In the OHRC’s second Inquiry report, A Disparate Impact, the expert analysis of TPS arrest, charge, and release data found that Black people are grossly overrepresented in police charges.
Despite being charged at a disproportionately higher rate, Black people were overrepresented in cases that resulted in withdrawn charges. Their cases were also less likely to result in a conviction compared to cases involving White people.
As set out in Chapter 3 of this report, the data and evidence reviewed since A Disparate Impact confirm that Black people across Toronto continue to be disproportionately arrested and charged.
To their credit, the TPSB and TPS have acknowledged this fact and taken some remedial measures. This chapter identifies important gaps in policies, procedures and practices, and makes recommendations regarding the proper and fair use of alternatives to charges and arrests for youths and adults.
This chapter also examines the use of artificial intelligence (AI) by the TPS in officer deployment and investigations that lead to charges and arrests. This new technology raises concerns regarding racial discrimination.
Disproportionate use of arrests and charges
Disproportionate arrests and charges of Black people have been the subject of multiple reports and studies for over 30 years.
In 1992, the Government of Ontario established The Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System (Commission) to examine how criminal justice practices, procedures and policies in Ontario reflect systemic racism.
The Commission released its report in 1995 and identified police overcharging as an issue facing Black and other racialized communities.1 Its surveys and consultations revealed that many Ontarians did not feel the police fairly exercised their charging discretion in interactions with members of Black communities across Ontario.2
Community voices raised concerns that the police were quick to charge racialized persons when they would not charge White persons in similar circumstances, and that charges against racialized persons tended to be more severe or more numerous than warranted.3 The 1995 Commission also received several reports of incidents that were provoked or exacerbated by harsh police treatment, and that resulted in charges against a racialized person.4
The Commission studied 217 cases in Toronto courts. It found:
Proportionate to their number in court, Black defendants are significantly more likely than White or other racial minority accused to face at least one drug or weapons charge. The study also shows that these types of charges are significantly more likely to have arisen from proactive than reactive policing. According to these data, 77% of the cases resulting in at least one drug or weapons charge, but only 37% of other cases, stem from proactive police activity.5
This report confirms that the overcharging of Black people in Toronto continues. They are overrepresented in discretionary, lower-level charges with a low probability of conviction. For example:
- The charge rate for Black people was 3.9 times greater than for White people and 7.1 times greater than the rate for people from other racialized groups.
- Although they represented only 8.8% of Toronto’s population in 2016 Census data, Black people represented 42.5% of people involved in obstruct justice charges and were 4.8 times more likely to be charged with obstruct justice offences than their representation in the general population would predict. By contrast, White people and people from other racialized groups were underrepresented.
- Black people represented 35.2% of people involved in “out-of-sight” driving charges (such as driving without valid insurance) – charges that arise only after a stop had already taken place, suggesting other motives for the stop.
- Black people represented 37.6% of people involved in cannabis charges, and were 4.3 times more likely to be charged with a cannabis possession offence despite conviction rates and many studies showing that Black people use cannabis at similar rates to White people.
- Despite being charged at a disproportionately higher rate, Black people were overrepresented in cases that resulted in withdrawn charges. Their cases were also less likely to result in a conviction compared to cases involving White people.6
Recent steps by the TPSB and TPS
Recently the TPSB and TPS have taken positive steps toward better identifying and addressing systemic anti-Black racism in arrests and charges.
In June 2022, the TPS released an analysis of its race-based data on use of force and strip searches. This analysis looked at “enforcement actions,” which included data on charges and arrests. Enforcement actions are incidents that result in "arrests, apprehensions, diversions, tickets or cautions for serious provincial offences, and includes those classified as suspects or subjects in occurrence records.”7 The data revealed disparities – specifically that Black people were 2.2 times more likely to be involved in enforcement actions than their population in the city. This analysis is helpful in identifying and explaining the disproportionate number of charges and arrests faced by members of Black communities.8
The TPS prepared a list of 38 Action Items arising from this analysis. The list included some actions aimed at encouraging officers to make use of their discretion in choosing diversion programs or alternatives to arrest and charge.
Alternatives to charges and arrest for youth
The TPSB and TPS have recognized the importance of pre-charge diversion programs for youth.
