a document or thing be produced must be in writing and must include a statement of the nature of the document or thing required. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Assistance
(9) A person conducting an inquiry may be accompanied by any person who has special, expert or professional knowledge and who may be of assistance in carrying out the inquiry. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Use of force prohibited
(10) A person conducting an inquiry shall not use force to enter and search premises under this section. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Obligation to produce and assist
(11) A person who is requested to produce a document or thing under clause (7) (a) shall produce it and shall, on request by the person conducting the inquiry, provide any assistance that is reasonably necessary, including assistance in using any data storage, processing or retrieval device or system, to produce a document in readable form. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Return of removed things
(12) A person conducting an inquiry who removes any document or thing from a place under clause (7) (b) shall,
(a) make it available to the person from whom it was removed, on request, at a time and place convenient for both that person and the person conducting the inquiry; and
(b) return it to the person from whom it was removed within a reasonable time. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Admissibility of copies
(13) A copy of a document certified by a person conducting an inquiry to be a true copy of the original is admissible in evidence to the same extent as the original and has the same evidentiary value. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Obstruction
(14) No person shall obstruct or interfere with a person conducting an inquiry under this section. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Search warrant
31.1 (1) The Commission may authorize a person to apply to a justice of the peace for a warrant to enter a place and conduct a search of the place if,
(a) a person conducting an inquiry under section 31 has been denied entry to any place or asked to leave a place before concluding a search;
(b) a person conducting an inquiry under section 31 made a request for documents or things and the request was refused; or
(c) an inquiry under section 31 is otherwise obstructed or prevented. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Same
(2) Upon application by a person authorized under subsection (1) to do so, a justice of the peace may issue a warrant under this section if he or she is satisfied on information under oath or affirmation that the warrant is necessary for the purposes of carrying out the inquiry under section 31. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Powers
(3) A warrant obtained under subsection (2) may authorize a person named in the warrant, upon producing proof of his or her appointment,
(a) to enter any place specified in the warrant, including a dwelling; and
(b) to do any of the things specified in the warrant. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Conditions on search warrant
(4) A warrant obtained under subsection (2) shall contain such conditions as the justice of the peace considers advisable to ensure that any search authorized by the warrant is reasonable in the circumstances. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Time of execution
(5) An entry under a warrant issued under this section shall be made at such reasonable times as may be specified in the warrant. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Expiry of warrant
(6) A warrant issued under this section shall name a date of expiry, which shall be no later than 15 days after the warrant is issued, but a justice of the peace may extend the date of expiry for an additional period of no more than 15 days, upon application without notice by the person named in the warrant. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Use of force
(7) The person authorized to execute the warrant may call upon police officers for assistance in executing the warrant and the person may use whatever force is reasonably necessary to execute the warrant. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Obstruction prohibited
(8) No person shall obstruct or hinder a person in the execution of a warrant issued under this section. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Application
(9) Subsections 31 (11), (12) and (13) apply with necessary modifications to an inquiry carried out pursuant to a warrant issued under this section. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Evidence used in Tribunal proceedings
31.2 Despite any other Act, evidence obtained on an inquiry under section 31 or 31.1 may be received into evidence in a proceeding before the Tribunal. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Anti-Racism Secretariat
31.3 (1) The Chief Commissioner directs the Anti-Racism Secretariat which shall be established in accordance with subsection (2). 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Composition
(2) The Anti-Racism Secretariat shall be composed of not more than six persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council on the advice of the Chief Commissioner. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Remuneration
(3) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may fix the remuneration and allowance for expenses of the members of the Anti-Racism Secretariat. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Functions of the Secretariat
(4) At the direction of the Chief Commissioner, the Anti-Racism Secretariat shall,
(a) undertake, direct and encourage research into discriminatory practices that infringe rights under Part I on the basis of racism or a related ground and make recommendations to the Commission designed to prevent and eliminate such discriminatory practices;
(b) facilitate the development and provision of programs of public information and education relating to the elimination of racism; and
(c) undertake such tasks and responsibilities as may be assigned by the Chief Commissioner. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Disability Rights Secretariat
31.4 (1) The Chief Commissioner directs the Disability Rights Secretariat which shall be established in accordance with subsection (2). 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Composition
(2) The Disability Rights Secretariat shall be composed of not more than six persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council on the advice of the Chief Commissioner. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Remuneration
(3) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may fix the remuneration and allowance for expenses of the members of the Disability Rights Secretariat. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Functions of the Secretariat
(4) At the direction of the Chief Commissioner, the Disability Rights Secretariat shall,
(a) undertake, direct and encourage research into discriminatory practices that infringe rights under Part I on the basis of disability and make recommendations to the Commission designed to prevent and eliminate such discriminatory practices;
(b) facilitate the development and provision of programs of public information and education intended to promote the elimination of discriminatory practices that infringe rights under Part I on the basis of disability; and
(c) undertake such tasks and responsibilities as may be assigned by the Chief Commissioner. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Advisory groups
31.5 The Chief Commissioner may establish such advisory groups as he or she considers appropriate to advise the Commission about the elimination of discriminatory practices that infringe rights under this Act. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Annual report
31.6 (1) Every year, the Commission shall prepare an annual report on the affairs of the Commission that occurred during the 12-month period ending on March 31 of each year. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Report to Speaker
(2) The Commission shall submit the report to the Speaker of the Assembly no later than on June 30 in each year who shall cause the report to be laid before the Assembly if it is in session or, if not, at the next session. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Copy to Minister
(3) The Commission shall give a copy of the report to the Minister at least 30 days before it is submitted to the Speaker under subsection (2). 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Other reports
31.7 In addition to the annual report, the Commission may make any other reports respecting the state of human rights in Ontario and the affairs of the Commission as it considers appropriate, and may present such reports to the public or any other person it considers appropriate. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) is the provincial statutory agency responsible for advancing human rights and preventing systemic discrimination in Ontario. The OHRC has broad powers under the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code) to initiate inquiries in the public interest, monitor and report on human rights issues, and engage in litigation, including by filing applications with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and intervening in other legal proceedings.
The OHRC’s 2017-2022 Strategic Plan identifies enforcing human rights in the criminal justice system as one of four strategic priorities. The OHRC is working towards ending racial profiling and discrimination in all police practices, increasing human rights accountability in policing and making human rights competence a requirement for the police.
For over a decade, the OHRC has raised concerns about anti-Black racism in policing in Toronto. Carding and other practices that have a disproportionate negative impact on Black persons have eroded trust in police, which is essential to effective policing, and ultimately, public safety.
The OHRC is conducting a public interest inquiry into potential racial profiling of and racial discrimination against Black persons by the Toronto Police Service (TPS). This inquiry is being carried out under the OHRC’s powers pursuant to section 31 of the Code which include but are not limited to:
a. Stop and question practices of the TPS.
b. Use of force by the TPS.
c. Arrests and charges by the TPS and forms and conditions of release applied by the TPS in relation to certain categories of offences:
d. The OHRC will inquire into the possible disproportionate impact of the above activities on Black persons and communities.
e. The inquiry will examine the TPS’s and Toronto Police Services Board’s (TPSB) culture, training, policies, procedures and accountability mechanisms relating to racial profiling and racial discrimination.
f. The OHRC will also examine whether the TPS and TPSB have developed systems to review whether stop and question, use of force, arrests and charges, and release practices disproportionately impact racialized people.
Note: With the exception of Sammy Yatim, all of the victims included below were Black.
This is not an exhaustive list of incidents and activities.
Daniel Clause, 33, was killed by a Toronto Police officer after being shot four times. The officer who stopped Clause at a community housing complex thought he matched the description of an armed individual who had committed robbery. At the coroner’s inquest, the officer testified that he shot Clause after he had reached and pointed a gun in the officer’s direction. The gun was later discovered to be a pellet gun. The SIU did not lay charges.
Andrew Henry, 43, was arrested after allegedly assaulting Toronto Police officers. While he was face-down on the pavement, he was Tasered twice and repeatedly stomped on by a Toronto Police sergeant. The OIPRD investigation found misconduct by several officers including excessive use of force by the sergeant, neglect of duty for failing to activate in-car camera systems and microphones upon arriving at the scene, and discreditable conduct for how officers spoke to a bystander who was filming the event. A Discipline Hearing will be held for the sergeant who used excessive force.
The Association of Black Law Enforcers (A.B.L.E.) is an organization representing the interests of active and retired individuals who are, or were employed as Police and Peace Officers in Federal, Provincial, and Municipal Law Enforcement Agencies. We are also individuals who belong to Black, and Racialized communities in Canada.
Our members acknowledge that the vast majority of police officers in our cities, provinces and indeed across Canada perform their sworn duties in an honourable, ethical and professional manner.
We as members of A.B.L.E. believe this to be true because we work with these officers and form part of the ranks of these organizations. However, as Black and Racialized law enforcers, we live and work in two worlds. We have a unique perspective on the community’s interactions with the system in that we interact, live and work in the community that we belong to and as such understand firsthand the socio-political and justice issues that emerge.
Accordingly, A.B.L.E. supports the position that the presence of “Racial Profiling” as a Systemic issue in law enforcement agencies exists and must be eliminated. In effect, A.B.L.E. believes that in order to better understand the issue of racial profiling and be able to create a common understanding it must be defined.
The working definition of racial profiling that A.B.L.E. adopts is:
Investigative or enforcement activity initiated by an individual officer based on his or her subjective stereotypical, prejudicial or racist perceptions of who is likely to be involved in wrong doing or criminal activity. This type of conduct can be unintentional, but can also be systemically facilitated when there are ineffective policy, training, monitoring and control mechanisms in a system.” (A.B.L.E. October, 2002)
As an internationally networked organization, A.B.L.E. shares a broad base of practical experience that can assist others with building and maintaining meaningful relationships that will assist in eradicating intended or unintended injustices to any citizen by questionable practises that have disproportionate impacts.
Accordingly, we support the initiation of an inquiry into Racial Profiling in policing by the Human Rights Commission as a means by which to better understand if the current changes to training, policy, and diversity hiring have assisted in minimizing and potentially eliminating racial profiling and its impacts.
We know that Racial Profiling unchecked will continue to erode essential trust and undermine legitimacy as it relates to policing in Black and Racialized communities. We also believe that Racial Profiling is not compatible with our vision of police services being provided in a fair, equitable, safe and human rights complaint manner.
Hi my name is Anonymous (not sure if we were suppose to state names) I felt like it was very important for me to speak today on behalf of my community and other black youth because carding and police harassment has been a very frequent issue for my brothers and I growing up in the city of Toronto.
I have faced experiences where I've been stopped for no complete reason just walking to and from home and school or just to hang out and play basketball with friends. I am also not here to play the victim and make it seem as if I haven't been in situations with the police for being at the wrong place at the wrong time or with the wrong group of people but I would say in those situations that I've seen human beings treated poorly and disrespected as if they had no rights.
I saw police officers run out with there guns drawn on my brothers and I and if anyone had any pending cases within the justice system or if they were on probation they would tell the rest of us to allow them to search us or they would charge the youth with a fail to comply charge for no complete reason and of course we would allow them to search us so that our peer doesn't receive a charge for nothing that would be disappointing to his parent that the police seem to forget about we are humans with family members who love us and it breaks their hearts to hear that their children or brother and sister have gotten into trouble with the law for something such as defending himself from injustice.
A situation I recall back in high school is when my friends were playing basketball competing and having fun when the Tavis police rode there bikes by and stopped the basketball game to get everyones information as they used to do on a daily basis my friend felt as if he shouldn't have to stop his basketball game for this unwelcomed interruption and was tired of the unlawful acts of the police when he decided to stand up and say “no i will not stop playing no one has committed a crime and you guys are wasting our time and yours” when he decided to stand up the police officers have decided that they did not like to see a young black man that knows his rights stand up to them and proceeded to make an example out of him by holding him down behind a gate and beating him up.
I don't know what they were trying to accomplish but to me it seems that if they can break down the courageous one the rest of the group would never stand up to them again. This impacted my brothers and I in a way that made us feel powerless and inhumane. we felt like we weren't an important part of society and shouldn't bother to make something of ourselves because the police had the power to take our joy away anyways.
I wouldn't say that carding only had a negative impact although they mostly have negative outcomes since that day my friend has been motivated to make something of himself and went to the US to pursue his basketball career through a scholarship stating he never wants something like that to happen to him again so their attempt to break his spirit was a failure they ended up igniting the flame and that same flame inspired me to never settle for less in life and strive for greatness.
Since the carding law has been changed in January I haven't personally faced any unjust treatment by any law enforcement I have heard from my peers that they have still been stopped for no reason and have been given excuses for reason why they have been a target for discussion but they still believe said excuses were just a run around tactic so that police can engage in conversation and receive their information.
Police officers have questioned me if “this is my neighborhood” & “is this my car” when I was on my way to a casting, they told me to show them all my information when I did nothing wrong was going the speed limit.
I was driving my mom’s red Kia Optima. (Nice car right?!), asking me to pop the trunk of the car.
So what you’re telling me is: ‘black youth and adults can’t drive nice cars?’
We must stop the practice of racial profiling in Toronto. Is it correct for Police Officers in Toronto to stop a black youth driver for an alleged traffic offense to question and sometimes search the black driver?
I feel the police think of us as criminals and that we are all the same when we are not.
For over a decade, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) has raised concerns about anti-Black racism in policing in Toronto. Carding and other practices that have a disproportionate negative impact on Black persons have eroded trust in police, which is essential to effective policing, and ultimately, public safety.
In order to inquire into and report on potential racial profiling of, and racial discrimination against, Black persons by the Toronto Police Service (TPS), the OHRC will be collecting data, including personal information, from the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), the TPS and the Toronto Police Services Board (TPSB).
Section 31 of the Ontario Human Rights Code authorizes the OHRC’s collection of information as part of conducting a public interest inquiry. This collection is also consistent with s. 38(2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).
The OHRC recognizes the importance of protection of personal information, protection of human dignity and maintaining public trust and confidence. We will take all reasonable steps to ensure that personal information is treated confidentially and is only used for the purposes it was collected. We will take all reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized access, use or disclosure of your personal information as directed by the FIPPA.
The documents and information that the OHRC has requested from the TPS, TPSB and SIU that may contain personal information are listed in Appendix ‘A’. The data obtained from the TPS, TPSB and SIU will be analyzed by the OHRC, with the assistance of an expert retained by the OHRC.
The OHRC will report publicly on the inquiry process, findings and recommendations. No personal information will be disclosed without the prior informed consent of the affected individual. Data and information obtained from the TPS, TPSB and SIU will be de-identified and/or reported in aggregate form.
Subsection 5(1) of the FIPPA, Regulation 460, requires the OHRC to retain personal information for at least one year after it is used, unless the person to whom the information pertains consents to its earlier disposal. The OHRC will destroy all copies of data sets containing personal information as soon as is reasonably possible after it is no longer required.
Questions regarding personal information collected by the OHRC in the Toronto Police Service Racial Profiling and Racial Discrimination Inquiry may be directed to:
Ontario Human Rights Commission
Legal Services and Inquiries
180 Dundas Street West, 9th Floor
Toronto, Ontario M7A 2G5
Email: info@ohrc.on.ca
Phone: (416) 314-4519
Attention: Sunil Gurmukh, Counsel
All inquiries will be kept strictly confidential.
Information Privacy complaints can also be directed to:
Ontario's Information Privacy Commissioner
2 Bloor Street East, Suite 1400
Toronto, Ontario M4W 1A8
Phone: 1-800-387-0073
Sunil Gurmukh, Counsel,
Legal Services and Inquiries
Ontario Human Rights Commission
180 Dundas Street West, 9th Floor
Toronto, Ontario M7A 2G5
Telephone: (416) 314-4519
Email: Sunil.Gurmukh@ohrc.on.ca
Protection of personal information is an ongoing responsibility. This policy was adopted at an early stage of the TPS Inquiry and will be re-assessed on an ongoing basis.
[1] R.S.O. 1990, c. F-31, s 2(1) [FIPPA]; Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 460: GENERAL, s. 1(1), Schedule, Item 110 [FIPPA Reg General].
[2] FIPPA, supra note 1, s. 10.1; FIPPA Reg General, supra note 1, ss. 3(1), 4(3), Schedule.
[3] See e.g. Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Open Government and Protecting Privacy (Toronto: IPC, 15 March 2017) at 8.
Approved by the OHRC: November 2018
View PDF: A Collective Impact: Interim report on the inquiry into racial profiling and racial discrimination of Black persons by the Toronto Police Service
Executive summary
I. Introduction
II. Background and context
III. Progress of the inquiry
IV. Findings
V. Areas of concern
VI. Interim actions
VII. Next steps
Appendix A: Timeline
Appendix B: Terms of reference
Appendix C: Inquiry letters
Appendix D: Status of OHRC requests
Appendix E: Wortley Report
Endnotes
Between 2013 and 2017, a Black person in Toronto was nearly 20 times more likely than a White person to be involved in a fatal shooting by the Toronto Police Service (TPS). Despite making up only 8.8% of Toronto’s population, data obtained by the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) from the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) shows that Black people were over-represented in use of force cases (28.8%), shootings (36%), deadly encounters (61.5%) and fatal shootings (70%). Black men make up 4.1% of Toronto’s population, yet were complainants in a quarter of SIU cases alleging sexual assault by TPS officers.
SIU Director’s Reports reveal a lack of legal basis for police stopping or detaining Black civilians in the first place; inappropriate or unjustified searches during encounters; and unnecessary charges or arrests. The information analyzed by the OHRC also raises broader concerns about officer misconduct, transparency and accountability. Courts and arms-length oversight bodies have found that TPS officers have sometimes provided biased and untrustworthy testimony, have inappropriately tried to stop the recording of incidents and/or have failed to cooperate with the SIU.
The OHRC spoke directly to approximately 130 individuals in Black communities. It heard first-hand about their experiences with the TPS and the resulting fear, trauma, humiliation, mistrust and expectations of negative treatment by police. Even where individuals did not have first-hand experiences, high profile incidents or experiences of friends and family reinforced community distrust. For example, one individual observed:
The Dafonte Miller matter affects everyone in the community because it was so egregious and it was hidden and was allowed to be hidden for so long until someone else brought it forward… [it] is a collective experience…someone in your family has experienced some sort of trauma with the police – so it always brings you back to that event… it’s a collective impact…
Last year, the OHRC launched its inquiry into racial profiling and racial discrimination of Black persons by the TPS to help build trust between the police and Black communities. The goal of the inquiry was to pinpoint problem areas and make recommendations. This Interim Report describes what the OHRC has done to date. It provides findings relating to SIU investigations of police use of force resulting in serious injury or death, describes the lived experiences of Black individuals, and offers highlights of legal decisions.
The Interim Report findings go some way towards explaining why trust between the TPS and Black communities remains fractured, despite decades of protests, reports, recommendations and commitments related to anti-Black racism. It confirms the long-standing concern of Black communities that they are over-represented in incidents of serious injury and deadly force involving the TPS. It demonstrates that the more serious the police conduct and lethal the outcome, the greater the over-representation. It reveals serious use of force in interactions where there was a lack of a legal basis for police stops and/or detentions of Black civilians in the first place, and inappropriate or unjustified searches of Black civilians.
Building trust between police and the community should be a top priority for everyone, not just Toronto’s Black communities. There is a clear link between public confidence in policing and public safety. People are less likely to cooperate with police investigations and provide testimony in court if they have negative perceptions of police. Without trust, police cannot provide proactive, intelligence-based policing, and this has profound consequences for our justice system. It also has a significant impact on the cost effectiveness of Toronto police services which cost over one billion dollars annually.
In a city where over half the population identifies as “visible minorities,” one of the most effective ways for police to build trust is to respect human rights. Police must hold themselves to the same high standards that we expect of other public institutions. That is the essence of the rule of law. The TPS and Toronto Police Services Board (TPSB) must be proactive in fulfilling their obligations under Ontario’s Human Rights Code. They must take steps to both prevent and remedy racial discrimination, particularly when they are on notice that there may be a problem.
Overall, the OHRC has serious concerns about racial profiling and racial discrimination of Black people by the TPS in use of force incidents; stops, questioning and searches; and charges.
The TPS share some of these concerns. Nearly ten years ago, then-Chief Bill Blair acknowledged that racial bias exists within the TPS. Since then the TPS has made some efforts to “assess and address issues of racial profiling and bias in community engagements (at both the individual and systemic levels) to enable the delivery of bias-free police services.” In 2013, the TPS noted that “effectively addressing and eliminating bias in policing has arguably been one of the most challenging and important undertakings in the history of the Service.” The TPSB publicly supported the OHRC’s inquiry when it was publicly launched in November 2017.
Nearly a year into its inquiry, the OHRC is releasing an Interim Report outlining some of its findings, concerns, next steps and suggested actions. The Interim Report will inform Ontario’s ongoing consultations on policing and police oversight reform and encourage the TPS and TPSB to do more to address human rights issues.
The OHRC will continue its efforts to analyze data received from the TPS, TPSB and SIU, hear directly from diverse Black individuals, and determine whether and where other problem areas exist. The OHRC will release a final inquiry report with findings, recommendations and next steps.
In advance of the release of its Final Report, given the interim findings, the OHRC calls on:
In 1988, Lester Donaldson, a Black man diagnosed with schizophrenia, was shot and killed in his rooming house by a Toronto Police Service (TPS) officer. The police said they were responding to a call of a man holding hostages, but found Mr. Donaldson alone in his room. He was shot for allegedly lunging at the officer with a knife. The officer was charged with manslaughter, but was later acquitted.[1]
The Black Action Defense Committee was formed in the wake of Mr. Donaldson’s death and 600 people demonstrated in front of 13 Division where the officer worked. Mr. Donaldson’s death contributed to the establishment of the SIU in 1990.[2]
Since this time, numerous task forces, studies, inquiries, and Court and tribunal decisions have confirmed that there is anti-Black racism in policing.[3]
The TPS itself has acknowledged that racial bias exists within the TPS.[4] The City of Toronto has stated that “Black Torontonians face many disparities related to law enforcement”[5] and “they are disproportionately impacted by racial profiling and over-policing.”[6] Mayor Tory has recently acknowledged that “…more work is still needed to examine how we can improve police services, policies and procedures that contribute to discrimination and racial profiling.”[7]
Despite these reviews, recommendations, decisions and acknowledgments, concerns with racial discrimination against Black people and police accountability have persisted and were exacerbated by the 2015 death of Andrew Loku.
Concerns of Black communities[8] led the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) to start an inquiry into racial profiling and racial discrimination of Black persons by the TPS. This inquiry is focused on particular activities between January 1, 2010 and June 30, 2017, to determine their impact on Black communities, including: stop and question practices; use of force; arrests and charges and forms and conditions of release for various offence categories.[9]
The inquiry will also examine the TPS and Toronto Police Service Board’s (TPSB) culture, training, policies, procedures and accountability mechanisms relating to racial profiling and racial discrimination.
This inquiry is different from past initiatives by the OHRC and others because it combines the lived experiences of Black communities with analysis of documents and data that the OHRC has been able to obtain through its inquiry powers under s. 31 of the Ontario Human Rights Code (the Code).[10]
Its goal is to pinpoint problem areas and make strong recommendations, which, if properly implemented, will set the stage to build trust between Black communities and police. Trust is the foundation to building relationships, and as the TPS has recognized, relationships are the key to strong and effective policing.
The OHRC’s inquiry is ongoing and there is more work to do over the coming months. It needs to analyze documents and data provided by the TPS, further analyze the data of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), and continue outreach to Black communities. The OHRC will also assess if it should take further steps under the Code to address any issues identified.
This interim report is the first step towards the OHRC’s ultimate goal. It describes what the OHRC has done to date. It provides findings relating to SIU investigations of police use of force resulting in serious injury or death, describes the lived experiences Black communities have shared during the OHRC’s community engagement, and offers a review of legal decisions. The OHRC has spoken to approximately 130 individuals in Black communities across Toronto.
The interim report on the work and findings to date shows that there are deeply concerning racial disparities in use of force incidents that result in serious injury or death. It confirms the long-standing concern of Black communities that they are over-represented in incidents of serious injury and deadly force involving the TPS. It demonstrates that the more serious the police conduct and lethal the outcome, the greater that over-representation. It reveals serious use of force in interactions where there was a lack of a legal basis for police stops and/or detentions of Black civilians in the first place, and inappropriate or unjustified searches of Black civilians. It also highlights the SIU’s concerns about TPS co-operation with the SIU.
These racial differences and concerns call for an explanation by the TPS and TPSB, one that goes beyond simply relying on the fact that the SIU did not lay criminal charges. The TPS and TPSB also need to take steps to proactively address the impact this reality has on the trust and confidence that Black communities have in law enforcement in Canada’s largest and most diverse city. The results to date also underscore the need to move forward with measures to improve police oversight and accountability.
State action, including policing, is subject to the rule of law. The Code is part of the rule of law and promotes individual human rights and dignity. The Code prohibits discrimination against people based on race, ancestry, colour, creed, place of origin and ethnic origin, among other grounds, in policing services.[11] Racial profiling[12] and racial discrimination against Black people can be based on one or more of these grounds. Courts and tribunals have repeatedly recognized that racial profiling is a systemic problem in policing.[13]
There is also a socially significant intersection between race and mental health that may affect officer decisions about use of force. There are stereotypes about Black people regarding violence and criminality, and concerns that police are more likely to use force in their interactions with Black people. Furthermore, people with mental health disabilities may be more likely to be subject to officer use of force because of responses to police instructions or behaviours that may seem unusual, unpredictable or inappropriate, or due to police reliance on stereotypical assumptions about dangerousness or violence.[14]
The OHRC’s mission is to promote and enforce human rights, engage in relationships that embody the principles of dignity and respect, and create a culture of human rights compliance and accountability. The OHRC accomplishes its mission by exposing and challenging systemic discrimination, and examining incidents or conditions of tension or conflict from a human rights perspective, through education, policy development, public inquiries and litigation.[15] The OHRC’s public inquiry powers under s. 31 of the Code include but are not limited to:
Combatting racial discrimination in policing, including racial profiling, has been at the core of the OHRC’s work for over 15 years. The OHRC has created resources to help police services identify, monitor and reduce racial discrimination, including guides to collecting human rights-based data and creating organizational change; Paying the Price, the OHRC’s 2003 report on its inquiry into the effects of racial profiling; and Under suspicion, the OHRC’s 2017 research and consultation report on racial profiling that will shape its forthcoming policy and guidelines on racial profiling.[16] The OHRC has also made submissions to the government and independent reviewers outlining the need for changes in laws to promote accountability for systemic discrimination in policing, address carding and make communities safer.[17]
The OHRC has worked directly with the TPS and TPSB on issues of discrimination. In 2007, the OHRC entered into a three-year Human Rights Project Charter with the TPS and TPSB which aimed to embed human rights in all aspects of police operations.[18] But, as the OHRC did not have control over developing, prioritizing or implementing the recommendations, the Project Charter failed to enhance independent monitoring or accountability for systemic racial discrimination.
The OHRC was also involved with the TPS throughout various stages of the Police and Community Engagement Review (PACER) which began in 2012 and which led to a Report in 2013 that identified 31 Recommendations intended to ensure fair and bias free policing.[19] Upon the release of the report in 2013, the OHRC participated on a community consultation committee to support implementation of the report’s recommendations, and provided direct input into specific initiatives that emerged from the implementation activity. OHRC’s participation on the committee continued until 2018.
The OHRC has also made deputations urging the TPSB to address racial discrimination.[20] Finally, the OHRC has been engaged in litigation challenging racial discrimination by the TPS.[21]
Two years ago, the OHRC attempted to intervene at the Toronto Police Service Disciplinary Tribunal in the “Neptune 4” matter to ensure that racial profiling would be addressed. An Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) complaint was filed after four Black teens were arrested at gunpoint by two TPS officers in 2011; their charges were later withdrawn. The encounter was caught on Toronto Community Housing Corporation security cameras. A version posted by the Toronto Star shows one of the teens being punched and pulled to the ground. The OIPRD found that charges of officer misconduct were warranted. The OIPRD highlighted that, according to the officers and the youth, the youth “were not misbehaving in any manner.” The OHRC was denied leave to intervene on jurisdictional grounds.[22]
According to the 2016 Census, the population of Toronto was 2,731,571. “Visible minorities” made up 51.5% of population. The largest “visible minority” groups were South Asian, Chinese and Black, who made up 12.6%, 11.1% and 8.8% of the population respectively.[23] There were 239,850 Black people in Toronto.[24]
In 2015, Andrew Loku, a Black man who lived in an apartment complex with units leased by the Canadian Mental Health Association, was shot and killed by a TPS officer. According to the SIU, he was shot seconds after the officer saw Mr. Loku holding a hammer in the hallway of the building.[26]
Black Lives Matter Toronto organized protests outside of TPS headquarters and at Queen’s Park in March and April of 2016, challenging racially biased policing and calling for an inquest into the death of Mr. Loku after the SIU did not find grounds to lay criminal charges against the officer.[27] Mr. Loku’s death contributed to the appointment of the Honourable Michael H. Tulloch, a judge of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, to review and make recommendations related to police oversight in Ontario.[28]
In 2015, the OHRC conducted a survey based on a non-random sample and gathered 1,503 responses from across Ontario. The results were published in Under Suspicion and most survey respondents came from the Toronto and Central region of Ontario.[29] 25.9% of Black respondents reported being stopped and questioned by police and having information recorded “unconnected to any specific traffic violation, criminal investigation or specific suspect description.”[30] Of the survey respondents who reported being racially profiled six or more times in the last 12 months, and reported being racially profiled by police, almost half (21) were Black. [31]
The OHRC also heard that some people may be exposed to racial profiling based on their unique intersection of identities. For example, Black male youth may be more likely to be singled out repeatedly by police because of stereotypes about being involved with crime.
Truthfully all my friends have been through the same things I have been through. It has become second nature to be aware of the police... [It’s a] clear violation, but position of power leaves us to just accept this treatment as normal (Black male, age 20-24).[32]
In 2017, the Environics Institute for Survey Research, in partnership with the United Way of Toronto and York Region, the YMCA of Greater Toronto, and Ryerson’s Diversity Institute released the Black Experience Project, a study of the Greater Toronto Area’s Black community. The study sample was based on 1,504 interviews of people who identified as Black or of African heritage. The project raised significant concerns about anti-Black racism in policing. For example, of Black men aged 25 – 44 who were interviewed, 60% reported being harassed or treated rudely by the police, and 79% reported being stopped in public places by the police.[33]
The duties of police services in Ontario, including the TPS, are set out in the Police Services Act.[34] They include preventing crime, enforcing laws and responding to emergencies.[35] The HRTO and the Court of Appeal for Ontario have held that these duties also include respecting human rights and complying with the Code, for example by not engaging in racial discrimination in delivering police services.[36]
The Chief of Police oversees the operation of the police service in accordance with the Police Services Act as well as the objectives, priorities and polices established by the Toronto Police Services Board (TPSB). The Chief reports to the TPSB and must obey its lawful orders and directions.[37]
The TPS is the largest municipal police service in Canada and employs over 5,500 officers and more than 2,200 civilian staff.[38] It has a 2018 budget of 1.005 billion dollars.[39]
Mark Saunders has been the Chief of the TPS since 2015. The Honourable Bill Blair was the Chief of the TPS between 2005 and 2015.
In 2009, then-Chief Blair acknowledged that racial bias exists within the Toronto Police.[40] A goal of TPS’s 2013 Police and Community Engagement Review (PACER) Report was to “assess and address issues of racial profiling and bias in community engagements (at both the individual and systemic levels) to enable the delivery of bias-free police services.” The report further stated that “effectively addressing and eliminating bias in policing has arguably been one of the most challenging and important undertakings in the history of the Service.”[41]
The OHRC acknowledges that the TPS has implemented a number of initiatives between January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2017 to address racial discrimination and racial profiling of Black people, including PACER. The OHRC will analyze these initiatives in its final report.
The TPSB is a civilian board that oversees how policing is provided in Toronto. It is responsible for the “provision of adequate and effective police services.” It has the authority to set objectives and priorities, establish policies for the effective management of the police force, and direct the Chief of Police and monitor his performance. [42]
Like police officers and the Chief, the TPSB is required to provide a service environment free of discrimination. The Chief and the TPSB are jointly liable for the discriminatory actions of TPS officers and have a joint responsibility for compliance with the Code.[43]
Dr. Alok Mukherjee was the Chair of the TPSB between 2005 and 2015. Andy Pringle has been the Chair of the TPSB since Dr. Mukherjee’s retirement in 2015. Mayor John Tory is also a member of the TPSB.
In 2016, the Transformation Task Force, co-chaired by Chief Saunders and Chair Pringle, acknowledged that as Toronto grows, it will continue to “face challenges related not only to crime and social disorder, but also…discrimination [and] systemic racism.”[44]
The OHRC recognizes that the TPSB has implemented a number of initiatives between January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2017 to address racial discrimination and racial profiling of Black people, including a Human Rights Policy. The OHRC will analyze these initiatives in its final report.
In 2017, Toronto City Council adopted[45] the Toronto Action Plan to Confront Anti-Black Racism. Mayor John Tory acknowledged that “[a]nti-Black racism exists in Toronto” and its elimination must be the City’s goal. The plan stated that “Black Torontonians face many disparities related to law enforcement” and “they are disproportionately impacted by racial profiling and over-policing.”[46]
Recommendations and actions in the plan include:[47]
The SIU is a civilian body and arms-length agency of the Ministry of the Attorney General with jurisdiction extending to all police officers in Ontario. The SIU’s mandate is set out in the Police Services Act. Its mandate is to conduct investigations into the circumstances of serious injuries and deaths that may have resulted from criminal offences committed by police officers, including allegations of sexual assault. It has the power to investigate police officers and lay criminal charges if there are reasonable grounds to do so.[48]
“Serious injuries” are defined by the SIU as:
“Serious injuries” shall include those that are likely to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim and are more than merely transient or trifling in nature and will include serious injury resulting from sexual assault. “Serious Injury” shall initially be presumed when the victim is admitted to hospital, suffers a fracture to a limb, rib or vertebrae or to the skull, suffers burns to a major portion of the body or loses any portion of the body or suffers loss of vision or hearing, or alleges sexual assault.[49]
The SIU does not have a mandate to investigate discrimination or officer misconduct. The SIU does not have the authority to investigate alleged violations of the Code or other forms of improper conduct, make findings of discrimination, or lay disciplinary charges for officer misconduct that proceed to a disciplinary hearing.[50]
The OIPRD oversees all public complaints about police in Ontario, and conducts systemic reviews related to public complaints.[51]
Discrimination under the Code is one form of misconduct that can give rise to a public complaint insofar as it is a subset of discreditable conduct.[52]
In April of 2016, Justice Tulloch completed his Independent Police Oversight Review. This review provided a framework that would allow for better monitoring and accountability for systemic discrimination. He recommended that there be, among other things:[53]
He also made several recommendations that more broadly support the principles of transparency and accountability in police oversight, including that:[54]
The Ontario Special Investigations Unit Act, 2018,[55] Policing Oversight Act[56] and Safer Ontario Act[57] codified many of these recommendations.[58] After the provincial election in June 2018, the new Government put implementation of the new laws on hold pending further consultation with stakeholders. In August 2018, the OHRC provided a submission to the new government encouraging timely implementation of the legislative reforms.[59]
Activity |
Date |
OHRC Commissioners approve the inquiry |
March 2017 |
Retain Dr. Scot Wortley from the University of Toronto to provide expert assistance |
March 2017 |
Complete case-law review |
June 2017 |
Send inquiry letters to TPS, TPSB and SIU (see Appendix C) |
June 2017 |
Release of terms of reference (see Appendix B) |
November 2017 |
Publicly launch the inquiry |
November 2017 |
Subsequent requests to the TPS for data and documents |
July 2017 – September 2018 |
Receive and input SIU case information into data collection template |
September 2017 – July 2018 |
Preliminary analysis of SIU data by Dr. Wortley |
July – November 2018 |
Receive data and documents from the TPS |
November 2017 – October 2018 |
Meeting with the TPSB regarding TPS production of data and documents |
January 2018 |
Three meetings with TPS technical staff and TPS Counsel to better understand their data systems and how to link use of force with race and other case-related information |
February and March 2018 |
Receive documents from the TPSB |
September 2017 and April 23, 2018 |
Outreach to Black communities |
Ongoing |
Provide briefings on Interim Report findings to Black community leaders, the SIU, TPS and TPSB, and the Government of Ontario |
October – November 2018 |
Launch Interim Report on the inquiry |
December 10, 2018 |
As part of the inquiry process, the OHRC committed to “receive information from affected individuals, interested groups and organizations.”[60] Recognizing the diversity within Black communities, the OHRC put out a public call for organizations and individuals to discuss their experiences of anti-Black racism involving the TPS. A dedicated phone line and email was set up to receive submissions. On the advice of Black community leaders, the OHRC worked with a number of organizations serving Black communities and/or challenging anti-Black racism to hold focus groups and gather experiences of Black persons with the TPS that fall within the scope of the inquiry.