In 2015, TPSB Chair Alok Mukherjee stated that pre-charge diversion for youth, “would strengthen our model of community-based policing through partnership with community agencies providing diversion programs, contribute to increased trust between young people and the police, and result in potential financial savings by reducing court attendance by police officers.”9
Then-Police Chief Mark Saunders stated the purpose of such programs is “not only to reduce the amount of young people entering the justice system, but to provide meaningful intervention at critical times of their lives.”10
In 2017, with the support of the TPSB, the TPS launched the Toronto Youth Pre-Charge Diversion Program across all 17 divisions.11 Several hundred youth take part in the program every year. However, the race of participants is not tracked.12
In 2020, the OHRC asked the TPSB if it considered expanding the program to include individuals over the age of 18. The TPSB responded:
Given that the program is a cooperative effort with the Province, there may be requirements in place that limit expansion at this time. That being said, the Board would support an expansion of the pre-charge diversion program to include adults, if it was demonstrated to be effective and evaluated with a human rights lens prior to implementation … Depending on its capacity, [the TPSB’s Anti-Racism Advisory Panel] could in the future evaluate the program with an anti-racism lens and make recommendations to the Board and the TPS.13
To the OHRC’s knowledge, no such evaluation has taken place. It should.
Alternatives to charges and arrest for adults
The OHRC believes that the proper and fair use of alternatives is an important part of the solution to the overcharging and over-arrest of Black people. The TPS should be aware and make use of alternatives for adults, particularly those up to the age of 25 with no prior contact with the criminal justice system.
Police discretion relating to charges has been considered in two recent areas of legislative reform – administration of justice offence (AOJO) charges, and diversion measures or alternatives to charging.
Bill C-75 alternatives to AOJO charges
On March 29, 2018, the federal government introduced Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. Bill C-75 received Royal Assent on June 21, 2019.
Among other things, Bill C-75 introduces a diversionary regime for offences involving certain failures to comply with court orders (such as breaches of bail and failures to appear), where the breach did not cause property damage, economic loss, or physical or emotional harm to a victim. A conviction for these offences may pose a significant challenge for an accused seeking to secure bail.
In its overview of the legislation, the government specifically referenced a concern about the overrepresentation of Indigenous and vulnerable populations in the criminal justice system:
[AOJOs] are offences committed against the integrity of the criminal justice system. The most common AOJOs include failing to comply with bail conditions (i.e., disobeying a curfew, drinking alcohol), failing to appear in court and breaches of probation (e.g., failing to report to a probation officer). Over the years, the number of individuals charged with AOJOs has been increasing, despite a consistent decrease in the volume and severity of crime in Canada: in 2014, police reported that the rate of persons charged with an AOJO increased by 8% since 2004 (compared to 20% decrease in rate of persons charged with other Criminal Code offences). AOJOs have contributed to an increase in pre-trial detention, and also to the overrepresentation of Indigenous persons and of individuals from vulnerable populations in the criminal justice system.14
Bill C-75 adds a new section 523.1 to the Criminal Code, creating an alternative procedure for handling particular AOJOs, i.e., when an individual has failed to comply with a summons, appearance notice, undertaking or release order, or has failed to attend court as required.
Under the new procedure, instead of charging someone for failing to comply with the requirements placed on them, police can issue a notice to appear before a judge or justice of the peace for a judicial referral hearing. Even if charges are laid, a judge or justice of the peace has the authority to consider various responses under the new procedure.
For a judicial referral hearing under section 523.1 to proceed, the failure in question must not have caused a victim physical or emotional harm, property damage, or economic loss.
Upon hearing the matter, the judge or justice may decide to:
- take no further action
- cancel any other summons, appearance notice, undertaking or release order for the accused and
- make a release order under section 515, or
- where detention of the accused in custody is justified under section 515(10), make an order accordingly and provide reasons for why the accused should be detained until they can be “dealt with according to law” (see section 515(5)), or
- remand the accused to custody to be photographed and have their fingerprints recorded pursuant to the Identification of Criminals Act.
If the judge or justice decides to do any of the above, any charges that were laid against the accused for the failure in question must be dismissed. The individual cannot be charged later for any failure that was the subject of the hearing.15
Bill C-5 alternatives to simple possession of drug charges
On December 7, 2021, the federal government introduced Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Bill C-5 received Royal Assent on November 17, 2022.
Among other things, the Act amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) and requires a peace officer or prosecutor to consider issuing a warning, referring an individual to a treatment program, or taking no further action, instead of proceeding with criminal charges for simple drug possession.
Following the enactment of Bill C-5, David Lametti, then-Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, identified the elimination of systemic racism and discrimination as a primary incentive for the legislation. He said:
Systemic racism is a reality for too many in Canada's criminal justice system. We have heard from the public, the courts, and criminal justice experts, and seen the evidence of the disproportionate representation of Indigenous people, Black persons, racialized Canadians, and members of marginalized communities, both as offenders and as victims.
...This new legislation allows for greater use of early diversion programs. This means that an individual can get the help they need to address underlying issues and avoid reoffending. This is particularly important in the context of the opioid crisis, which is having devastating effects on individuals, families, and communities across Canada. These evidence-based reforms address systemic racism and discrimination in our criminal justice system and keep communities safe by reducing the risk of re-offending. Our approach promotes fair and just outcomes for Indigenous people, Black persons, racialized Canadians, and members of marginalized community, while continuing to punish serious criminal offences and protecting public safety.16
TPSB policies and TPS procedures
Officers need better policy and procedural direction on whether to arrest, lay charges, or use alternatives.
Current TPS procedures offer minimal guidance. For example:
- The TPS Arrest procedure provides no guidance on when a person should be charged/arrested or offered an alternative such as diversion or a treatment program.17
- The TPS Routine Order on the “New Provincial Offences Warning Form” provides no guidance on when a warning should be given for a provincial offence, like trespassing, instead of a ticket or charge.18
- Although supervisors review charges and arrests for “thoroughness and completeness,” they are not required to assess whether officers exercised their discretion appropriately (e.g., if there were reasonable grounds for the arrest, or if the officer engaged in racial profiling, racial discrimination, or anti-Black racism in charges or arrests).
- Although TPS’s Human Rights and Race and Ethnocultural Equity policies prohibit discrimination, they also do not provide any guidance on how to identify, monitor or address it in charges and arrests.19
Current TPSB policies have similar significant gaps. The policies do not provide guidance to the Chief of Police on arrests and charges, and do not include any related oversight or accountability mechanisms.
Officer training
Officers need better training to reduce overcharging of vulnerable and marginalized communities, including Black communities.
For example, the Criminal Offences Study Packet and the Introduction to Drug Investigation course do not provide guidance on when an officer should exercise their discretion to lay charges or pursue alternatives for obstructing a peace officer or possession of a controlled substance, respectively.20
As a starting point, all TPS officers should be trained on the following:
- proper exercise of discretion when considering charges
- racial disparities revealed in charges and arrests as presented in A Disparate Impact, A Collective Impact and this report
- alternatives to charging and arrest for youth, and
- alternatives to charging and arrest for adults, including for AOJO offences (Bill C-75) and drug possession offences (Bill C-5).
To achieve the goal of the legislative reforms (i.e., fewer charges and unbiased charging), the TPS should track how often alternatives are being used by their officers. It should also collect race-based data to determine if there are disparities in officer discretion in the use of alternatives to arrest.
The TPSB has taken note of the matter of officer training in alternatives. A footnote in its public consultation draft of the De-escalation and Appropriate Use of Force policy states:
An additional recommendation will be made to amend the Arrest chapter in the Adequacy Standards Compliance Policy to include a section directing the Chief to ensure Service Members are trained to use alternatives to arrest, including referral to alternative response providers, community services and resources, youth diversion, or other available options, where appropriate.”21
At time of writing, the policy has not been passed by the TPSB, and there have been no amendments to the Arrest Chapter in the Adequacy Standards Compliance Policy.
Crown Counsel and pre-charge approval
To address overcharging and racial profiling, Ontario should amend the Police Services Act and the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, and make changes to the Crown Prosecution Manual to implement a Crown pre-charge screening process.
Pre-charge approval by the Crown (also often referred to as Crown pre-charge screening or pre-screening) provides an extra layer of monitoring that may reduce the disproportionate impact of charges and arrests on Black people.