The OHRC met with approximately 130 individuals from Black communities, including in Malvern, Central Etobicoke, Jane and Finch, and York South-Weston. The majority spoke to the OHRC as part of focus groups that were co-organized with these organizations, which identified and reached out to the participants. The OHRC also arranged further meetings with individuals who wanted to share their stories outside of focus groups. The OHRC’s outreach is ongoing, and it will continue to hold focus groups and interviews and meet with representatives from Black communities, and community and advocacy groups across Toronto.
The OHRC requested a broad range of data and documents from the TPS, TPSB and SIU pertaining to the period between January 1, 2010 and June 30, 2017 (see Appendix C – Inquiry letters). Overall, the OHRC has received data and documents from the TPS, TPSB and SIU that are responsive to our requests. That said, the OHRC expects to seek additional data or documents or question representatives from the TPS, TPSB and/or SIU on matters that are or may be relevant to the inquiry.
The TPS provided some procedures and reports in the early months of the inquiry but took several more months to produce data and other documents. The OHRC began to receive data and documents on an accelerated basis after publicly launching the inquiry and calling upon the TPS to fully cooperate with our inquiry. Data and documents responsive to the OHRC’s requests were supplied in phases and on an ongoing basis (see Appendix D – Status of OHRC requests).
To date, the TPS has not:
The OHRC also met with TPS technical staff and TPS counsel on three occasions in February and March of 2018 to better understand their data systems and how to link use of force with race and other case-related information.
The TPSB produced policies, reports, minutes and other documents that are responsive to the OHRC’s requests (see Appendix D – Status of OHRC requests).
The OHRC received and analyzed about four and half years of SIU data regarding the TPS.
The OHRC requested information from SIU cases that were opened and closed between January 1, 2010 and June 30, 2017 as well as investigations that were ongoing for at least six months as at June 30, 2017. Important information for the analysis prior to January 1, 2013 was not available electronically, so the OHRC restricted its analysis to January 1, 2013 to June 30, 2017. The SIU provided the requested information, except case information from ongoing investigations or cases where the subject officers were before the criminal courts (see Appendix D – Status of OHRC requests). Five cases were before the courts at the time of data collection.
The OHRC retained Dr. Scot Wortley, an Associate Professor at the University of Toronto’s Centre for Criminology and Sociological Studies, to analyze the SIU data. Dr. Wortley’s expertise includes racial profiling and social science methodology. He has been qualified as an expert by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice,[61] Canadian Human Rights Tribunal[62] and Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.[63]
Dr. Wortley analyzed data from two periods: January 1, 2000 to June 6, 2006 and January 1, 2013 to June 30, 2017. The 2000-2006 data was previously collected and coded by Dr. Wortley in 2006 as part of the Ipperwash inquiry.[64] The 2013-2017 data was collected and coded by the OHRC as part of this inquiry.
From 2000-2006 and 2013-2017, much of the information gathered was from SIU Director’s Reports, which provide detailed information on each SIU investigation, including the time, date and location of the incident, characteristics of the civilian or civilians involved, the cause of injury or death, a description of the circumstances surrounding the incident, and the justification behind the Director’s decision to charge subject officers with a criminal offence or clear them of criminal wrongdoing. From 2000-2006 and 2013-2017, the SIU did not provide case information from ongoing investigations or cases where the subject officers were before the criminal courts.
The SIU did not collect race-based data between 2000 and 2006 or between 2013 and 2017. Between 2000 and 2006, race was determined by relying on case photographs, interviews with SIU investigators, SIU investigator notes and/or photographs of the civilian that appeared in the media.
Between 2013 and 2017, race was determined by relying on SIU investigator notes, case photographs, media coverage, social media and/or TPS documents (i.e. officer notes, General Occurrence Reports, TPS charge documents, incident summaries). In the majority of cases (77.4%), race was determined by examining SIU investigator notes and TPS documents. In other words, the OHRC relied extensively on how investigators and officers recorded race (i.e. their perceptions of race). Perceptions of race are at the heart of racial profiling.[65] In a minority of cases, the OHRC had to determine race itself by examining SIU photos (16.5%), media coverage (2.5%) and social media (0.8%). The OHRC acknowledges that there could be a small margin of error. However, as indicated in the Wortley Report, the OHRC employed a “conservative coding strategy” when determining race.
The SIU conducted 246 investigations involving the TPS between 2000 and 2006. However, 59 of these cases were “closed by memo” soon after the files were opened. Investigations are “closed by memo” when, early in investigations, the SIU determines that the civilian injury was not serious enough to meet the threshold for the SIU’s jurisdiction or was not directly caused by police activity. Therefore, the final sample analyzed was 187 completed investigations.
The SIU conducted 319 investigations involving the TPS between 2013 and 2017. However, 75 of these cases were “closed by memo” and not analyzed, leaving 244 completed investigations. The OHRC was not provided with SIU case information for five cases involving subject officers that were before the criminal courts.
Dr. Wortley used population estimates from the 2006 and 2016 censuses to identify the representation of racial groups in SIU investigations from 2000-2006 and 2013-2017 respectively.
For a more detailed explanation of the methodology, see Dr. Wortley’s Preliminary Report Race and Police Use of Force: An Examination of Special Investigations Unit Cases involving the Toronto Police Service (Wortley Report) in Appendix E.
The Wortley Report confirms that Black people are much more likely to have force used against them by the TPS that results in serious injury or death. Black people are “grossly over-represented” in SIU cases that involve police use of force[66] and “little [has] changed” since the early 2000s.
The data is disturbing and raises serious concerns about racial discrimination in use of force.
Dr. Wortley notes that over-representation of Black civilians appeared to increase with seriousness of police conduct. In 2016, Black people made up 8.8% of the Toronto population. However, from 2013-2017, they made up:
These numbers demonstrate that Black people are disproportionately represented in incidents involving TPS use of force that resulted in serious injury or death.
Dr. Wortley also analyzed SIU case-rates, which allow for a direct comparison of the experience of White people and Black people even though the population of White people in Toronto is greater than the population of Black people.[68] Between 2013 and 2017, a Black person was far more likely than a White person to be involved in an incident involving Toronto Police use of force that resulted in serious injury or death. A Black person was:
Regardless of race, most civilians from 2013 to 2017 who were involved in police use of force cases were unarmed (67%) at the time of their encounter with the TPS. Overall, a higher proportion of White people had a weapon in police use of force cases. While a higher proportion of Black people had a gun (8.3% of Black people vs. 3.6% of White people) or a knife (16.7% of Black people vs. 14.7% of White people) in police use of force cases, a higher proportion of White people had a gun (20% of White people vs. 11.1% of Black people) in police shootings.
Although there were more allegations of Black people (41.7%) resisting arrest than White people (25.5%), White people were more likely to have a criminal record (54.5%) and to have allegedly threatened or attacked police (61.8%) than Black people (44.4% – criminal record; 44.4% – threatened or attacked police).
From 2013-2017, according to SIU reports, most civilians (70.4%) were not exhibiting mental health issues at the time of their encounter with the TPS that involved use of force. However, a large proportion of use of force cases involved people exhibiting mental health issues (29.6%).
Dr. Wortley’s analysis suggests that White people are “most often exposed to police use of force when experiencing a mental health crisis.” White people are over-represented in use of force cases where the civilian was exhibiting mental health issues.[69] Like White people, Black people are over-represented in use of force cases where the civilian was exhibiting mental health issues.[70] However, unlike White people, Black people are over-represented in use of force cases in which no mental health issue was noted.[71]
Black males were also significantly over-represented in sexual assault investigations. From 2013 to 2017, Black males were 6.1 times more likely to appear as a complainant in a SIU sexual assault investigation than their presence in the population would predict. They were:
Male complainants alleged that they were sexually assaulted during police frisks or strip searches. This is consistent with comments by the Supreme Court of Canada that “[w]omen and minorities in particular may have a real fear of strip searches and may experience such a search as equivalent to a sexual assault.”[72]
From 2013 to 2017, Black females also were 1.3 times more likely than White females to appear as a complainant in a SIU sexual assault investigation.
TPS officers were cleared of criminal wrongdoing in over 90% of all SIU investigations across both periods, and investigation outcomes did not vary significantly by race. Finally, in a “significant minority” of SIU cases, the SIU Director noted problems with police cooperation. These problems were no more likely when investigating a case involving a Black civilian.
The OHRC also reviewed SIU Director’s Reports for investigations involving Black people from January 1, 2013 to June 30, 2017. These Reports contain an incident narrative and the SIU’s analysis which provide insight into the experiences of members of Black communities during encounters with TPS officers that resulted in serious injury, death or alleged sexual assault. These Reports also describe the experience of the SIU in investigating some of these encounters, and highlight some of the challenges that SIU investigators may face.
The OHRC observed several themes related to the TPS and Black civilians, including the fact that the SIU stated in a number of cases that there was:
The OHRC has not compared the experiences of Black persons described in the SIU Director’s Reports with those of other groups to see whether SIU investigations involving Black persons are more likely to reveal such concerns.
The SIU Director determined that there appeared to be no legal basis for the police to stop and/or detain Black civilians in several cases.[73] For example:
In several cases, the SIU Director questioned the legality of TPS officer searches of Black civilians.[75] For example:
Some SIU investigations involving members of Black communities describe police arresting or charging the civilian, without a proper legal basis.[77] For example:
In many SIU investigations the SIU Director described difficulties in conducting the investigation due to a lack of cooperation by TPS officers. However, as noted in the Wortley Report, it appears that these problems were no more likely when investigating a case involving a Black civilian. Nonetheless, individual cases may still involve possible racial discrimination.
Some of the issues identified related to improper SIU notification by the police. The Police Services Act and regulations require police to immediately notify the SIU of incidents where there is a serious injury or death involving police.[79] However, the SIU Director noted in several investigations involving Black civilians that the police did not notify the SIU, that the notification was delayed, or that there was another problem with the notification, such as misleading content. For example:
Problems with police cooperation were also noted while investigations were underway. The SIU Director raised a variety of issues including witness officers refusing to answer questions, officers not completing notes or destroying them, and police attempting to access security camera footage while a SIU investigation was in progress, all of which contravene regulations under the Police Services Act.[81] For example:
As indicated above, the OHRC met with approximately 130 individuals in Black communities. The majority spoke to the OHRC as part of focus groups that were co-organized by other organizations. These organizations identified and reached out to the participants. A few individuals chose to provide further details about their experiences in private conversations with the OHRC.
The goal of the focus groups was to hear about interactions between members of Black communities and the TPS that fall within the scope of the inquiry. The focus groups covered topics of trust, stop and question practices/carding, aggression/use of force, the impact of race in certain charges and conditions for release, and recommendations to address racial profiling.
The OHRC acknowledges that the responses may not reflect positive interactions that may have taken place with the TPS. However, many participants overwhelmingly felt a sense of mistrust with the TPS. Also, some recounted specific interactions with the TPS and/or experiences of their family and friends that contributed to feelings of fear/trauma, humiliation, lack of trust and expectations of negative police treatment.
Outreach to Black communities has allowed the OHRC to better understand the lived experiences of Black communities and their concerns regarding racial profiling and racial discrimination by the TPS.
We also reviewed decisions of the Courts and the HRTO made between 2010 and 2017 where there were findings of racial discrimination and/or racial profiling, along with decisions of the OIPRD. Examining these cases has been important to understand when and how racial discrimination may occur against Black people by the TPS.
Through our review of case law and community engagement, we have been able to better understand the lived experiences that lay at the heart of Black communities’ concerns about racial profiling and discrimination by the Toronto Police. Themes that have emerged from these engagements include:
Courts and tribunals have heard evidence and made findings of racial profiling and racial discrimination of Black persons by the Toronto Police in stops, questioning and searches. That is, race was a factor in Black people being stopped, questioned and/or searched.
For example, in a civil suit against the TPSB, the Divisional Court determined that a Black man was stopped and searched, among other things, because of his race. He was spotted by two police officers while walking home from prayers in January 2011, and stopped because one of the arresting officers suspected that he was violating bail terms by walking alone, and for potentially having a weapon because his hands were in his pockets.[82] His hands were in his pockets because he did not have gloves and it was cold outside. The officers stopped the man and asked him questions. They testified that he was hostile to police and refused to take his hands out of his pockets. One of the officers, among other things, emptied his pockets and handcuffed him, leaving his hands exposed to the cold for about 20 minutes. He was not charged with any offence.
The trial judge found that the detention was unlawful, the search of his pockets was a breach of his right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be free from unreasonable search, and that his rights were violated when he was not told why he was detained or given his right to counsel upon being detained. The police officers were also found to have lied when the Court questioned them about their behaviour. The Plaintiff was awarded $5,000 in general damages for the battery, $4,000 for the Charter breaches and $18,000 in punitive damages. The trial judge did not find that there was racial profiling, which was appealed. The Divisional Court accepted the appeal and found that there was racial profiling. The Divisional Court increased the damage award to $50,000 for the Charter breaches and $25,000 in punitive damages and stated:[83]
The only reasonable inference to be drawn from the fact that both officers, without any reasonable basis, suspected the Appellant of criminal behaviour, is that their views of the Appellant were coloured by the fact that he was black and by their unconscious or conscious beliefs that black men have a propensity for criminal behaviour. This is the essence of racial profiling.
In this case, the officers' unreasonable beliefs about the Appellant caused them to assault the Appellant, unreasonably search him and forcibly restrain him. In other words, instead of presuming his innocence, they assumed and acted as if he were guilty and dangerous. He must be violating his bail and he must be carrying a gun. These assumptions, for which there is no explanation other than the colour of the Appellant's skin, caused them to blatantly and aggressively violate the Appellant's constitutional rights.
Similarly the Ontario Court of Justice found that a December 2015 traffic stop of a Black man was “aggressive” and “verbally abusive.”[84] The individual was stopped after midnight by two TPS officers for apparently not stopping at a red light before making a right turn from Eglinton Avenue onto Oakwood Avenue. The man then made a left turn into a laneway where he was pulled over. He was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample and breach of probation. The Court acquitted him and found that there were egregious violations of his Charter rights.[85]
With the assistance of dashcam video, the Court found that the police used the Highway Traffic Act stop as a “pretext” to conduct a further investigation. The detention, which began lawfully, became unlawful. One of the officers banged on the man’s car and yelled at him to open the door. The other officer ordered him to exit the car because it was a “high drug area” and threatened to drag him out through the passenger window. The officers failed to ask for his documents or accept the documents he offered. Remaining calm and respectful, he reminded the officers that they should give him a ticket if all that he did was fail to stop at a red light before making a right turn. At one point, the officers walked away from his car. When they returned to the car, one officer stated that she could smell alcohol, yet the window remained closed (the man indicated earlier that it was broken). He refused to provide a breath sample. No drugs or weapons were found in his car.[86]
The Court found it troubling that the officers justified their actions based on the location of the stop:[87]
Every individual is entitled to equal treatment under the law and not be subjected to uneven or heavy handed police tactics based on a stereotypical presumption that all individuals in a certain area must be involved in, or have a connection to criminal activity in the area. It does not matter if the person being investigated is in a neighborhood considered to be affluent and crime-free or an area considered to be high crime.
In our discussions with members of Black communities, the OHRC heard frequent complaints of police officers conducting unnecessary stops, questioning and searches. Most of the people the OHRC spoke to felt that it was because of the colour of their skin.
The OHRC heard about instances where socio-economic status and race may intersect. For example, while driving, Black individuals reported being pulled over more often and questioned by the TPS if they drove a nice car, were in a predominantly White area or had other males in the car.[88]
In other instances, Black individuals reported they were stopped while walking, because they “matched the description” of another suspect.[89]
One Black youth described a 2017 incident where he was running to school, excited for a special event. As he neared the school, he heard sirens when a TPS vehicle pulled up beside him. An officer approached the Black youth and asked him to have a seat on the curb with his hands behind his back. The youth asked the officer why he was stopped and was told that there had been an incident nearby and that he matched the description of the suspect and because he was seen running with his sweater hood up over his head. The officer asked the youth for his information and released him shortly after. The incident took place in full view of the Black youth’s school yard where students were assembled.
I was feeling embarrassed. This is not who I am. This is not who I want to be. After that, people were looking at me different like I was a criminal or some type of thug.[90]
Another individual said he had just come back from watching Macbeth as part of a school trip. While waiting at the bus stop on his way home, a TPS officer drove past him and then made a U-turn to come and speak to him.
…long story short he said there was a robbery across the street and I fit the description...I find it’s always the same thing… I always match the description. They never tell you what the description is. The description is you.[91]
One individual described crossing the street with 15 other individuals approximately two years ago, and being the only one flagged down by the TPS.
I went over and [the officer] said, “Can I have your papers please?” It was the first time since I moved here that someone asked me for my identification papers, except while driving…
He left me there on the sidewalk and went into his car to enter the data… Obviously, he didn’t find anything, because I don’t sell drugs… He came back with a[n] $85 ticket, and that was the first time I heard the word jaywalking… there were other pedestrians doing the same thing but he did not stop any of them.