The OHRC noted in its Framework for change to address systemic racism in policing:
Our expert analysis of the data confirms that Black persons are proportionately overcharged by the TPS. For example, Black persons represented only 8.8% of the general population, but 28.8% of arrests involving two to five charges, 33.8% of arrests involving six to nine charges, and 38.9% of arrests involving 10 or more charges. Notably, the data indicate that many of these charges were withdrawn or dismissed.22
The following excerpt from the Framework summarizes OHRC’s analysis of Crown pre-charge screening programs elsewhere in Canada.
Crown pre-charge screening programs have been successfully implemented in British Columbia, Quebec and New Brunswick. New Brunswick uses a pre-charge screening or charge approval process that requires the Crown Prosecutor to review and approve charges before the police can lay them. This process also applies to provincial offences. Police officers investigate alleged crimes and then forward reports (including recommended charges) to Crown counsel, who decide whether to lay charges or institute alternative measures.
Comparing the rate of withdrawn charges in provinces that use pre-charge screening with rates in Ontario highlights the potential benefits of reforming the current system.
An OHRC analysis of adult criminal court data shows that provinces that use pre-charge screening have much lower rates of stayed23 or withdrawn charges than Ontario.
Specifically, 29% of charges were stayed or withdrawn in Quebec in 2018–19, while the figures were 37% in New Brunswick and 54% in B.C., equalling an average stayed/withdrawn rate of 40% among the three pre-charge screening provinces.
In Ontario, by contrast, 68% of charges were stayed or withdrawn in 2018–19, which indicates broad patterns of over-charging that result in courts being flooded with cases that are very unlikely to result in convictions.
A pre-charge screening pilot project, conducted at the RCMP detachments and three communities in Alberta, found that the screening process reduced the number of charges laid by 29% and court cases started by 21%. This data strongly suggests that reducing the overall number of charges will save scarce court resources, and minimize the disproportionate impact of over-charging on Black communities.
It is noteworthy that being charged, in and of itself or in conjunction with pre-trial custody, can have serious negative consequences for people in terms of financial hardship (job loss, legal expenses, etc.), diminished employment prospects, interrupted education pathways and reputational harm. Provinces that have implemented pre-charge screening are better equipped to prevent people from entering the criminal justice system because of charges that lack merit, which can mitigate some of these negative outcomes.
Examining Crown policy manuals in provinces with pre-charge screening confirms that these systems can support initiatives to address systemic discrimination in the criminal justice system. For example, in British Columbia, the Crown pre-charge screening process uses a two-part test to determine if charges should proceed. At the first stage, the evidentiary test considers whether there is a substantial likelihood of conviction.
If the first part of the test is satisfied, Crown counsel apply the public interest test. Factors that weigh in favour of not prosecuting an individual under the second stage include the over-representation of Indigenous persons as accused within the criminal justice system, and the role that bias, racism or systemic discrimination played in bringing the person into contact with the criminal justice system. Factors that weigh in favour of laying a charge include the over-representation of Indigenous women and girls as victims of violent offences.
Ontario’s Crown Prosecution Manual includes a similar test. However, Crown Attorneys are not instructed to screen all cases before the charge is laid. Ontario Crown Attorneys are also not explicitly directed to consider the impact of bias, racism or systemic discrimination. Enabling Crown counsel to apply this equity lens to charges before Indigenous, Black and racialized persons are brought before the courts has the potential to reduce the over-representation of these groups in the criminal justice system.24
There is precedent for pre-charge advice from the Crown in Toronto. In 2017, the Province launched a program embedding Crown attorneys in the TPS 51 Division and Ottawa Police Service to provide police with real-time advice on bail decisions. The Crown attorneys also worked with police and community-based health and social service agencies on alternatives to criminal charges for vulnerable, low-risk accused who could be diverted out of the criminal justice system.25
The TPS assessed the program and determined that the embedded Crown attorneys were able to make several important contributions, including:
- advice on pre-charge diversion screening for people with mental health and addiction issues
- advice related to sufficiency of charges/charge type
- pre-charge advice about both routine investigations and larger projects/anticipated takedowns, and
- liaison with the 51 Division multi-agency community service providers team meetings (FOCUS situation table).26
A survey was also sent to all members of 51 Division about their views of the project. Of the 23 responses received, 65% stated that the project prevented them from laying a charge that, absent embedded Crown input, they would have laid – thereby diverting individuals to mental health court or a mental health program.27 The surveyed officers all recommended that the project continue.28 Then-Interim Chief Ramer also agreed that pre-charge advice from the embedded Crowns at 51 Division was valuable.29
However, one shortcoming of the program was that race and related outcomes were not tracked.