I was the only one who was stopped, which is why I said, you stopped me because I am Black. [92]
Another individual described an incident four years ago when he was approximately 14 years old. He was running around the neighborhood as part of a game he was playing with his friends when TPS officers stopped and arrested him. According to the individual, the officers thought he had a gun or had stolen something and was trying to run away. They stopped him, arrested him for allegedly having a gun and stealing and eventually let him go. “… They asked for my name and asked me why I was wearing all black.” He was released after he explained he was playing a game with his friends.[93]
In early 2018, on his way home after work, a Black man told us he was stopped and questioned by two TPS officers on the street just outside his workplace. They asked him if he had any “weed” on him. He said no, but then was asked for his identification and to consent to a search. A search of his hoodie, pants and shoes all took place on the sidewalk in full view of onlookers and his work colleagues. He was then let go. On his way home he reported thinking:
… I hope I don’t get stopped again on my way home now. [94]
The OHRC heard about an incident in 2011 where the TPS followed a car with a Black driver and passenger before stopping it. The passenger told us that both of them were detained, searched and questioned by the officers. When the passenger asked why he was being subject to police action, he recalled being told by the officer who detained him “If you don’t shut up, I’m going to punch your teeth in.” He was placed in the back of the police cruiser while the driver was questioned separately. The passenger remembered being asked for his name, birthdate and address, and the officer searching his information on the squad car computer before he and the driver were let go:[95]
I felt captured… they didn’t have the right to pull [us] over, search [or] question. No probable cause… didn’t break [the] Highway Traffic Act… There was nothing wrong with the car…
Finally, one Black youth told the OHRC that he was singled out and subjected to a random search by TPS officers. The officers told the youth they were investigating a report of a robbery in the area. The suspect was allegedly wearing a jacket that was similar to the one the youth was wearing that day. The youth recalled the officer’s hand on his gun throughout his search. The youth told us he was used to incidents like this, and that it was “normal” and just “going to happen.”[96]
There are confirmed court and tribunal findings of racial discrimination in TPS officer use of force.
In Elmardy, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that the plaintiff was punched in the face and forcibly restrained in 2011 because he was Black. The use of force followed the discriminatory stop described above.[97]
In September 2016, a Black man was arrested after he stabbed a man in the cheek in a downtown Toronto restaurant. Once he was arrested, handcuffed, and seated in the back seat of the cruiser, in-car video evidence showed a Toronto Police officer pepper spraying him. He also suffered lacerations to his face after being struck by the officer’s baton during the arrest.[98]
The Ontario Court of Justice concluded that the officer used excessive force; the video evidence showed clear “police brutality” and the facial strikes with the baton were not necessary to effect the arrest. The Court stayed the charges of assault police, possession of a knife, possession of cocaine, and uttering threats as a result of the excessive force and its significant harm.[99] The man was found guilty of assault with a weapon and threatening death because of the incident with the other man.[100]
In April 2018, the Toronto Star released a portion of the in-car camera footage that was presented at his trial. The video shows him crying out in pain, pleading for help, saying he cannot breathe, and asking the officers if he is going to die.[101]
In January 2017, officers were caught on video stomping on and tasering a Black man even though it appeared he was not resisting arrest. The incident reportedly began when police received a call about a man spitting at an employee at a homeless shelter in downtown Toronto. Witnesses said the man began punching the officer in the face. When backup arrived, he was placed in the back of a cruiser. According to a TPS spokesperson, he kicked out the window of the cruiser and bit an officer. The spokesperson claimed that the subsequent force used by officers was justified. The man was charged with nine offences.[102]
The video was recorded by a bystander who filed a complaint with the OIPRD. The OIPRD substantiated four allegations of misconduct in its report, including that a Sergeant used excessive force.[103] The OIPRD found:
In 2014, the Ontario Court of Justice found that a Black man committed the following offences: obstruction, impersonation and possession of marijuana.[104] He was arrested because he was intoxicated in a public place in January 2012. He was acquitted of assault police and threatening an officer. With the assistance of video, the Court found that he was the victim of excessive force during booking and in the holding cell of 43 Division in Scarborough. The Court stayed the remaining charges as a result of the serious misconduct committed by the officers.[105]
The Court found that a TPS officer assaulted the man during booking when the officer bent his palm towards his forearm and raised his arm up behind his back and squeezed. It was a deliberate attempt to stop him from complaining about his injured eye to the officer.[106]
The Court held that excessive force was used on the man in his cell by the four officers who took him there, and who colluded and lied in their evidence in an effort to justify their behavior. The officers inappropriately reacted to the man being verbally abusive. One officer grabbed his head twice and pushed it down towards his lap. Three of the officers then leaned into the corner on top of the individual. All four officers assaulted and further injured him in the cell while he was shackled, restrained by both arms, already injured, and defenseless. His injuries were significant. Medical records showed that he had concussive recurring headaches, abrasions and bruising to his head, swelling of his left eye, neck stiffness and cervical strain.[107]
Several individuals the OHRC spoke to believed they were the victim of excessive force by TPS officers.
One person described playing basketball late one night in 2010 or 2011, when he was approached by several TPS officers. The officers shone their flashlights on him and his friends and asked them to explain what they were doing out so late at night. The individual chose not to answer and instead continued to play basketball. He remembered a flashlight being shone in his eyes before he was punched in the jaw by an officer:
I didn’t see it coming at all because I was blinded.[108]
His attempt to fight back was met with a takedown by several officers who punched him, hit his head and brought him to the ground. He said that the officers kicked him, twisted his genitalia and hurt his leg. They handcuffed him and then asked for his information. After approximately 15-20 minutes, the officers let him go and told him to go home. After the incident, he tried to file a report at the police station but was told that his complaint would get thrown out:
I cried and had a whole outburst after that and punched everything. I was crying after they let me go and was walking toward the building and was crying. I never cried before that.
In another incident, a mother described a raid on her house in 2014 where her son was stomped on, his face injured and racial slurs were used by a TPS officer. He was handcuffed and taken to the hospital for medical treatment and was then released without charges. During the raid, another son was grabbed and handcuffed at gunpoint. The officers pulled his pants down, and asked “Where are the guns?” The mother recounted that, when her son responded that there were no guns, he was told that if they found a gun his entire family would go to jail. No weapons were found, no arrests were made, and no charges were laid. All of the sons identify as young Black men.
The family described being severely traumatized. The mother stated:
…It was scary and you got a guy standing there with a big gun stepping on his face and you can’t see how much pressure he’s putting but I can hear [him].
…[the worst part] was seeing [my son] assaulted and not being able to see him afterward – them bringing me down separately to [my other son] and not knowing what was going on upstairs and then [they bring him] down and almost passing out – he was passing out looking pale. Made me feel terrible, terrible, terrible. I was terrified as a mother. Then he was going in an ambulance. I’m thinking he’s in good hands but he was in the hands of the TPS… I could have gone with [him] but I was worried about what was going on in my house with the rest of the boys – that torn feeling like should I go or should I stay based on how out of control it was getting – it was terrifying.
Her son stated:
…I’m still dealing with the back pain that is all stemming from this incident – I still have back pain to this day and I was very athletic and active – since this I haven’t been the same person at all – even my attitude and standing up to the police, I used to do that but I find myself questioning whether I can say anything or am I going to get arrested… I’m still shaking because it’s a traumatic thing…[109]
In R v Thompson, the Court held that the “real reason for the stop was racial profiling.”[110] Justice Hogan concluded that the detentions of the vehicle and a Black man were arbitrary, there were no reasonable and probable grounds on which to base an arrest or search his pocket, he was not advised of the reason for the detention or that he was under arrest, and the force used against the man was unnecessary.[111] The charges for possession of marijuana and failure to comply with a recognizance were dismissed. He was also found not guilty of assaulting a police officer.
The man was a passenger in a car that was stopped by a TPS officer in September 2011. The police officer testified that the car had not signalled when switching lanes, and once he had come in line with the vehicle, he noted the rear passenger was not wearing a seat belt. When stopped, the man came out of the vehicle as the officer got out of his, prompting a physical confrontation. The officer attempted to get his hands out of his pockets and a physical struggle ensued. At some point during the struggle, he was able to free himself from his jacket and fled. The officer subsequently found marijuana in his jacket, and he was later arrested and charged with possession of marijuana and failure to comply with a recognizance along with assaulting a police officer.[112]
Justice Hogan found:[113]
…upon seeing this older vehicle being driven by three young, black males Constable Crawford's immediate conclusion despite the lack of any evidence, was that they were up to something – other than minor HTA violations… it was more probable than not that there was no articulable cause for the stop but that the real reason for the stop was racial profiling.
In one of the OHRC’s outreach sessions, an individual described an incident in 2010 or 2011 when he was driving a group of Black youth who were part of an after-school program that he coordinated. He recalls being followed by a TPS cruiser for a couple of kilometers until his car was stopped. The police checked his license, but also peered into the car and noticed that one of the youth was not wearing a seatbelt. One of the officers opened the door closest to this youth and asked for his identification along with the others in the car. They were all subsequently searched. During this time, a few other TPS cruisers appeared on the scene. In the end, they were all let go and the youth who was not wearing his seatbelt was issued a ticket.[114]
[It] turned into a parade, cop car after cop car. It’s embarrassing… it’s like we were a gang, this big [police stop] was happening, and it was nothing. Just a seatbelt. [115]
Another youth described an incident in grade 10 when he was asked to step outside of class. Two TPS officers were waiting for him and he was arrested and taken away. He was told he was arrested for armed robbery and drug possession. While in custody, he said the police went to search his house, and later realized it was a different person with the “same facial structure.” He told us he kept thinking about his mom…
How she was going to take it, because I didn’t do anything. She’d be stressing and crying. I got to my house and it was messy, and I had to clean it myself.[116]
Racial profiling has a negative impact on Black communities from a historic and social perspective – it reinforces social exclusion and marginalization.[117] Racial profiling also contributes to the over-representation of Black people in the criminal justice system.[118] This reality is grounded in history:
It is a little known fact that Black people were considered “property” well into the 1800s here in Canada. Canada has its own legacy of slavery, notwithstanding Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe’s call in 1792 for an end to its “practice.” A system of slave patrols, sanctioned by the United States Congress’ Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, pursued slaves and monitored Black people in general as far north as Canada.
It is within this historical context that the Black communities’ relationship with the police was formed and initially defined.[119]
Social science research shows that on an individual level, Black people often feel humiliation, fear, anger, frustration and helplessness as a result of perceived racial profiling. Frequent exposure to police stop and search activities can have a negative impact on mental health.[120]
Anti-Black racism has furthered mistrust in police within Black communities, which has profound consequences for the functioning of the justice system and public safety. People with poor perceptions of the justice system are less likely to report crime, cooperate with police investigations and provide testimony in court.[121] As the Divisional Court noted in Elmardy, “racial profiling has a serious impact on the credibility and effectiveness of our police services. It has led to distrust and injustice. It must stop.”[122]
The OHRC heard about some of these same harms in our community engagement. For example, through unnecessary stops, questioning and searches, to the use of excessive force and laying of unnecessary charges, individuals expressed fear, trauma, humiliation, lack of trust and expectations of negative treatment by TPS.
Personal interactions, experiences of friends and family, and high profile incidents have shaped these sentiments. One community organizer observed:
The Dafonte Miller matter affects everyone in the community because it was so egregious and it was hidden and was allowed to be hidden for so long until someone else brought it forward… The thing that happens to the Black community that I’m not sure happens to any other ethno-centric group… [it] is a collective experience – because for sure, someone in your family has experienced some sort of trauma with the police – so it always brings you back to that event… it’s a collective impact that it has…[123]
As indicated earlier, the OHRC heard about anti-Black racism in policing being normalized:
To be honest, it was normal. It’s not heartbreaking, or ‘I can’t believe this just happened’ – It happens. I’ve seen it happen to my friends...[124]
Another youth told the OHRC that it was “normal” and just “going to happen.”[125]
Similarly, at the launch of the inquiry, a HairStory Youth Advisor stated when referring to racial profiling: “I’m tired – I know a lot of people are tired.”[126]
The OHRC’s outreach revealed a lack of trust in the TPS that is a deeply embedded based on personal experiences or the experiences of friends and family:
I would say as a whole I don’t trust the Toronto Police. One reason is a lot of police that police the neighborhoods have never lived in the neighborhoods. They come to police areas that are maybe high priority but I really don’t think they actually care about what’s going on.[127]
One community organizer describing the lack of trust between the TPS and the Black community said:
Right from day one in all community engagements, a theme that keeps coming up with great numbers and volumes is the lack of trust with policing services, and all of the various individual and collective experiences that informed that shared sentiment.[128]
A written submission from a community organization stated:
Negative interactions or lack of trust were identified as coming from perceptions of threat, mistreatment or negative interactions with TPS.
Some participants felt that they would rather endanger themselves if they are being attacked or in need of protection because they feel TPS would not act in a fair or helpful manner (e.g. during a break in). Many participants fear being seen by TPS as the suspect rather than the victim of a crime and ending up being arrested, beaten, shot or forced to make a false confession.[129]
One participant stated:
I think we need to be very careful when we talk about trust, because the police are supposed to ‘serve and protect.’ It’s written on their vehicles. When we ask for information, it’s their job to give it to us. When we are in danger, they’re supposed to protect us. Now, when we’re face to face with a police officer, and the officer mistreats us, where is the trust?[130]
The SIU data the OHRC has analyzed to date as part of our inquiry confirms that Black people are more likely to have force used against them that results in serious injury or death. Together with the other information analyzed, the OHRC has serious concerns about racial profiling and racial discrimination against Black people by the TPS in use of force; stops, questioning and searches; and charges.
The data and information that forms the basis of this Interim Report is disturbing, and calls for an explanation from the TPS and TPSB.
The SIU data confirms the long-standing perception of Black communities that Black people are much more likely to have force used against them by the TPS that results in serious injury or death; the more serious the police conduct and lethal the outcome, the greater the over-representation.
Several accounts of incidents involving Black people investigated by the SIU in Director’s Reports appear to be consistent with racial profiling and/or racial discrimination. The SIU reports reveal a lack of legal basis for police stopping and/or detaining Black civilians in the first place; inappropriate or unjustified searches during encounters; and needless charges or arrests ‒ all point to extra scrutiny and invasive contact with TPS officers. Similar trends emerged in Court, HRTO and OIPRD decisions and in the OHRC’s community outreach.
The information gathered also raises broader concerns about officer misconduct, transparency and accountability. Courts, the OIPRD and the SIU have found that TPS officers have sometimes provided biased and untrustworthy testimony; have inappropriately tried to stop the recording of incidents; and/or have failed to cooperate with the SIU.
The OHRC recognizes that the vast majority of SIU investigations do not result in criminal charges against the subject officer or officers. However, that does not dispose of the OHRC’s concerns or end matters from a human rights perspective for several reasons.
First, the SIU is looking for criminal wrongdoing, not discrimination. The SIU does not have the authority to investigate alleged violations of the Code or other forms of improper conduct; make findings of discrimination; or lay disciplinary charges for officer misconduct that proceed to a disciplinary hearing.[131]
A discrimination analysis instead asks whether the whole interaction between a Black person and police would have unfolded the same way had it been a White person. It considers whether race was one factor in the decision to use force or the amount of force used. It does so using a civil standard of proof, a balance of probabilities, rather than the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. A discrimination analysis also considers whether systemic practices are at play such as “officer deployment, intelligence gathering activities, and stopping people who are perceived to be ‘out of place’ in the neighborhood.”[132]
Second, conduct investigated by the SIU that does not result in laying criminal charges against the officer, can still be consistent with discrimination. In other words, discriminatory police conduct that violates the Code may not necessarily result in criminal charges. For example, a SIU investigation may reveal facts that suggest that an officer’s questioning of a Black person was consistent with racial profiling, but the SIU may find that the interaction evolved to a point that there were reasonable grounds to conclude that the subject officer used force lawfully.[133] In fact, our review of SIU accounts found examples where the SIU noted such concerns with officer conduct, even though criminal charges were not laid against the officer.
Therefore, the fact that the SIU cleared the officers in most investigations does not explain gross over-representation of Black persons in SIU investigations or the many other concerns noted in this report.
The OHRC’s findings call for an explanation from the TPS and TPSB. Organizations need to be proactive in fulfilling their obligations under the Code. They must take steps to both prevent and remedy discrimination, particularly when they are on notice that there may be a problem. The Code “is not solely reactive and complaint-based but ‘intended to transform social relations and institutions to secure substantive equality in practice.’ The requirement to act proactively, monitor… culture and systems, take preventative measures to ensure equality, identify and remove barriers, take positive steps to identify and remedy the adverse effects of practices and policies that appear neutral on their face, is well-documented in the cases and Commission policies.”[134]
The TPS has been aware of the long-standing concerns of Black communities, findings of racial discrimination by the Courts and HRTO and has even gone as far as acknowledging the existence of racial bias within the TPS. The TPS has the required information to compile the quantitative data the OHRC analyzed. The TPSB has the authority to order the TPS to do so.
While the final report will include detailed recommendations, in the interim, the OHRC calls on:
The OHRC will continue to examine quantitative and qualitative data to determine whether and where problem areas exist. The OHRC intends to further analyze the SIU data to see, for example, if there are patterns in use of force incidents that flowed from initial police action that was proactive (e.g. a police stop) or reactive (e.g. a call for service) and to further understand intersections with age, mental health, socio-economic status and sex.
SIU cases account for only a small percentage of use of force incidents involving police. Many serious forms of force do not meet the SIU’s threshold which focuses on the nature of the physical injury to the civilian (e.g. broken bones meet the threshold but severe bruises or lacerations may not). “Lower-level” use of force incidents can still have significant physical and emotional impacts on the person subjected to it. In the next phase of the inquiry, we will look at lower-level use of force incidents involving the TPS.
Ongoing work is necessary for the OHRC to begin analyzing TPS data. Despite repeated calls for the TPS and TPSB to collect and report on race-based data, current TPS data systems are generally not set up to determine the impact of race. Thus, data that would allow us to analyze race generally needs to be linked and compiled. This work will happen in the coming months.
In addition to lower-level use of force incidents, the OHRC will analyze data received on carding, certain charges and arrests, and conditions and forms of release for adults. The OHRC will also take steps to gain access to youth data through a judicial application.
The OHRC will examine the TPS’s and TPSB’s culture, training, policies, procedures and accountability mechanisms.
Finally, the OHRC will continue to engage with Black communities and hold focus groups to gather first-hand accounts within the scope of the inquiry. And while we have heard from some TPS officers, we will continue our efforts to engage with police leaders, officers, associations and organizations. As we know, and acknowledged in Under Suspicion,[136] all perspectives are important in understanding these issues.[137]
All of this work will lead to a final inquiry report, with findings, recommendations and any next steps.
Note: With the exception of Sammy Yatim, all of the victims included below were Black. This is not an exhaustive list of incidents and activities.
The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) is the provincial statutory agency responsible for advancing human rights and preventing systemic discrimination in Ontario. The OHRC has broad powers under the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code) to initiate inquiries in the public interest, monitor and report on human rights issues, and engage in litigation, including by filing applications with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario and intervening in other legal proceedings.