The Crown pre-charge advice pilot provides further evidence that Crown involvement at the charging stage is not only helpful and practical, but also critical in reducing unnecessary and harmful overcharging practices. As the Board overseeing the largest municipal police service in Canada, the TPSB should take a leadership role by urging the provincial government to implement Crown pre-charge approval before laying a criminal charge.
For the OHRC’s recommendations on Crown pre-charge approval, see Recommendations 88, 89, and 90.
TPS equity audits
TPS supervisors review every arrest and charge for “thoroughness and completeness.” Information reviewed includes: the record of arrest, the synopsis of the allegations, the charge that was laid, the witness list and statements, and the exhibit list.30 It may also include the officer’s memo book notes. The supervisor signs off on the record of arrest and synopsis.31
However, TPS supervisors are not required to assess if the arrest or charge was free of racial profiling or racial discrimination. In an interview with the OHRC, a TPS Deputy Chief of Police advised that such a review would only take place if concerns were raised by an officer or a witness.32 Ideally, while reviewing a charge for thoroughness and completeness, a supervisor should also review each charge for potential racial profiling and/or racial discrimination.
Supervisory officers should be required, at a minimum, to conduct equity audits of charges for provincial offences, administration of justice charges, as well as criminal charges at the unit level once every three months. These audits should be conducted with an anti-discrimination lens and should be focused on ensuring that overrepresentation of Black people or any other marginalized group is addressed.
For OHRC’s recommendation regarding Supervisory equity auditing of charges, see Recommendation 18.
TPS and the use of artificial intelligence
In recent years, law enforcement organizations, including the TPS, have increasingly used artificial intelligence (AI) to identify individuals, collect and analyze data, and help make decisions, including where police should be deployed and on whom they should focus their attention.
In January 2020, the TPS denied using a controversial AI facial recognition software called Clearview AI. Subsequently, in February 2020, the TPS acknowledged that some of its officers had indeed been using Clearview AI since October 2019, and as soon as then-Chief Saunders was made aware of the software’s usage by TPS officers, he issued a directive to immediately stop using Clearview AI.[xxxiii] Overall, 89 investigations used the technology and, according to the TPS, 30% of those investigations were “substantiated and/or advanced” using the technology.34
Using AI with body-worn cameras and facial recognition technology
As the Citizenlab noted in its report To Surveil and Predict: A Human Rights Analysis of Algorithmic Policing in Canada, there are several issues with the use of AI and facial recognition technology in policing, including:
- privacy concerns related to the capture and retention of photographic data by law enforcement
- unreliable facial recognition technology – particularly in the case of racialized people and women
- data-sharing between the private sector and law enforcement.35
According to the TPSB’s 2020 policy on body-worn cameras:
Recordings from body-worn cameras may not be used in combination with facial-recognition technology, video analytics software, voice recognition software, or to generate a searchable database of images of individuals who have interacted with Service Members, with the exception of comparing images that are directly related to an investigation to a “mug shot” database in a manner approved by the Board.36
However, the OHRC remains concerned about the use of AI in conjunction with facial recognition and body-worn cameras37 considering the over-surveillance and overcharging of Black communities, and TPS’s past use of facial recognition technology.
Several jurisdictions have suspended the use of facial recognition by law enforcement. In 2020, California implemented a three-year ban on police using facial recognition technology on footage from body-worn cameras.38 Oakland,39 San Francisco40 and Somerville41 enacted even broader bans on the use of this technology by the municipalities.
Use of AI in police deployment decisions
The TPS should make sure that officer deployment and AI do not result in racial discrimination against Black people in charges. In recent years across Canada, law enforcement efforts to prevent crime have begun to employ techniques of predictive policing that involve the use of crime data to determine future probabilities of criminal occurrences.