The OHRC’s 2017-2022 Strategic Plan identifies enforcing human rights in the criminal justice system as one of four strategic priorities. The OHRC is working towards ending racial profiling and discrimination in all police practices, increasing human rights accountability in policing and making human rights competence a requirement for the police.
For over a decade, the OHRC has raised concerns about anti-Black racism in policing in Toronto. Carding and other practices that have a disproportionate negative impact on Black persons have eroded trust in police, which is essential to effective policing, and ultimately, public safety.
The OHRC is conducting a public interest inquiry into potential racial profiling of and racial discrimination against Black persons by the Toronto Police Service (TPS). This inquiry is being carried out under the OHRC’s powers pursuant to section 31 of the Code which include but are not limited to:
9. The OHRC will also assess the need to take further steps available to it under the Code to address any issues identified.
June 30, 2017
Tony Loparco
Director
Special Investigations Unit
5090 Commerce Boulevard
Mississauga, Ontario
L4W 5M4
Dear Director Loparco:
RE: Ontario Human Rights Commission Inquiry
For over a decade, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) has raised concerns about anti-Black racism in policing in Toronto. Carding and other practices that have a disproportionate negative impact on Black persons have eroded trust in police, which is essential to effective policing, and ultimately, public safety.
Under the authority of section 31 of the Ontario Human Rights Code (Code) the OHRC is conducting an inquiry into potential racial profiling of, and racial discrimination against, Black persons, including in use of force, by the Toronto Police Service (TPS).
The Special Investigations Unit (SIU) has documents and things that are relevant to this inquiry. Pursuant to subsections 31(7) and 31(8) of the Code (see Appendix ‘A’), the OHRC seeks documents and things from the SIU pertaining to all SIU investigations of TPS officers that were initiated, completed, and closed between January 1, 2010 and June 30, 2017 and ongoing SIU investigations of TPS officers that were commenced on or before December 31, 2016.
The OHRC requests the full and complete investigative file of every case when the SIU:
The full and complete investigative file includes, but is not limited to: notes, statements, photographs, pictures, diagrams, medical records, video recordings, audio recordings and all other documents and things created or acquired by the SIU during the course of its investigation.
The OHRC also requests any SIU letters to the Chief of the TPS, responding letters from the Chief of the TPS, and the full and complete SIU Director’s report.
Under section 31 of the Code (see Appendix ‘A’), the SIU is obligated to produce the above-noted documents and things and provide any assistance that is reasonably necessary, including assistance in using any data storage, processing or retrieval device or system, to produce a document in readable form.
Pursuant to section 31 of the Code, and subsections 38(2), 39(1), and 42(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the OHRC is authorized to receive personal information in an inquiry.
To begin the process of providing the above-noted documents and things and assistance to the OHRC, please have your staff contact Sunil Gurmukh (Counsel, Legal Services and Inquiries - Tel: 416-314-4519) and Reema Khawja (Counsel, Legal Services and Inquiries - Tel: 416-326-9870) by no later than July 21, 2017.
We look forward to working with you and receiving your assistance in accordance with the requirements of the Code. In keeping with the OHRC’s commitment to public accountability and its duties in serving the people of Ontario, this letter and your response may be made public in the future.
Sincerely,
Renu Mandhane, B.A., J.D., LL.M.
Chief Commissioner
cc: Hon. Yasir Naqvi, Attorney General
Hon. Marie-France Lalonde, Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services
Ali Arlani, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Tony Loparco, Director of the Special Investigations Unit
OHRC Commissioners
Inquiries
31. (1) The Commission may conduct an inquiry under this section for the purpose of carrying out its functions under this Act if the Commission believes it is in the public interest to do so. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Conduct of inquiry
(2) An inquiry may be conducted under this section by any person who is appointed by the Commission to carry out inquiries under this section. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Production of certificate
(3) A person conducting an inquiry under this section shall produce proof of their appointment upon request. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Entry
(4) A person conducting an inquiry under this section may, without warrant, enter any lands or any building, structure or premises where the person has reason to believe there may be documents, things or information relevant to the inquiry. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Time of entry
(5) The power to enter a place under subsection (4) may be exercised only during the place’s regular business hours or, if it does not have regular business hours, during daylight hours. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Dwellings
(6) A person conducting an inquiry under this section shall not enter into a place or part of a place that is a dwelling without the consent of the occupant. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Powers on inquiry
(7) A person conducting an inquiry may,
(a) request the production for inspection and examination of documents or things that are or may be relevant to the inquiry;
(b) upon giving a receipt for it, remove from a place documents produced in response to a request under clause (a) for the purpose of making copies or extracts;
(c) question a person on matters that are or may be relevant to the inquiry, subject to the person’s right to have counsel or a personal representative present during such questioning and exclude from the questioning any person who may be adverse in interest to the inquiry;
(d) use any data storage, processing or retrieval device or system used in carrying on business in the place in order to produce a document in readable form;
(e) take measurements or record by any means the physical dimensions of a place;
(f) take photographs, video recordings or other visual or audio recordings of the interior or exterior of a place; and
(g) require that a place or part thereof not be disturbed for a reasonable period of time for the purposes of carrying out an examination, inquiry or test. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Written demand
(8) A demand that a document or thing be produced must be in writing and must include a statement of the nature of the document or thing required. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Assistance
(9) A person conducting an inquiry may be accompanied by any person who has special, expert or professional knowledge and who may be of assistance in carrying out the inquiry. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Use of force prohibited
(10) A person conducting an inquiry shall not use force to enter and search premises under this section. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Obligation to produce and assist
(11) A person who is requested to produce a document or thing under clause (7) (a) shall produce it and shall, on request by the person conducting the inquiry, provide any assistance that is reasonably necessary, including assistance in using any data storage, processing or retrieval device or system, to produce a document in readable form. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Return of removed things
(12) A person conducting an inquiry who removes any document or thing from a place under clause (7) (b) shall,
(a) make it available to the person from whom it was removed, on request, at a time and place convenient for both that person and the person conducting the inquiry; and
(b) return it to the person from whom it was removed within a reasonable time. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Admissibility of copies
(13) A copy of a document certified by a person conducting an inquiry to be a true copy of the original is admissible in evidence to the same extent as the original and has the same evidentiary value. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Obstruction
(14) No person shall obstruct or interfere with a person conducting an inquiry under this section. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Section Amendments with date in force (d/m/y)
2006, c. 30, s. 4 - 30/06/2008
Search warrant
31.1 (1) The Commission may authorize a person to apply to a justice of the peace for a warrant to enter a place and conduct a search of the place if,
(a) a person conducting an inquiry under section 31 has been denied entry to any place or asked to leave a place before concluding a search;
(b) a person conducting an inquiry under section 31 made a request for documents or things and the request was refused; or
(c) an inquiry under section 31 is otherwise obstructed or prevented. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Same
(2) Upon application by a person authorized under subsection (1) to do so, a justice of the peace may issue a warrant under this section if he or she is satisfied on information under oath or affirmation that the warrant is necessary for the purposes of carrying out the inquiry under section 31. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Powers
(3) A warrant obtained under subsection (2) may authorize a person named in the warrant, upon producing proof of his or her appointment,
(a) to enter any place specified in the warrant, including a dwelling; and
(b) to do any of the things specified in the warrant. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Conditions on search warrant
(4) A warrant obtained under subsection (2) shall contain such conditions as the justice of the peace considers advisable to ensure that any search authorized by the warrant is reasonable in the circumstances. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Time of execution
(5) An entry under a warrant issued under this section shall be made at such reasonable times as may be specified in the warrant. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Expiry of warrant
(6) A warrant issued under this section shall name a date of expiry, which shall be no later than 15 days after the warrant is issued, but a justice of the peace may extend the date of expiry for an additional period of no more than 15 days, upon application without notice by the person named in the warrant. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Use of force
(7) The person authorized to execute the warrant may call upon police officers for assistance in executing the warrant and the person may use whatever force is reasonably necessary to execute the warrant. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Obstruction prohibited
(8) No person shall obstruct or hinder a person in the execution of a warrant issued under this section. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Application
(9) Subsections 31 (11), (12) and (13) apply with necessary modifications to an inquiry carried out pursuant to a warrant issued under this section. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
June 30, 2017
Mark Saunders
Chief
Toronto Police Service
40 College Street
Toronto, ON M5G 2J3
Andrew Pringle
Chair
Toronto Police Services Board
40 College Street
Toronto, ON M5G 2J3
Dear Chief Saunders and Chair Pringle:
RE: Ontario Human Rights Commission Inquiry
For over a decade, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) has raised concerns about anti-Black racism in policing in Toronto. Carding and other practices that have a disproportionate negative impact on Black persons have eroded trust in police, which is essential to effective policing, and ultimately, public safety. Our shared values of public trust and safety depend on a new and progressive approach, grounded in the principles in Ontario’s Human Rights Code (Code) and accountability for racial discrimination.
Under the authority of section 31 of Code, the OHRC is conducting an inquiry into potential racial profiling of, and racial discrimination against, Black persons by the Toronto Police Service (TPS).
Pursuant to subsections 31(7) and 31(8) of the Code (see Appendix ‘A’), the OHRC requests that the TPS and/or Toronto Police Services Board (TPSB) produce documents and things itemized in numbers 1-14 below pertaining to the period between January 1, 2010 and June 30, 2017.
The OHRC’s request includes data that may be held in, but not limited to, the following databases: Criminal Injuries Processing System (CIPS), Field Information Report (FIR), and Versadex. Data requested should be produced in Microsoft Access and linked such that:
The OHRC requests that the TPS and/or TPSB produce the following documents and things:
Pursuant to section 31 of the Code, subsections 38(2) and 39(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and section 32 of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the OHRC is authorized to receive personal information in an inquiry. We will work with you to address any issues raised by production of personal information covered by the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
Under section 31 of the Code, the TPS and TPSB are obligated to produce the above-noted documents and things and provide any assistance that is reasonably necessary, including assistance in using any data storage, processing or retrieval device or system, to produce a document in readable form.
To begin the process of providing assistance and the above-noted documents and things to the OHRC in a suitable format, please have your staff contact Sunil Gurmukh (Counsel, Legal Services and Inquiries - Tel: 416-314-4519) and Reema Khawja (Counsel, Legal Services and Inquiries - Tel: 416-326-9870), by no later than July 21, 2017.
We look forward to working with you and receiving your assistance in accordance with the requirements of the Code. In keeping with the OHRC’s commitment to public accountability and its duties in serving the people of Ontario, this letter and your response may be made public in the future.
Sincerely,
Renu Mandhane, B.A., J.D., LL.M.
Chief Commissioner
cc: Hon. Yasir Naqvi, Attorney General
Hon. Marie-France Lalonde, Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services
Ali Arlani, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Tony Loparco, Director of the Special Investigations Unit
OHRC Commissioners
Inquiries
31. (1) The Commission may conduct an inquiry under this section for the purpose of carrying out its functions under this Act if the Commission believes it is in the public interest to do so. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Conduct of inquiry
(2) An inquiry may be conducted under this section by any person who is appointed by the Commission to carry out inquiries under this section. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Production of certificate
(3) A person conducting an inquiry under this section shall produce proof of their appointment upon request. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Entry
(4) A person conducting an inquiry under this section may, without warrant, enter any lands or any building, structure or premises where the person has reason to believe there may be documents, things or information relevant to the inquiry. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Time of entry
(5) The power to enter a place under subsection (4) may be exercised only during the place’s regular business hours or, if it does not have regular business hours, during daylight hours. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Dwellings
(6) A person conducting an inquiry under this section shall not enter into a place or part of a place that is a dwelling without the consent of the occupant. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Powers on inquiry
(7) A person conducting an inquiry may,
(a) request the production for inspection and examination of documents or things that are or may be relevant to the inquiry;
(b) upon giving a receipt for it, remove from a place documents produced in response to a request under clause (a) for the purpose of making copies or extracts;
(c) question a person on matters that are or may be relevant to the inquiry, subject to the person’s right to have counsel or a personal representative present during such questioning and exclude from the questioning any person who may be adverse in interest to the inquiry;
(d) use any data storage, processing or retrieval device or system used in carrying on business in the place in order to produce a document in readable form;
(e) take measurements or record by any means the physical dimensions of a place;
(f) take photographs, video recordings or other visual or audio recordings of the interior or exterior of a place; and
(g) require that a place or part thereof not be disturbed for a reasonable period of time for the purposes of carrying out an examination, inquiry or test. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Written demand
(8) A demand that a document or thing be produced must be in writing and must include a statement of the nature of the document or thing required. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Assistance
(9) A person conducting an inquiry may be accompanied by any person who has special, expert or professional knowledge and who may be of assistance in carrying out the inquiry. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Use of force prohibited
(10) A person conducting an inquiry shall not use force to enter and search premises under this section. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Obligation to produce and assist
(11) A person who is requested to produce a document or thing under clause (7) (a) shall produce it and shall, on request by the person conducting the inquiry, provide any assistance that is reasonably necessary, including assistance in using any data storage, processing or retrieval device or system, to produce a document in readable form. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Return of removed things
(12) A person conducting an inquiry who removes any document or thing from a place under clause (7) (b) shall,
(a) make it available to the person from whom it was removed, on request, at a time and place convenient for both that person and the person conducting the inquiry; and
(b) return it to the person from whom it was removed within a reasonable time. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Admissibility of copies
(13) A copy of a document certified by a person conducting an inquiry to be a true copy of the original is admissible in evidence to the same extent as the original and has the same evidentiary value. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Obstruction
(14) No person shall obstruct or interfere with a person conducting an inquiry under this section. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Section Amendments with date in force (d/m/y)
2006, c. 30, s. 4 - 30/06/2008
Search warrant
31.1 (1) The Commission may authorize a person to apply to a justice of the peace for a warrant to enter a place and conduct a search of the place if,
(a) a person conducting an inquiry under section 31 has been denied entry to any place or asked to leave a place before concluding a search;
(b) a person conducting an inquiry under section 31 made a request for documents or things and the request was refused; or
(c) an inquiry under section 31 is otherwise obstructed or prevented. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Same
(2) Upon application by a person authorized under subsection (1) to do so, a justice of the peace may issue a warrant under this section if he or she is satisfied on information under oath or affirmation that the warrant is necessary for the purposes of carrying out the inquiry under section 31. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Powers
(3) A warrant obtained under subsection (2) may authorize a person named in the warrant, upon producing proof of his or her appointment,
(a) to enter any place specified in the warrant, including a dwelling; and
(b) to do any of the things specified in the warrant. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Conditions on search warrant
(4) A warrant obtained under subsection (2) shall contain such conditions as the justice of the peace considers advisable to ensure that any search authorized by the warrant is reasonable in the circumstances. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Time of execution
(5) An entry under a warrant issued under this section shall be made at such reasonable times as may be specified in the warrant. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Expiry of warrant
(6) A warrant issued under this section shall name a date of expiry, which shall be no later than 15 days after the warrant is issued, but a justice of the peace may extend the date of expiry for an additional period of no more than 15 days, upon application without notice by the person named in the warrant. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Use of force
(7) The person authorized to execute the warrant may call upon police officers for assistance in executing the warrant and the person may use whatever force is reasonably necessary to execute the warrant. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Obstruction prohibited
(8) No person shall obstruct or hinder a person in the execution of a warrant issued under this section. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
Application
(9) Subsections 31 (11), (12) and (13) apply with necessary modifications to an inquiry carried out pursuant to a warrant issued under this section. 2006, c. 30, s. 4.
From: CCO Mail
Sent: July-06-17 2:06 PM
To: 'Mark Saunders'; 'TPSB Board'
Cc: 'Yasir Naqvi'; 'Marie-France Lalonde'; 'Ali Arlani; 'Tony Loparco'; COMMISSIONERS
Subject: RE: Ontario Human Rights Commission Inquiry
Dear Chief Saunders and Chair Pringle:
The OHRC’s letter dated June 30, 2017 mistakenly refers to the “Criminal Injuries Processing System”. It should have referred to the “Criminal Information Processing System”.
My apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused.
Sincerely,
Renu Mandhane B.A., J.D., LL.M.
Chief Commissioner
Office of the Chief Commissioner
Ontario Human Rights Commission
180 Dundas Street West, Suite 900,
Toronto, ON M7A 2R9
From: CCO Mail
Sent: June-30-17 10:00 AM
To: 'Mark Saunders'; 'TPSB Board'
Cc: 'Yasir Naqvi'; 'Marie-France Lalonde'; 'Ali Arlani; 'Tony Loparco'; COMMISSIONERS
Subject: Ontario Human Rights Commission Inquiry
Dear Chief Saunders and Chair Pringle,
Please see letter attached.
Sincerely,
Renu Mandhane B.A., J.D., LL.M.
Chief Commissioner
Office of the Chief Commissioner
Ontario Human Rights Commission
180 Dundas Street West, Suite 900,
Toronto, ON M7A 2R9
OHRC request |
OHRC request date |
SIU response |
SIU response date |
The full investigative files of TPS officers that were initiated, completed, and closed between January 1, 2010 and June 30, 2017 and ongoing SIU investigations of TPS officers that were commenced on or before December 31, 2016 |
June 30, 2017 |
The OHRC received information from investigative files (with the exception of cases before the courts and active investigations) electronically for cases initiated, completed and closed between 2013 and 2017. |
The OHRC received the information on an ongoing basis between September 2017 and July 2018 |
OHRC request |
OHRC request date |
TPSB response |
TPSB response date |
1. Policies, procedures, orders, training materials and other documents and things from January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2017, including any updates made during this period, that provide guidance on:
2. Documents and things from January 1, 2010 to June 30, 2017 that may evaluate TPS and/or TPSB anti-racism initiatives in service delivery |
June 30, 2017 |
The TPSB provided relevant policies, reports, minutes and other documents in its possession. |
September 5, 2017 and April 23, 2018 |
OHRC request or modified request |
OHRC request date |
TPS response |
TPS response date |
|
June 30, 2017 |
The TPS provided relevant documents in its possession.