In theory, predictive policing has the capacity to lessen longstanding patterns of biased police deployment in Black, other racialized, and Indigenous communities. In practice, however, predictive policing has been found to reinforce existing biases.
Police services are entitled to assign their officers to different neighbourhoods to carry out their duties. As a policing strategy, police may target enforcement to certain neighbourhoods where particular crimes occur at higher-than-average levels. In some cases, such neighbourhoods may be low-income areas with relatively high proportions of Indigenous and/or racialized residents.
Allocating a high number of police to racialized neighbourhoods raises human rights concerns when:
- this allocation is disproportionate (i.e., heavy-handed) in relation to the level of crime, type of crime, or form of victimization police seek to address, and
- residents experience greater degrees of intrusive police scrutiny as a result.
Also, selectively targeting communities based on racial bias, or attempting to prevent crime in racialized neighbourhoods through aggressive or unnecessarily broad approaches or pretext stops, will likely expose Indigenous or racialized people to higher levels of surveillance, stops and arrests, mostly for minor offences occurring in those neighbourhoods. These deployment practices can lead to Indigenous and racialized people being over-policed and may violate the Ontario Human Rights Code.42
Similarly, there is a danger in using AI tools or approaches that are not accurate or are based on racially biased data or algorithms. They may overestimate the risk posed by Indigenous, Black or other racialized people, and compound existing disparities in criminal justice outcomes.43
Need for a province-wide approach to AI based on human rights principles
The use of AI technology in policing, locally and province-wide, should be informed by human rights principles.
In September 2021, the OHRC made submissions to the TPSB on its draft Policy on Use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies. The OHRC did not, and does not in this report, call for a complete ban on AI or facial recognition technology. Rather, the OHRC promotes the human rights principles of equity, privacy, transparency, and accountability to make sure that AI technology does not create or perpetuate systemic discrimination.
To make broader change and ensure consistency, the OHRC and the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) recommended that the TPSB urge the provincial government to implement a legislative and regulatory framework informed by the OHRC and IPC’s submissions and recommendations.44
The OHRC and IPC also called for the TPS to conduct privacy and human rights assessments in consultation with experts before procuring and using relevant AI technologies or algorithms.45
In February 2002, the TPSB approved the Policy on Use of Artificial Intelligence Technologies. The policy addresses transparency and accountability issues in the use of AI technology. It also sets out risk reporting requirements related to any current or future AI technologies.
However, more is required to ensure that the TPS’s use of AI does not result in further racial profiling and discrimination.
For the OHRC’s policy guidance on artificial intelligence, see Recommendations 20, 21, and 22.
Chapter 6 Endnotes
[1] Margaret Gittens et al, Report of the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1995) at 179–189.
[2] Margaret Gittens et al, Report of the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1995) at 182.
[3] Margaret Gittens et al, Report of the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1995) at 183.
[4] Margaret Gittens et al, Report of the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1995) at 183.
[5] Margaret Gittens et al, Report of the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1995) at 185.
[6] OHRC, A Disparate Impact: Second interim report on the inquiry into racial profiling and racial discrimination of Black persons by the Toronto Police Service (Toronto: OHRC, 2020), online (pdf): https://www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/A%20Disparate%20Impact%20-%20TPS%20inquiry%20%28updated%20January%202023%29.pdf.
[7] TPS, “Use of Force: Measurement & Outcomes,” video transcript: https://www.tps.ca/media/filer_public/b9/f4/b9f492b5-8e11-450a-af6e-deae2658010b/1ec05b46-427f-41eb-8697-cd12e95dad0b.pdf.
[8] TPS, Race & Identity Based Data Collection Strategy: Understanding Use of Force & Strip Searches in 2020 – Detailed Report (Toronto: Toronto Police Service, 2022) at 10, online (pdf): www.tps.ca/media/filer_public/93/04/93040d36-3c23-494c-b88b-d60e3655e88b/98ccfdad-fe36-4ea5-a54c-d610a1c5a5a1.pdf.
[9] TPSB, “Draft Minutes of Public Meeting: June 18, 2015” (18 June 2015), Report from Chair Dr. Alok Mukherjee regarding “Youth Pre-charge Diversion Program” (2 June 2015) at 31, online (pdf): https://tpsb.ca/jdownloads-categories?task=download.send&id=180&catid=7&m=0.
[10] TPSB, “Draft Minutes of Public Meeting: December 17, 2015” (17 December 2015), Report from Chief Mark Saunders regarding “Youth Pre-Charge Diversion Program” (13 November 2015) at 106, online (pdf): https://tpsb.ca/jdownloads-categories?task=download.send&id=186&catid=7&m=0.
[11] Muriel Draaisma, “‘We know this is better for kids’: Toronto police launch program to keep youth out of court system,” CBC News (20 June 2017), online: www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/youth-precharge-diversion-program-1.4169394.
[12] OHRC interview with Deputy Chief Peter Yuen (Priority Response Command) (12 March 2020).
[13] Responses of the TPSB to written questions at 32–33, 113–117 (22 January 2020), asked under s 31(7)(c) of the Human Rights Code, RSO 1990, c H19.
[14] Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, 1st Sess, 42nd Parl, 2019, clauses 212, 234, online: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-75/royal-assent; Government of Canada, “Legislative Background: An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as enacted (Bill C-75 in the 42nd Parliament)” (26 August 2022), online: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/c75/p3.html.
[15] Bill C-75, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, 1st Sess, 42nd Parl, 2019, clauses 212, 234, online: https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-75/royal-assent; Government of Canada, “Legislative Background: An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as enacted (Bill C-75 in the 42nd Parliament)” (26 August 2022), online: https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/jsp-sjp/c75/p3.html.
[16] Department of Justice Canada, “Statement by Minister Lametti on Royal Assent of legislation that addresses systemic racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system,” Cision Canada (18 November 2022), online: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/statement-by-minister-lametti-on-royal-assent-of-legislation-that-addresses-systemic-racism-and-discrimination-in-the-criminal-justice-system-837945376.html.
[17] TPS, Procedure 01-01 Arrest (2 February 2021), online (pdf): https://www.tps.ca/media/filer_public/9b/d2/9bd29690-bfcf-42df-9480-7ba0d0ec6068/08da6409-baec-4b98-afe5-458c1e8d01b4.pdf.
[18] TPSB, TPS Routine Order from the Office of the Chief – New Provincial Offences Warning Form (July 2013).
[19] TPSB, Race and Ethnocultural Equity Policy (15 November 2010), online: https://www.tpsb.ca/policies-by-laws/board-policies/176-race-and-ethnocultural-equity-policy.
[20] Toronto Police College/Service, TPS Study Package for General Investigators Course – Criminal Offences (amended April 2014); Toronto Police College/Service, TPS Introduction to Drug Investigations – Course Training Standard (undated).
[21] TPSB, “Consultation Draft: De-escalation and Appropriate Use of Force Policy” (accessed 30 July 2023) at 4, online (pdf): https://tpsb.ca/consultations-and-publications/items-of-interest?task=download.send&id=756&catid=68&m=0.
[22] OHRC, Framework for change to address systemic racism in policing (July, 2021) https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/framework-change-address-systemic-racism-policing#:~:text=The%20OHRC%20calls%20on%20Ontario,from%20policing%20across%20the%20province
[23] Staying a charge is when a charge and criminal proceedings attached to it are halted by a judge or Crown. See Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 579(1).
[24]OHRC, Framework for change to address systemic racism in policing (July, 2021) https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/framework-change-address-systemic-racism-policing#:~:text=The%20OHRC%20calls%20on%20Ontario,from%20policing%20across%20the%20province.
[25] Government of Ontario, “Progress on Ontario’s Plan for Faster, Fairer Criminal Justice” (30 October 2017), online: file:///C:/Users/scormier/AppData/Roaming/Microsoft/Word/news.ontario.ca/en/backgrounder/46817/progress-on-ontarios-plan-for-faster-fairer-criminal-justicehttps://news.ontario.ca/en/backgrounder/46817/progress-on-ontarios-plan-for-faster-fairer-criminal-justice.
[26] TPSB, TPS Internal Correspondence from Detective Sergeant Richmond to Superintendent Riviere of 51 Division – Project Assessment – 51 Division Embedded Crown (January 2018).
[27] TPSB, TPS Internal Correspondence from Detective Sergeant Richmond to Superintendent Riviere of 51 Division – Project Assessment – 51 Division Embedded Crown (January 2018).