The TPS provided written descriptions of the variables and value codes regarding the data produced to date. |
December 18, 2017 and February 27, 2018
September 4, 2018 |
|
June 30, 2017 |
The OHRC received adult carding data between January 1, 2010 and November 6, 2013. The OHRC received adult carding data between November 6, 2013 and June 30, 2018. |
February 1, 2018 September 4, 2018 |
|
June 30, 2017 |
||
|
November 8, 2017 |
The OHRC received Use of Force Reports from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017. |
December 18, 2017 |
|
March 8, 2018 |
The OHRC received January 1, 2015 – June 30, 2017 Illness/Injury Reports. |
April 11, 2018 |
|
July 25, 2018 |
The OHRC received the General Occurrence Reports corresponding to the Injury Reports from January 1, 2015 to June 30, 2017. |
September 4, 2018 |
|
June 30, 2017 |
The TPS provided documents that included its use of force procedures, reports to the TPSB on access to historical carding data from the first two quarters of 2017, and the Chief’s 2012 Internal Organizational Review related to carding. The TPS advised the OHRC how carding data was viewable. |
December 18, 2017, February 9, 2018, October 2, 2018 |
|
June 30, 2017 |
The OHRC received adult charge, arrest and release data. |
February 1, 2018 |
|
June 30, 2017 |
The TPS provided relevant documents in its possession. |
February 27, March 6, April 27, 2018 |
|
July 25, 2018 |
The OHRC received these documents. |
September 2, 2018 |
|
June 30, 2017 |
The TPS did not provide these documents as a result of its resources. |
December 18, 2017 |
|
July 25, 2018 |
The TPS provided relevant documents regarding the following divisions: 11-14, 22, 23, 31-33, 41-43, 53-55 |
September 2, 2018 |
|
June 30, 2017 |
The TPS provided, among other things, reports on community focus groups held for the TPS, signed research agreements with external parties and materials related to the Project Charter. |
December 18, 2017; February 9 and 27, 2018 |
|
June 30, 2017 |
The TPS refused to provide any disciplinary information that arises under Part V of the Police Services Act. The TPS did provide Business Plans, Service Performance Reports, Project Charter documents and the DiversiPro report on intercultural competence. |
December 17, 2017
February 9, 2018 |
Aggregated data by year between 2010 and 2017 on the number of officers who were found by the TPS to have engaged in racial profiling, racial discrimination or racial harassment as a result of findings of racial profiling or racial discrimination in decisions of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, civil courts, and criminal courts A summary of the range of disciplinary actions taken by the TPS in relation to the officers above without revealing information about the officers |
July 25, 2018 |
The TPS provided responsive information. |
October 2, 2018 |
|
July 25, 2018 |
The TPS asked for a list of officer names. The OHRC provided this list on September 6, 2018. |
September 2, 2018 |
|
June 30, 2017 |
The TPS sent its strategy management environmental scans between 2010 and 2013. |
December 17, 2017 |
|
June 30, 2017 |
The TPS provided crime rates and crime counts by patrol zone for crimes against persons and property. The TPS provided instructions on how to use its TPS Crime App. |
November 17, 2017
March 6, 2018 |
TABLE A: How race of complainant was identified, SIU Investigations,
2000-2006 and 2013-2017 Study Periods
Method of Racial Identification |
2000-2006 Study Period |
2013-2017 Study Period |
||
Number |
Percent |
Number |
Percent |
|
SIU Photos |
112 |
59.9 |
16 |
16.5 |
SIU Investigator Notes |
23 |
12.3 |
75 |
30.7 |
Discussions with SIU Investigators |
18 |
9.6 |
0 |
0.0 |
TPS Documents |
0 |
0.0 |
114 |
46.7 |
Media Coverage |
8 |
4.3 |
6 |
2.5 |
Social Media |
0 |
0.0 |
2 |
0.8 |
Race not Identified |
26 |
13.9 |
31 |
12.7 |
Sample Size |
187 |
100.0 |
244 |
100.0 |
*Note: My analysis of TPS street check data, for example, reveals inconsistent coding of Black and Brown individuals by TPS officers. For example, the same individual might be labelled “Black” during some street checks, but “Brown” during others. We did not observe such inconsistencies with respect to White civilians. Furthermore, we also found that immigrants from North Africa (Somalia, Ethiopia, etc.), most of whom identify as Black or African, were often labelled “Brown” by TPS officers. |
TABLE ONE:
Total SIU investigations involving the Toronto Police Service, by race of civilian, January 1st, 2000 to June 6th, 2006
Racial Group |
Population Estimate |
Percent of Population |
Number of SIU Investigations |
Percent of SIU Investigations |
Odds Ratio |
SIU Investigation Rate (per 100,000) |
White |
1,327,151 |
53.0 |
79 |
42.2 |
0.79 |
5.95 |
Black |
208,555 |
8.3 |
57 |
30.5 |
3.67 |
27.33 |
Other Minority |
967,675 |
38.7 |
25 |
13.5 |
0.35 |
2.58 |
Unknown |
---- |
---- |
26 |
13.9 |
---- |
---- |
TOTAL |
2,503,381 |
100.0 |
187 |
100.0 |
---- |
7.47 |
TABLE TWO:
Total SIU Investigations involving the Toronto Police Service, by race of civilian, January 1st, 2013 to June 30th, 2017
Racial Group |
Population Estimate |
Percent of Population |
Number of SIU Investigations |
Percent of SIU Investigations |
Odds Ratio |
SIU Investigation Rate (per 100,000) |
White |
1,322,656 |
48.4 |
108 |
44.3 |
0.91 |
8.17 |
Black |
239,850 |
8.8 |
62 |
25.4 |
2.89 |
25.65 |
Other Minority |
1,169,065 |
42.8 |
43 |
17.6 |
0.41 |
3.68 |
Unknown |
---- |
---- |
31 |
12.7 |
---- |
---- |
TOTAL |
2,731,571 |
100.0 |
244 |
100.0 |
---- |
8.93 |
TABLE THREE:
Cause of civilian harm, as determined by SIU investigations, 2000-2006 and 2013-2017 study periods
Cause of Civilian Harm |
2000-2006 |
2013-2017 |
||
Number |
Percent |
Number |
Percent |
|
Harm not caused by Police |
44 |
23.5 |
52 |
21.3 |
Traffic Accident |
43 |
23.0 |
31 |
12.7 |
Sexual Assault |
14 |
7.5 |
36 |
14.8 |
Police Use of Force |
62 |
33.2 |
100 |
41.0 |
Police Shooting |
24 |
12.8 |
25 |
10.2 |
TOTAL |
187 |
100.0 |
244 |
100.0 |
TABLE FOUR:
SIU investigations involving the Toronto Police Service in which civilian injuries were determined not to be caused by the police, by race of civilian, January 1st, 2000 to June 6th, 2006
Racial Group |
Population Estimate |
Percent of Population |
Number of SIU Investigations |
Percent of SIU Investigations |
Odds Ratio |
SIU Investigation Rate (per 100,000) |
White |
1,327,151 |
53.0 |
15 |
34.1 |
0.64 |
1.13 |
Black |
208,555 |
8.3 |
10 |
22.7 |
2.73 |
4.79 |
Other Minority |
967,675 |
38.7 |
12 |
27.3 |
0.71 |
1.24 |
Unknown |
---- |
---- |
7 |
15.9 |
---- |
---- |
TOTAL |
2,503,381 |
100.0 |
44 |
100.0 |
---- |
1.76 |
TABLE FIVE:
SIU investigations involving the Toronto Police Service in which civilian injuries were determined not to be caused by the police, by race of civilian, January 1st, 2013 to June 30th, 2017
Racial Group |
Population Estimate |
Percent of Population |
Number of SIU Investigations |
Percent of SIU Investigations |
Odds Ratio |
SIU Investigation Rate (per 100,000) |
White |
1,322,656 |
48.4 |
26 |
50.0 |
1.03 |
1.96 |
Black |
239,850 |
8.8 |
11 |
21.2 |
2.41 |
4.59 |
Other Minority |
1,169,065 |
42.8 |
7 |
13.5 |
0.32 |
0.60 |
Unknown |
---- |
---- |
8 |
15.4 |
---- |
---- |
TOTAL |
2,731,571 |
100.0 |
52 |
100.0 |
---- |
1.90 |
TABLE SIX:
SIU investigations of the Toronto Police Service involving traffic accidents (including accidents caused by police pursuits), by race of civilian, January 1st, 2000 to June 6th, 2006
Racial Group |
Population Estimate |
Percent of Population |
Number of SIU Investigations |
Percent of SIU Investigations |
Odds Ratio |
SIU Investigation Rate (per 100,000) |
White |
1,327,151 |
53.0 |
12 |
27.9 |
0.53 |
0.90 |
Black |
208,555 |
8.3 |
11 |
25.6 |
3.08 |
5.27 |
Other Minority |
967,675 |
38.7 |
8 |
18.6 |
0.48 |
0.83 |
Unknown |
---- |
---- |
12 |
27.9 |
---- |
---- |
TOTAL |
2,503,381 |
100.0 |
43 |
100.0 |
---- |
1.72 |
TABLE SEVEN:
SIU investigations of the Toronto Police Service involving traffic accidents (including accidents caused by police pursuits), by race of civilian, January 1st, 2013 to June 30th, 2017
Racial Group |
Population Estimate |
Percent of Population |
Number of SIU Investigations |
Percent of SIU Investigations |
Odds Ratio |
SIU Investigation Rate (per 100,000) |
White |
1,322,656 |
48.4 |
11 |
35.5 |
0.73 |
0.83 |
Black |
239,850 |
8.8 |
4 |
12.9 |
1.47 |
1.67 |
Other Minority |
1,169,065 |
42.8 |
2 |
6.5 |
0.15 |
0.17 |
Unknown |
---- |
---- |
14 |
45.2 |
---- |
---- |
TOTAL |
2,731,571 |
100.0 |
31 |
100.0 |
---- |
1.13 |
TABLE EIGHT:
SIU investigations of the Toronto Police Service involving allegations of sexual assault, by race of civilian, January 1st, 2000 to June 6th, 2006
Racial Group |
Population Estimate |
Percent of Population |
Number of SIU Investigations |
Percent of SIU Investigations |
Odds Ratio |
SIU Investigation Rate (per 100,000) |
White |
1,327,151 |
53.0 |
9 |
64.3 |
1.21 |
0.68 |
Black |
208,555 |
8.3 |
3 |
21.4 |
2.58 |
1.44 |
Other Minority |
967,675 |
38.7 |
2 |
14.3 |
0.37 |
0.21 |
Unknown |
---- |
---- |
0 |
0.0 |
---- |
---- |
TOTAL |
2,503,381 |
100.0 |
14 |
100.9 |
---- |
0.56 |
TABLE NINE:
SIU Investigations of the Toronto Police Service involving allegations of sexual assault, by race of civilian, January 1st, 2013 to June 30th, 2017
Racial Group |
Population Estimate |
Percent of Population |
Number of SIU Investigations |
Percent of SIU Investigations |
Odds Ratio |
SIU Investigation Rate (per 100,000) |
White |
1,322,656 |
48.4 |
16 |
44.4 |
0.92 |
1.21 |
Black |
239,850 |
8.8 |
11 |
30.6 |
3.48 |
4.57 |
Other Minority |
1,169,065 |
42.8 |
4 |
11.1 |
0.26 |
0.34 |
Unknown |
---- |
---- |
5 |
13.9 |
---- |
---- |
TOTAL |
2,731,571 |
100.0 |
36 |
100.0 |
---- |
1.32 |
TABLE TEN:
SIU investigations of the Toronto Police Service involving police use of force, by race of civilian, January 1st, 2000 to June 6th, 2006
Racial Group |
Population Estimate |
Percent of Population |
Number of SIU Investigations |
Percent of SIU Investigations |
Odds Ratio |
SIU Investigation Rate (per 100,000) |
White |
1,327,151 |
53.0 |
43 |
50.0 |
0.94 |
3.24 |
Black |
208,555 |
8.3 |
33 |
38.4 |
4.63 |
15.82 |
Other Minority |
967,675 |
38.7 |
3 |
3.5 |
0.09 |
0.31 |
Unknown |
---- |
---- |
7 |
8.1 |
---- |
---- |
TOTAL |
2,503,381 |
100.0 |
86 |
100.0 |
---- |
3.43 |
TABLE ELEVEN:
SIU investigations of the Toronto Police Service involving police use of force, by race of civilian, January 1st, 2013 to June 30th, 2017
Racial Group |
Population Estimate |
Percent of Population |
Number of SIU Investigations |
Percent of SIU Investigations |
Odds Ratio |
SIU Investigation Rate (per 100,000) |
White |
1,322,656 |
48.4 |
55 |
44.0 |
0.91 |
4.16 |
Black |
239,850 |
8.8 |
36 |
28.8 |
3.27 |
15.01 |
Other Minority |
1,169,065 |
42.8 |
30 |
24.0 |
0.56 |
2.57 |
Unknown |
---- |
---- |
4 |
3.2 |
---- |
---- |
TOTAL |
2,731,571 |
100.0 |
125 |
100.0 |
---- |
4.58 |
TABLE TWELVE:
SIU Investigations of Toronto Police Service shootings, by race of civilian, January 1st, 2000 to June 6th, 2006
Racial Group |
Population Estimate |
Percent of Population |
Number of SIU Investigations |
Percent of SIU Investigations |
Odds Ratio |
SIU Investigation Rate (per 100,000) |
White |
1,327,151 |
53.0 |
9 |
37.5 |
0.71 |
0.68 |
Black |
208,555 |
8.3 |
13 |
54.2 |
6.53 |
6.23 |
Other Minority |
967,675 |
38.7 |
2 |
8.3 |
0.21 |
0.21 |
Unknown |
---- |
---- |
0 |
0/0 |
---- |
---- |
TOTAL |
2,503,381 |
100.0 |
24 |
100.0 |
---- |
0.96 |
TABLE THIRTEEN:
SIU Investigations of the Toronto Police Service shootings, by race of civilian, January 1st, 2013 to June 30th, 2017
Racial Group |
Population Estimate |
Percent of Population |
Number of SIU Investigations |
Percent of SIU Investigations |
Odds Ratio |
SIU Investigation Rate (per 100,000) |
White |
1,322,656 |
48.4 |
10 |
40.0 |
0.83 |
0.76 |
Black |
239,850 |
8.8 |
9 |
36.0 |
4.09 |
3.75 |
Other Minority |
1,169,065 |
42.8 |
6 |
24.0 |
0.56 |
0.51 |
Unknown |
---- |
---- |
0 |
0.0 |
---- |
---- |
TOTAL |
2,731,571 |
100.0 |
25 |
100.0 |
---- |
0.91 |
TABLE FOURTEEN:
SIU Investigations of civilian deaths caused by police use of force, by race of civilian, Toronto Police Service, January 1st, 2000 to June 6th, 2006
Racial Group |
Population Estimate |
Percent of Population |
Number of SIU Investigations |
Percent of SIU Investigations |
Odds Ratio |
SIU Investigation Rate (per 100,000) |
White |
1,327,151 |
53.0 |
7 |
46.6 |
0.88 |
0.53 |
Black |
208,555 |
8.3 |
7 |
46.6 |
5.61 |
3.36 |
Other Minority |
967,675 |
38.7 |
1 |
6.7 |
0.17 |
0.10 |
Unknown |
---- |
---- |
0 |
0.0 |
---- |
---- |
TOTAL |
2,503,381 |
100.0 |
15 |
100/0 |
---- |
0.60 |
TABLE FIFTEEN:
SIU Investigations of civilian deaths caused by police use of force, by race of civilian, Toronto Police Service, January 1st, 2013 to June 30th, 2017
Racial Group |
Population Estimate |
Percent of Population |
Number of SIU Investigations |
Percent of SIU Investigations |
Odds Ratio |
SIU Investigation Rate (per 100,000) |
White |
1,322,656 |
48.4 |
4 |
30.8 |
0.64 |
0.30 |
Black |
239,850 |
8.8 |
8 |
61.5 |
6.99 |
3.34 |
Other Minority |
1,169,065 |
42.8 |
1 |
7.7 |
0.18 |
0.09 |
Unknown |
---- |
---- |
0 |
0.0 |
---- |
---- |
TOTAL |
2,731,571 |
100.0 |
13 |
100/0 |
---- |
0.48 |
TABLE SIXTEEN:
SIU investigations of civilian deaths caused by police shootings, by race of civilian, Toronto Police Service, January 1st, 2000 to June 6th, 2006
Racial Group |
Population Estimate |
Percent of Population |
Number of SIU Investigations |
Percent of SIU Investigations |
Odds Ratio |
SIU Investigation Rate (per 100,000) |
White |
1,327,151 |
53.0 |
1 |
11.1 |
0.21 |
0.07 |
Black |
208,555 |
8.3 |
7 |
77.8 |
9.37 |
3.36 |
Other Minority |
967,675 |
38.7 |
1 |
11.1 |
0.29 |
0.10 |
Unknown |
---- |
---- |
0 |
0.0 |
---- |
---- |
TOTAL |
2,503,381 |
100.0 |
9 |
100.0 |
---- |
0.36 |
TABLE SEVENTEEN:
SIU investigations of civilian deaths caused by police shootings, by race of civilian, Toronto Police Service, January 1st, 2013 to June 30th, 2017
Racial Group |
Population Estimate |
Percent of Population |
Number of SIU Investigations |
Percent of SIU Investigations |
Odds Ratio |
SIU Investigation Rate (per 100,000) |
White |
1,322,656 |
48.4 |
2 |
20.0 |
0.41 |
0.15 |
Black |
239,850 |
8.8 |
7 |
70.0 |
7.95 |
2.92 |
Other Minority |
1,169,065 |
42.8 |
1 |
10.0 |
0.23 |
0.09 |
Unknown |
---- |
---- |
0 |
---- |
---- |
---- |
TOTAL |
2,731,571 |
100.0 |
10 |
100.0 |
---- |
0.37 |
TABLE EIGHTEEN:
Civilian actions at the time of police encounter (as concluded by the SIU), SIU use of force investigations, Toronto Police Service, 2000 to 2006
Civilian Actions At Time of Incident |
White |
Black |
Other Minority |
Race Unknown |
Threatened or Attacked Police |
39.5 |
36.4 |
66.7 |
57.1 |
Resisted Arrest |
34.9 |
33.3 |
33.3 |
28.6 |
Flee Police |
9.3 |
18.2 |
0.0 |
14.3 |
Not Determined |
8.1 |
4.7 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
Sample Size |
43 |
33 |
3 |
7 |
TABLE NINETEEN:
Civilian actions at the time of police encounter (as concluded by the SIU), SIU use of force investigations, Toronto Police Service, 2013 to 2017
Civilian Actions At Time of Incident |
White |
Black |
Other Minority |
Race Unknown |
Threatened or Attacked Police |
61.8 |
44.4 |
56.7 |
25.0 |
Resisted Arrest |
25.5 |
41.7 |
20.0 |
50.0 |
Flee Police |
5.5 |
8.3 |
10.0 |
0.0 |
Not Determined |
7.3 |
5.6 |
13.3 |
25.0 |
Sample Size |
55 |
36 |
30 |
4 |
TABLE TWENTY:
Civilian possession of a weapon at the time of police encounter (as concluded by the SIU), SIU use of force investigations, Toronto Police Service, 2000 to 2006
Civilian Weapon At Time of Incident |
White |
Black |
Other Minority |
Race Unknown |
No Weapon |
74.4 |
54.5 |
33.3 |
100.0 |
Gun |
7.0 |
24.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
Knife |
4.7 |
15.2 |