[28] TPSB, TPS Internal Correspondence from Detective Sergeant Richmond to Superintendent Riviere of 51 Division – Project Assessment – 51 Division Embedded Crown (January 2018).
[29] OHRC interview with then-Interim Chief James Ramer (26 October 2022).
[30] First-level supervisors are sergeants; OHRC interview with Deputy Chief Peter Yuen (Priority Response Command), (12 March 2020).
[31] OHRC interview with Deputy Chief Peter Yuen (Priority Response Command), (12 March 2020).
[32] OHRC interview with Deputy Chief Peter Yuen (Priority Response Command), (12 March 2020).
[33] “Toronto police admit using secretive facial recognition technology Clearview AI”, CBC (14 February 2020), online: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-police-clearview-ai-1.5462785.
[34] Detective Operations of TPS, “Clearview AI: Usage, Review & Analysis” (27 March 2020), online (pdf): https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21169254/tps-clearview-ai-usage-review-and-analysis-report-1.pdf.
[35] Kate Robertson, Cynthia Khoo and Yolanda Song, To Surveil and Predict: A Human Rights Analysis of Algorithmic Policing in Canada (Toronto: Citizen Lab and International Human Rights Program, University of Toronto, 2020) at 91–92, online (pdf): https://citizenlab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/To-Surveil-and-Predict.pdf.
[36] TPSB, Policy on Body Worn Cameras (24 November 2020), online: https://www.tpsb.ca/policies-by-laws/board-policies/154-body-worn-cameras.
[37] See the Accountability Chapter 9 of this report; OHRC, “Letter to Toronto Police Service and Toronto Police Services Board on its policy and procedure on body-worn cameras” (28 October 2020), online: https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/news_centre/letter-toronto-police-service-and-toronto-police-services-board-its-policy-and-procedure-body-worn.
[38] U.S. AB 1215, An act to add and repeal Section 832.19 of the Penal Code, relating to law enforcement, 2019-2020, Reg Sess, Cal, 2019, online: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB1215.
[39] City of Oakland, Ordinance No 13635, § 2, 1-12-2021; and Ordinance No 13563, § 3, 9-17-2019. Prohibition on City's acquisition and/or use of Biometric Surveillance Technology and Predictive Policing Technology at 9.64.045, online: https://library.municode.com/ca/oakland/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT9PUPEMOWE_CH9.64REACUSSUTE_9.64.045PRACUSBISUTEPRPOTE.
[40] City of San Francisco, Ordinance 107-19, s 19-B, Acquisition of Surveillance Technology (15 July 2019), online: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/san_francisco/latest/sf_admin/0-0-0-47320.
[41] City of Sommerville, Ordinance V2-1, Banning the usage of facial recognition technology in Somerville (27 June 2019), online: http://somervillecityma.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?ID=20991.
[42] OHRC, “Policy on eliminating racial profiling in law enforcement” (2019) at 4.2.1. Unwarranted deployment, online: www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-eliminating-racial-profiling-law-enforcement.
[43] OHRC, “Policy on eliminating racial profiling in law enforcement” (2019) at 4.2.6. Artificial intelligence, online: www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-eliminating-racial-profiling-law-enforcement; “Toronto police admit using secretive facial recognition technology Clearview AI,” CBC News (13 February 2020), online: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-police-clearview-ai-1.5462785.
[44] IPC, “Additional comments and recommendations on the OHRC’s draft recommendations to eliminate racial profiling and racial discrimination of Black persons by the Toronto Police Service” (10 November 2022) at 2–3. For further information on IPC submissions and guidance relating to AI and facial recognition technology in policing, see Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, “Privacy regulators call for legal framework limiting police use of facial recognition technology” (2 May 2022), online: https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-news/news-and-announcements/2022/nr-c_220502/; Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, “Privacy guidance on facial recognition for police agencies” (May 2022), online: https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/privacy-topics/surveillance/police-and-public-safety/gd_fr_202205/.
[45] Information and Privacy Commissioner, “Additional comments and recommendations on the OHRC’s draft recommendations to eliminate racial profiling and racial discrimination of Black persons by the Toronto Police Service” (10 November 2022) at 2–3.