66.7 |
0.0 |
Other Weapon |
14.0 |
6.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
Sample Size |
43 |
33 |
3 |
7 |
Ch-square=22.713; df=9; p > .007
TABLE TWENTY-ONE:
Civilian possession of a weapon at the time of police encounter (as concluded by the SIU), SIU use of force investigations, Toronto Police Service, 2013 to 2017
Civilian Weapon At Time of Incident |
White |
Black |
Other Minority |
Race Unknown |
No Weapon |
63.6 |
66.7 |
70.0 |
100.0 |
Gun |
3.6 |
8.3 |
3.3 |
0.0 |
Knife |
14.5 |
16.7 |
16.7 |
0.0 |
Other Weapon |
18.2 |
8.3 |
10.0 |
0.0 |
Sample Size |
55 |
36 |
30 |
4 |
TABLE TWENTY-TWO:
Civilian possession of a weapon at the time of police encounter (as concluded by the SIU), SIU shooting investigations, Toronto Police Service, 2000 to 2006
Civilian Weapon at Time of Incident |
White |
Black |
Other Minority |
No Weapon |
11.1 |
7.7 |
0.0 |
Gun |
33.3 |
53.8 |
0.0 |
Knife |
22.2 |
23.1 |
100.0 |
Other Weapon |
33.3 |
15.4 |
0.0 |
Sample Size |
9 |
13 |
2 |
TABLE TWENTY-THREE:
Civilian possession of a weapon at the time of police encounter (as concluded by the SIU), SIU shooting investigations, Toronto Police Service, 2013 to 2017
Civilian Weapon at Time Of Incident |
White |
Black |
Other Minority |
No Weapon |
10.0 |
11.1 |
16.7 |
Gun |
20.0 |
11.1 |
16.7 |
Knife |
20.0 |
44.4 |
50.0 |
Other Weapon |
50.0 |
33.2 |
16.7 |
Sample Size |
10 |
9 |
6 |
TABLE TWENTY-FOUR:
Percent of civilians with an existing criminal record at the time of police encounter, by racial group, SIU use of force investigations, Toronto Police Service, 2000 to 2006
Civilian Criminal Record at Time of Incident |
White |
Black |
Other Minority |
Race Unknown |
No Criminal Record |
58.1 |
51.5 |
66.7 |
57.1 |
Criminal Record |
41.9 |
48.5 |
33.3 |
42.9 |
Sample Size |
43 |
33 |
3 |
7 |
TABLE TWENTY-FIVE:
Percent of civilians with an existing criminal record at the time of police encounter, by racial group, SIU use of force investigations, Toronto Police Service, 2013 to 2017
Civilian Criminal Record at Time of Incident |
White |
Black |
Other Minority |
Race Unknown |
No Criminal Record |
45.5 |
55.6 |
66.7 |
75.0 |
Criminal Record |
54.5 |
44.4 |
33.3 |
25.0 |
Sample Size |
55 |
36 |
30 |
4 |
TABLE TWENTY-SIX:
Percent of civilians experiencing a mental health crisis at the time of police encounter, by racial group, SIU use of force Investigations, Toronto Police Service, 2000 to 2006
Mental Health at Time Of Incident |
White |
Black |
Other Minority |
Race Unknown |
No Issues Noted |
62.8 |
69.7 |
66.7 |
57.1 |
Mental Health Issues Noted |
37.2 |
30.3 |
33.3 |
42.9 |
Sample Size |
43 |
33 |
3 |
7 |
TABLE TWENTY-SEVEN:
Percent of civilians experiencing a mental health crisis at the time of police encounter, by racial group, SIU use of force investigations, Toronto Police Service, 2013 to 2017
Mental Health at Time Of Incident |
White |
Black |
Other Minority |
Race Unknown |
No Issues Noted |
56.4 |
83.3 |
80.0 |
75.0 |
Mental Health Issues Noted |
43.6 |
16.7 |
20.0 |
25.0 |
Sample Size |
55 |
36 |
30 |
4 |
TABLE TWENTY-EIGHT:
Percent of civilians who were impaired by drugs or alcohol at the time of police encounter, by racial group, SIU use of force investigations, Toronto Police Service, 2000 to 2006
Impairment at Time of Incident |
White |
Black |
Other Minority |
Race Unknown |
Not Impaired |
55.8 |
87.9 |
66.7 |
71.4 |
Impaired |
44.2 |
12.1 |
33.3 |
28.6 |
Sample Size |
43 |
33 |
3 |
7 |
TABLE TWENTY-NINE:
Percent of civilians who were impaired by drugs or alcohol at the time of police encounter, by racial group, SIU use of force investigations, Toronto Police Service, 2013 to 2017
Impairment at Time Of Incident |
White |
Black |
Other Minority |
Race Unknown |
Not Impaired |
50.9 |
75.0 |
60.0 |
50.0 |
Impaired |
49.1 |
25.0 |
40.0 |
50.0 |
Sample Size |
55 |
36 |
30 |
4 |
TABLE THIRTY:
Outcome of all SIU investigations, by racial group, Toronto Police Service, 2000 to 2006
Case Outcome |
White |
Black |
Other Minority |
Race Unknown |
Officers Cleared (no charges) |
93.7 |
98.2 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Officers Charged |
6.3 |
1.8 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
Sample Size |
79 |
57 |
25 |
26 |
TABLE THIRTY-ONE:
Outcome of all SIU investigations, by racial group, Toronto Police Service, 2013 to 2017
Case Outcome |
White |
Black |
Other Minority |
Race Unknown |
Officers Cleared (no charges) |
96.3 |
98.4 |
95.3 |
100.0 |
Officers Charged |
3.7 |
1.6 |
4.7 |
0.0 |
Sample Size |
108 |
62 |
43 |
31 |
TABLE THIRTY-TWO:
Outcome of SIU use of force investigations, by racial group, Toronto Police Service, 2000 to 2006
Case Outcome |
White |
Black |
Other Minority |
Race Unknown |
Officers Cleared (no charges) |
95.3 |
97.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
Officers Charged |
4.7 |
3.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
Sample Size |
43 |
33 |
3 |
7 |
TABLE THIRTY-THREE:
Outcome of SIU use of force investigations, by racial group, Toronto Police Service, 2013 to 2017
Case Outcome |
White |
Black |
Other Minority |
Race Unknown |
Officers Cleared (no charges) |
96.4 |
97.2 |
93.3 |
100.0 |
Officers Charged |
3.6 |
2.8 |
6.7 |
0.0 |
Sample Size |
55 |
36 |
30 |
4 |
TABLE THIRTY-FOUR:
Percent of all SIU investigations that experienced problems with police cooperation, by racial group, Toronto Police Service, 2000 to 2006
Problems with SIU Investigation |
White |
Black |
Other Minority |
Race Unknown |
No Problems Noted |
86.1 |
89.5 |
84.0 |
76.9 |
Problems Noted |
13.9 |
10.5 |
16.0 |
23.1 |
Sample Size |
79 |
57 |
25 |
26 |
TABLE THIRTY-FIVE:
Percent of all SIU investigations that experienced problems with police cooperation, by racial group, Toronto Police Service, 2013 to 2017
Problems with SIU Investigations |
White |
Black |
Other Minority |
Race Unknown |
No Problems Noted |
91.7 |
90.3 |
93.0 |
90.3 |
Problems Noted |
8.3 |
9.7 |
7.0 |
9.7 |
Sample Size |
108 |
62 |
43 |
31 |
TABLE THIRTY-SIX
Percent of SIU use of force investigations that experienced problems with police cooperation, by racial group, Toronto Police Service, 2000 to 2006
Problems with SIU Investigation |
White |
Black |
Other Minority |
Race Unknown |
No Problems Noted |
79.1 |
84.8 |
100.0 |
85.7 |
Problems Noted |
20.9 |
15.2 |
0.0 |
14.3 |
Sample Size |
43 |
33 |
3 |
7 |
TABLE THIRTY-SEVEN:
Percent of SIU use of force investigations that experienced problems with police cooperation, by racial group, Toronto Police Service, 2013 to 2017
Problems with SIU Investigations |
White |
Black |
Other Minority |
Race Unknown |
No Problems Noted |
89.1 |
83.3 |
93.3 |
100.0 |
Problems Noted |
10.9 |
16.7 |
6.7 |
0.0 |
Sample Size |
55 |
36 |
30 |
4 |
Foster, Lorne, Les Jacobs and Bobby Siu. 2016. Race Data and Traffic Stops in Ottawa, 2013-2015: A Report on Ottawa and the Police Districts. Ottawa: Ottawa Police Service www.ottawapolice.ca/en/news-and-community/Traffic-Stop-Race-Data-Collection-ProjectTSRDCP.asp.
Statistics Canada. 2016. Census Profile, 2016 Census, Toronto, City. Ottawa: https/www12/statscan.gc.ca/.
Wortley, Scot. 2006. Police Use of Force in Ontario: An Examination of Data from the Special Investigations Unit – Final Report. Toronto: Attorney General of Ontario (Ipperwash Inquiry), Government of Ontario.
Wortley, Scot and Akwasi Owusu-Bempah. 2016. “Crime and Justice: The Experiences of Black Canadians.” Pp. 140-167 in Barbara Perry (Ed.) Diversity, Crime and Justice in Canada: 2nd Edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
[1] Jacques Gallant, “SIU’s creation came amidst racially-charged atmosphere,” Toronto Star, (18 April, 2016), online: www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/04/18/sius-creation-came-amidst-racially-charged-atmosphere.html; Ontario, Report of the Independent Police Oversight Review (Ontario: Queen’s Printer, 2017) at 96-97 (Reviewer: The Honourable Michael H. Tulloch) [Tulloch Report].
[2] Ibid.
[3] The OHRC’s Timeline of racial discrimination and racial profiling of Black persons by the Toronto Police Service and OHRC initiatives related to the Toronto Police Service and Toronto Police Services Board for more detail: www.ohrc.on.ca/en/timeline-tps; See Appendix A.
[4] Robin Doolittle, “Racial Bias Exists on Police Force, Chief Says.” Toronto Star, (30 September, 2009), online: www.thestar.com/news/gta/2009/09/30/racial_bias_exists_on_police_force_chief_says.html [Dolittle]
[5] City of Toronto “Action Plan to Confront Anti-Black Racism,” (2018), www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-109127.pdf at Executive Summary and 33-35 [Toronto Action Plan].
[6] Ibid.
[7] Canadian Press “Ontario Human Rights Commission Probing Toronto Police ‘racial profiling’” (Nov 30 2017) online: https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/ontario-human-rights-commission-probing-toronto-police-racial-profiling
[8] The OHRC uses the term “Black communities” to reflect the diversity of Black people in Toronto. “The Greater Toronto Area (GTA) is home to more than 400,000 individuals who self-identify as ‘Black,’ comprising seven percent of the region’s population, and almost half of Canada’s total Black population. Diversity within the Black population is not only related to country of origin, but also to language, religion, socioeconomic status, and time of migration – all of which become evident in cultural variation.” For example, participants of the Black Experience Project expressed “a variety of ethnic or cultural identities, including Caribbean- and African-based identities.” The Black Experience Project In the GTA: Overview Report (July 2017) at 7,31. Online: www.environicsinstitute.org/docs/default-source/project-documents/black-experience-project-gta/black-experience-project-gta---1-overview-report.pdf?sfvrsn=553ba3_2 [Black Experience Project Overview Report].
[9] OHRC Terms of Reference, Inquiry into Racial Discrimination and Racial Profiling of Black Persons by the Toronto Police Service, (30 November, 2017), online: www.ohrc.on.ca/en/terms-reference-tps; See Appendix B [OHRC Terms of Reference].
[10] Human Rights Code, RSO 1990, c H19, s 31 [Code].
[11] Ibid, s 1.
[12] The OHRC currently defines racial profiling as “any action undertaken for reasons of safety, security or public protection that relies on stereotypes about race, colour, ethnicity, ancestry, religion or place of origin – rather than on reasonable suspicion – to single out an individual for greater scrutiny or different treatment.” The OHRC is considering modifying its definition of racial profiling in its forthcoming policy. Ontario Human Rights Commission, Under suspicion: Research and consultation report on racial profiling in Ontario (2017) at 16, online: www.ohrc.on.ca/en/under-suspicion-research-and-consultation-report-racial-profiling-ontario [Under suspicion].
[13] For example, in Nassiah v Peel (Regional Municipality) Services Board, 2007 HRTO 14 (CanLII) at para 134 [Nassiah], the HRTO stated:
…this form of racial discrimination is not the result of isolated acts of individual “bad apples” but part of a systemic bias in many police forces.
In Peart v Peel Regional Police Services, 2006 CanLII 37566 at para 94 (Ont C.A.) [Peart], the Ontario Court of Appeal said:
… racism operates in the criminal justice system…[there] has come an acceptance by the courts that racial profiling occurs and is a day-to-day reality in the lives of those minorities affected by it.
See also R v Golden, 2001 SCC 83 at para. 83; R. v Brown (2003), 64 O.R. (3d) 161 (Ont C.A.) at para. 9 [“Brown”]; R. v R.D.S., [1997] 3 SCR 484 at paras. 46–47 [R.D.S.].
[14] Ontario Human Rights Commission, Submission of the OHRC to the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services on the Strategy for a Safer Ontario (2016) at 21-24, online: www.ohrc.on.ca/en/strategy-safer-ontario-%E2%80%93-ohrc-submission-mcscs [Strategy for a Safer Ontario Submission].
[15] Ontario Human Rights Commission “Strategic Plan 2017 -2022” online: www.ohrc.on.ca/en/ontario-human-rights-commission-strategic-plan-2017-%E2%80%93-2022; Code, supra, s.29.
[16] Resources include:
[17] Submissions include:
[18] Diversity Institute, Ryerson University, Evaluation of the Human Rights Project Charter (2014), online: Ryerson University www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/diversity/reports/HRPC_Report_WEB_2014.pdf.
[19]Toronto Police Service, Toronto Police Service – The Police and Community Engagement Review (The PACER Report) Phase II – Internal Report and Recommendations (2013) online: Toronto Police Service www.torontopolice.on.ca/publications/files/reports/2013pacerreport.pdf [PACER Report]
[20] Deputations
[21] Shaw v Phipps, 2010 ONSC 3884 (Div. Ct.) [Phipps Div. Ct.], aff’d 2012 ONCA 155 [Phipps CA]; Maynard v Toronto Police Services Board, 2012 HRTO 1220 [Maynard]; Ontario Human Rights Commission (February 1, 2016) “OHRC intervenes in racial profiling and discriminatory use of force case” online: www.ohrc.on.ca/en/news_centre/ohrc-intervenes-racial-profiling-and-discriminatory-use-force-case;
Ontario Human Rights Commission, “OHRC calls on police prosecutor to address racial profiling in Neptune 4 case” (June 11, 2016) online: www.ohrc.on.ca/en/news_centre/ohrc-calls-police-prosecutor-address-racial-profiling-neptune-4-case; Ontario Human Rights Commission, “OHRC seeks leave to intervene in racial profiling case” online: www.ohrc.on.ca/en/news_centre/ohrc-seeks-leave-intervene-racial-profiling-case.
[22] Ibid, Neptune 4.
[23] Statistics Canada, Focus on Geography Series, 2016 Census – Census Subdivision of Toronto, City (CSD) - Ontario, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-404-X2016001,(Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2016), www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-csd-eng.cfm?LANG=Eng&GK=CSD&GC=3520005&TOPIC=1; Note: Dr. Wortley advised that the tables downloaded from Statistics Canada identified that Black people make up 8.8% of the Toronto population in 2016. This is the number he used in his report. See Appendix E.
[24] Statistics Canada, Focus on Geography Series, 2016 Census – Census Subdivision of Toronto, City (CSD) - Ontario, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-404-X2016001,(Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2016), www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-CSD-Eng.cfm?TOPIC=7&LANG=Eng&GK=CSD&GC=3520005.
[25] This is a brief summary. See Appendix A.
[26] Wendy Gillis, “Andrew Loku inquest urged by Canadian Mental Health Association”, Toronto Star, (7 April, 2016), online: www.thestar.com/news/crime/2016/04/07/andrew-loku-inquest-urged-by-canadian-mental-health-association.html; Robert Benzie, “Revealed: Secret SIU report into Andrew Loku’s death,” Toronto Star, (29 April, 2016), online: www.thestar.com/news/queenspark/2016/04/29/revealed-secret-siu-report-into-andrew-lokus-death.html.
[27] Joshua Freeman, “Black Lives Matter Welcomes Loku Inquest, Says More Work Ahead”, (17 April, 2016), online: www.cp24.com/news/black-lives-matter-welcomes-loku-inquest-says-more-work-ahead-1.2862978.
[28] Tulloch Report, supra, at p. 97.
[29] Under Suspicion, supra, at p. 115.
[30] Ibid, at p. 19 and 38.
[31] Ibid, at p. 43.
[32] Ibid, at p 43 and online: www.ohrc.on.ca/en/under-suspicion-concerns-about-racial-profiling-police.
[33] “The Black Experience Project in the GTA: Overview Report” (July 2017) online: www.environicsinstitute.org/docs/default-source/project-documents/black-experience-project-gta/black-experience-project-gta---1-overview-report.pdf?sfvrsn=553ba3_2 [Black Experience Project Overview Report].
[34] Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15
[35] Ibid, s. 4(2).
[36] Phipps v Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1604 [Phipps HRTO]; Phipps Div. Ct., Phipps CA, supra.
[37] Police Services Act, supra, s. 41(1).
[38] “Brief History of the Toronto Police Service”, online: Toronto Police Service www.torontopolice.on.ca/careers/history.php.
[39] Betsy Powell, “Billion Dollar Budget Approved for Police Services in Toronto”, Toronto Star, (26 October, 2017), online: www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2017/10/26/a-billion-dollar-budget-approved-for-police-services-in-toronto.html.
[40] Doolittle, supra.
[41] PACER Report, supra, at 4 and 6.
[42] Police Services Act, supra, s. 31.
[43] Phipps HRTO, supra; Phipps Div. Ct., supra.
[44] Toronto Police Service and Toronto Police Services Board, The Way Forward: Modernizing Community Safety in Toronto (Interim Report) (June, 2016), www.torontopolice.on.ca/TheWayForward/files/action-plan.pdf.
[45] City of Toronto Confronting Anti-Black Racism Unit (CARB), www.toronto.ca/community-people/get-involved/community/toronto-for-all/anti-black-racism/; http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2017.EX29.11.
[46] Toronto Action Plan, supra, at Executive Summary and 33-35.
[47] Ibid.
[48] Police Services Act, supra, s. 113.
[49] The definition of “serious injury” was developed by the SIU’s first director, the Honourable John Osler, and continues to be used to this day www.siu.on.ca/en/faq.php
[50] The objective of every SIU investigation is to determine whether there is evidence of criminal wrongdoing on the part of the police. It is not to determine whether the involved officer(s) may have committed some lesser offence, such as the breach of a provincial law or professional misconduct under the Code of Conduct of police officers; www.siu.on.ca/en/what_we_do.php; OHRC Submission to the Independent Review of Police Oversight Bodies, supra.
[51] Police Services Act, supra, ss. 26.1, 27; www.oiprd.on.ca/EN/Investigations/Pages/Systemic-Reviews.aspx.
[52] Ibid, s. 80(1)(a); O. Reg 268/10, s. 30(1); For more information, see OHRC Submission to the Independent Review of Police Oversight Bodies, supra.
[53] Tulloch Report, supra.
[54] Ibid.
[55] The Police Oversight Act, 2018, Ontario Special Investigations Unit Act, 2018, Police Services Act, 2018, and Ontario Policing Discipline Tribunal Act are all schedules of the Safer Ontario Act, 2018 S.O. 2018, c. 3, Sch. 4.
[56] Ibid, Sch. 2.
[57] Safer Ontario Act, S.O. 2018, c. 3. The Police Oversight Act, 2018, being schedule 2 to the Safer Ontario Act, S.O. 2018, c. 3. ; Ontario Special Investigations Unit Act, 2018, being Schedule 4 to the Safer Ontario Act, S.O. 2018, c. 3.; Police Services Act, 2018, being Schedule 1 to the Safer Ontario Act, S.O. 2018, c. 3.; Ontario Policing Discipline Tribunal Act, 2018, being Schedule 3 to the Safer Ontario Act, S.O. 2018, c. 3.
[58] Ibid. For example, the Police Oversight Act, 2018 required the SIU to notify the Complaints Director of any complaint or issue raised during a SIU investigation that may constitute misconduct (see s. 39(1)). The Complaints Director may cause an investigation to be done in these circumstances (see s. 63(1)). The Ontario Special Investigations Unit Act, 2018 set out a duty to comply with a direction or request received from the SIU Director in relation to an investigation, immediately or as otherwise specified in the Act, unless it is unlawful or impractical to do so. Independent investigation, prosecution and adjudication are set out in ss. 81 and 82 of the Police Oversight Act and independent adjudication is set out in the Ontario Policing Discipline Tribunal Act, 2018. The Police Services Act, 2018 required every municipal council that maintains a police services board to prepare and approve a diversity to plan to ensure that members of the board appointed by the council are representative of the diversity of the municipality’s population (see s. 28(1)).
[59] Letter from the Ontario Human Rights Commission to the Attorney General and Minister for Community Safety and Corrections, (29 August, 2018), regarding Police Reform and Oversight – Safer Ontario Act, 2018, www.ohrc.on.ca/en/police-reform-and-oversight-safer-ontario-act-2018
[60] OHRC Terms of Reference, Appendix B.
[61] Smith v Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, [2004] OJ No 3410 at para. 70; R. v Douse, [2009] OJ No 2874 at para. 104.
[62] Tahmourpour v Canada (RCMP), [2008] C.H.R.D. No. 10 at para. 31
[63] Nassiah supra, at para. 23; Maynard, supra, at paras. 139 and 142.
[64] Scot Wortley, “Police use of Force in Ontario: An Examination of Data from the Special Investigations Unit, Final Report” (2006) Research project conducted on behalf of the African Canadian Legal Clinic for submission to the Ipperwash Inquiry; www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/ipperwash/policy_part/projects/pdf/AfricanCanadianClinicIpperwashProject_SIUStudybyScotWortley.pdf.
[65] Policy on Race at p 20: “In order to prove an allegation of profiling, it must be shown that the person alleged to have profiled had some opportunity to observe or presume the race of the complainant.”
[66] Police use of force cases are where the SIU determined that the cause of civilian injury or death was “police use of force.” This includes police shootings, and other types of force (for example: batons, tasers and pepper spray). See page 8 and 9 of the Wortley Report at Appendix E.
[67] The numbers in parentheses represent the actual number of individuals.
[68] The SIU case-rate is calculated by dividing the total number of SIU cases per racial group by their population estimate and multiplying that figure by 100,000. The rate indicates the number of people, per 100,000 population, that were involved in a SIU investigation. See page 6 of the Wortley Report, at Appendix E.
[69] Dr. Wortley found that White people make up 48.4% of the Toronto population but 64.9% of use of force cases in which a mental health issue was noted. See Wortley Report at Appendix E.
[70] Black people make up 8.8% of the Toronto population and 16.2% of use of force cases in which a mental health issue was noted. See Wortley Report at Appendix E.
[71] Black people make up 8.8% of the Toronto population, and 34.1% of use of force cases in which no mental health issue was noted. See Wortley Report at Appendix E.
[72] Golden, supra.
[73] The police are permitted to approach someone on the street and ask general questions. However, they are only allowed to detain a person if they have reasonable grounds to believe, or suspect, that the person is involved in a criminal offence; R v Mann, 2004 SCC 52, [2004] 3 SCR 59. [R v Mann] Detention occurs when a person is being physically or psychologically restrained, meaning the person reasonably believes that they are not free to walk away; R v Grant, 2009 SCC 32, [2009] 2 SCR 353. [R v Grant].
[74] TAVIS was a specialized TPS unit established in 2006. TAVIS increased "on-the-ground" TPS presence in high-priority neighbourhoods with the stated goal of reducing violence; increasing safety; and improving the quality of life for community members in high-risk neighbourhoods. Many criticized TAVIS for its use of carding and other measures which increased tensions between police and communities. As of January 2017 TAVIS was disbanded.
[75] When a person is lawfully detained by police, the police may conduct a protective pat down search if the officer believes on reasonable grounds that his or her own safety, or the safety of others, is at risk; R v Mann, supra. If a person has been lawfully arrested, the police can conduct a search for safety reasons as well as to preserve evidence related to the offence; R v Caslake, [1998] 1 SCR 51.
[76] The Supreme Court of Canada has found that strip searches are inherently humiliating and degrading and are not to be carried out routinely. There must be reasonable and probable grounds to carry out a strip search and the strip search must be carried out in a reasonable manner. The expectation is that where a strip search is justified, it will be done at a police station. Strip searches in public are only allowed in the most exceptional circumstances; R v Golden, supra.
[77] The police can arrest someone without a warrant where they have reasonable grounds to believe the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit an indictable offence; Criminal Code, RSC, 1985, c C-46, s 495. Those grounds must also be justifiable from an objective point of view; R v Storrey, [1990] 1 SCR 241.
[78] The second officer chose not to give a statement to the SIU.
[79] Conduct and Duties of Police Officers respecting investigations by the Special Investigations Unit, O Reg 267/10.
[80] Complaint of Dafonte Miller, (2017), OIPRD TPS Complaint, E-file # E-201708151603116254, OIPRDD DRPS Complaint E-file # E-201708151600096215, Schedule “A”.
[81] O Reg 267/10 supra, s 4: “The chief of police shall ensure that, pending the SIU taking charge of the scene of the incident, the police force secures the scene in a manner consistent with all standing orders, policies and usual practice of the police force for serious incidents;” s 5: “The SIU shall be the lead investigator in the investigation of the incident and shall have priority over any police force in the investigation;” ss 8(1): “Subject to subsections (2) and (5) and section 10, immediately upon receiving a request for an interview by the SIU, and no later than 24 hours after the request if there are appropriate grounds for delay, a witness officer shall meet with the SIU and answer all its questions;” ss 9(1): “witness officer shall complete in full the notes on the incident in accordance with his or her duty and, subject to subsection (4) and section 10, shall provide the notes to the chief of police within 24 hours after a request for the notes is made by the SIU.”
[82] Elmardy v Toronto (City) Police Services Board, 2015 ONSC 2952; 2017 ONSC 2074.
[83] Elmardy v Toronto (City) Police Services Board, 2017 ONSC 2074 at paras. 19 and 20.
[84] R v Blackburn (11 January, 2017), Toronto (Ont Ct J) (Unreported).
[85] Ibid.
[86] Ibid.
[87] Ibid, at para. 87; The Court also expressed concern that the officers’ microphones were turned off, in violation of TPS procedure, just before the demand for a breath sample was made. A male voice was heard when backup arrived saying “Turn your microphone off.” Furthermore, the Court held that the officer’s testimony was “materially inconsistent, embellished and appeared to be contrived at times. Key parts of her testimony appear at odds with other reliable evidence such as the events captured on the in-car camera.”
[88] Written Submission of an organization which took part in the OHRC’s outreach
[89] Statement from Focus Group.
[90] Statement from Focus Group.
[91] Statement from Focus Group.
[92] Statement from Focus Group. Please note that the statement was provided in French and has been translated.
[93] Statement from Focus Groups.
[94] Statement from outreach interview.
[95] Statement from outreach interview.
[96] Statement from Focus Group.
[97] Elmardy, supra.
[98] R v Hines, 2018 ONCJ 197.
[99] Ibid; The Court also found a breach of the TPS Policy and Procedures Manual regarding in-car camera systems because no audio or video was available from the first vehicle on the scene. Finally, the testimony of a Constable (who arrived at the scene after Hines was handcuffed but not yet in the cruiser) was found to be “biased” and “untrustworthy,” because his testimony and notes from the date of the incident were falsified to “justify the actions of his fellow officer.”
[100] R. v. Hines, 2018 ONCJ 375.
[101] Wendy Gillis, “Please I’m Begging You Guys; Toronto Police Video Shows Man Arrested Pleading for Help,” Toronto Star, (6 April, 2018), online: www.thestar.com/news/gta/2018/04/06/please-im-begging-you-guys-toronto-police-video-shows-arrested-man-pleading-for-help.html.
[102] Suspect facing 9 charges after allegedly punching officer, sparking violent arrest caught on video”, (25 January, 2017) https://toronto.citynews.ca/2017/01/24/suspect-facing-9-charges-after-allegedly-punching-officer-sparking-violent-arrest-caught-on-video/.
[103] The OIPRD also found that six officers engaged in neglect of duty by failing to activate the in-car camera system microphones upon arriving at the scene contrary to police orders; OIPRD Investigation Report re complaint of Waseem Khan (July 21, 2017).
[104] Jennifer Pagliaro, “Judge Finds Police Lied, Exaggerated and Colluded About Cellblock Assaults Captured on Video,” Toronto Star, (20 March, 2014), online: www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/03/20/judge_finds_police_lied_exaggerated_and_colluded_about_cellblock_assaults_captured_on_video.html; www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/04/14/video_of_cellblock_police_assault_against_toronto_man_made_public.html.
[105] R v Young, 2014 ONCJ 129; 2014 ONCJ 171.
[106] Ibid.
[107] Ibid; R v Young, 2014 ONCJ 171.
[108] Statement from Outreach interview.
[109] Statement from Outreach interview.
[110] R v Thompson, [2016] O.J. No. 2118 (H.C.J.).
[111] Ibid.
[112] Ibid.
[113] Ibid.
[114] Statement from Focus Group.
[115] Statement from Focus Group.
[116] Statement from Focus Group.
[117] For example, in 2011, the Quebec Human Rights Commission found that many Black respondents felt they did not have the right to circulate or socialize in public without being subject to police scrutiny.; See also Paying the Price supra; Robyn Maynard, Policing Black Lives: State Violence in Canada from Slavery to the Present (Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing, 2017) at p 89 citing CDPJ (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse Quebèc) “Enquete sur les Allègations de Discriminations Raciale dans l’industrie Du Taxi A Montrèal: Rapport Final.” (1984).
[118] Scot Wortley & Akwasi Owusu-Bempah, “Crime and Justice: The Experiences of Black Canadians” in Barbara Perry, ed, Diversity, Crime and Justice in Canada (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011) 127.
[119] Tulloch Report, supra, at p 26.
[120] Harris, David. 2002. Profiles in Injustice: Why Racial Profiling Cannot Work. New York: New Press; Tator, Carol and Frances Henry. 2006. Racial Profiling in Canada: Challenging the Myth of a Few Bad Apples. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; Bradford, Ben. 2011. “Convergence, Not Divergence? Trends and Trajectories in Public Contact and Confidence in the Police.” British Journal of Criminology 51: 179-200; Paying the Price, supra.
[121] Strategy for a Safer Ontario Submission, supra.
[122] Elmardy, supra.
[123] Statement from Outreach Interview.
[124] Statement from Outreach Interview.
[125] Statement from Focus Group.
[126] Statement from HairStory Youth Advisory (delivered at the OHRC’s launch of its Public interest inquiry into racial profiling and racial discrimination by the Toronto Police Service, 30 November, 2017) Wendy Gillis “Human Rights Commission launching inquiry into racial profiling by Toronto police” online: www.thestar.com/news/crime/2017/11/30/human-rights-commission-launching-inquiry-into-racial-profiling-by-toronto-police.html. (November 30, 2017). .
[127] Statement from Focus Group.
[128] Statement from Focus Group.
[129] Written Submission to the OHRC by an organization
[130] Statement from Focus Group. Please note that the statement was provided in French and has been translated.
[131] The objective of every SIU investigation is to determine whether there is evidence of criminal wrongdoing on the part of the police. It is not to determine whether the involved officer(s) may have committed some lesser offence, such as the breach of a provincial law or professional misconduct under the Code of Conduct of police officers; www.siu.on.ca/en/what_we_do.php; OHRC Submission to the Independent Review of Police Oversight Bodies, supra.
[132] Ontario Human Rights Commission, Response to the Race Data and Traffic Stops in Ottawa Report (2016), online: www.ohrc.on.ca/en/book/export/html/19676
[133] OHRC Submission to the Independent Review of Police Oversight Bodies, supra.
[134] Association of Ontario Midwives v Ontario (Health and Long-Term Care), 2018 HRTO 1335 at para 309.
[135] In 1989, the Race Relations and Policing Task force in Ontario recommended that use of force reports be sent to a central depository “…where the data may be analyzed for significant trends. This process would provide statistics which are currently unavailable on factors such as the percentage of visible minorities subjected to police force.” Lewis Clare, The Report of the Race Relations and Policing Task Force (1989) online: https://archive.org/details/mag_00066901 at p. 50, 51, 65, 83, 145, and 168. The call for race-based data collection has continued in several reports and recommendations over the years. See for example: Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr., Prosecution (December 1989) online at https://novascotia.ca/just/marshall_inquiry/_docs/Royal%20Commission%20on%20the%20Donald%20Marshall%20Jr%20Prosecution_findings.pdf; M. Gittens et al., Report of the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1995) at 403-406; Toronto Police Services Board “Board Policy on the Collection, Use and Reporting of Demographic Statistics” (Minutes of the Public Meeting of the TPSB, September 23, 2010) and Toronto Police Services Board “Collection of Demographic Statistics” (Minutes of the Public Meeting of the TPSB, April 5, 2012) [Following the reports of Alok Mukherjee, August 17, 2010 and March 12, 2012]; Foster Lorne, Jacobs Les and Siu Bobby, Race Data and Traffic Stops in Ottawa, 2013-2015: A Report on Ottawa and the Police Districts (October 2016) at p. 6 online: www.ottawapolice.ca/en/about-us/resources/.TSRDCP_York_Research_Report.pdf; Tulloch Report, supra, s. 11.200; Office of the Chief Coroner, Jury Recommendations Inquest into the death of Andrew Loku (June 30, 2017) at p. 29 - 32, 34 online: www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/Deathinvestigations/Inquests/Verdictsandrecommendations/OCCInquestLoku2017.html; United Nations, Report of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent on its mission to Canada (August 16, 2017) at para 77, 78, 86, 91(e) online: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/239/61/PDF/G1723961.pdf?OpenElement
[136] Under Suspicion, supra.
[137] In 1989, the Race Relations and Policing Task force in Ontario recommended that use of force reports be sent to a central depository “…where the data may be analyzed for significant trends. This process would provide statistics which are currently unavailable on factors such as the percentage of visible minorities subjected to police force.” Clare, Lewis The report of the Race Relations and Policing Task Force (1989) online: https://archive.org/details/mag_00066901 at p. 50, 51, 65, 83, 145, and 168. The call for race-based data collection has continued in several reports and recommendations over the years. See for example: Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr., Prosecution (December 1989) online at https://novascotia.ca/just/marshall_inquiry/_docs/Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall Jr Prosecution_finding; M. Gittens et al., Report of the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1995) at 403-406; Foster, Lorne; Jacobs, Les; Siu, Bobby Race Data and Traffic Stops in Ottawa, 2013-2015: A Report on Ottawa and the Police Districts (October 2016) at p. 6 online: www.ottawapolice.ca/en/about-us/resources/.TSRDCP_York_Research_Report.pdf; Tulloch Report, supra, s. 11.200; Office of the Chief Coroner, Jury Recommendations Inquest into the death of Andrew Loku (June 30, 2017) at p. 29 - 32, 34 online: www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/Deathinvestigations/Inquests/Verdictsandrecommendations/OCCInquestLoku2017.html; United Nations, Report of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent on its mission to Canada (August 16, 2017) at para 77, 78, 86, 91(e) online: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/239/61/PDF/G1723961.pdf?OpenElement.