Legal discussion and clarification

From Wyndham Bettencourt-McCarthy, chief of staff for City Councillor Bravo

"The investigation into an incident that occurred in February at Dufferin Grove is handled through the City’s Parks and Recreation Division. Our office was informed that this investigation relates to a workplace incident and as such our office is not able to intervene in an active workplace investigation. We also have no authority to direct Toronto Police Service operations."

From Erella Gagnon

[After attending an Open House meeting where City Councillor Bravo, the West Toronto Recreation manager, and Toronto Police Staff Sgt.Israel Bernardo were present, listserv moderator Erella Gagnon wrote:]

Clarification from Jane Price

Duty counsel are not adjudicators/decision makers -- but rather lawyers compensated by Legal Aid Ontario who act on behalf of or appear in criminal proceedings for persons who face criminal charges when the accused has no legal representation. As I understand it , the accused person must fit within a certain financial test to be eligible for duty council to represent them.

At this point, as far as I am aware, the police have issued Jutta a trespass order asking her to stay away from the Dufferin Grove rink house but have laid no criminal charges against Jutta. Given this I do not see how a duty counsel could assist Jutta as there’s no court to go to.

It is true that the police did give Jutta instructions on how to see the trespass order. Jutta and I attended the police station at 14 division on February 26. We were advised that to see the trespass order Jutta needs to either physically go down to the central police station and get it or make an application by mail for the report and pay a fee of somewhere around $70 for this. Again, as I understand it, this would give access to the police report such as it is, but there is no charge laid, so nothing to appeal per se.

From Erella:

Clarification from Jane:

Again, trying to interpret the meaning here I have a couple of comments:

No criminal charges have been laid. Courts are not set up to deal with disputes where no charges are laid.

Reading between the lines maybe Erella is suggesting there needs to be a courtroom because the parks staff have alleged harassment? It is true that the city is recommending some sort of investigation.

However a city led investigation process is not equivalent to an adjudicative or court process. It is quasijudicial at best and duty counsel would not be available for such an investigation.

My understanding is that Jutta is asserting that this allegation of harassment is entirely specious, that the conduct of the police -- banning her from the park and not inquiring in any way as to her experience of the incident in question, and the other related details of staff misconduct at the park -- all point toward significant mis-steps by Park staff, by the police and by our city counsellor who doesn’t seem to be paying any attention to what’s going on here.

I believe the city counsellor can certainly give her opinion on whether or not the conduct of this park staff should be at minimum courteous and civil. I also believe she can also give her opinion on whether or not the police should be required to investigate fully - that is, investigate both sides of the story in this case before issuing any kind of caution or order. And I would expect her to be very curious about allegations of criminal activities by park staff.

I respectfully disagree with Erella’s suggestion that there are clear next steps here and this adjudication process is an easy one. In fact I don’t actually see an adjudication process that makes sense here.

I’m not sure who can step in and offer leadership here if not our city counsellor.

From Jacqueline Peeters

Dear Councillor Bravo and Ms. Hanson, a public meeting, with or without the assistance of a mediator, is not the place to start. Jutta’s invitation to have a discussion with (ideally) both of you is a sensible starting place. Refusing this invitation suggests bad faith and fails to take the first steps to address the conflict. No charges have been laid, so a meeting would not interfere with a legal process.

From Serena Knapik

The way this situation has spun out of control to waste So much concern, energy, time & resources waiting for - some kind of movement or resolution from city employees/representatives all wrapped up in a thick cloak of non- transparency is very concerning. All who hide behind the collective refrain ‘ it can’t be talked about at this time’. WHAT exactly ‘can’t be talked about’? What IS the ‘subject’? (There was a he said/she said situation) Is that the secret?

I fully understand that there are ‘2 sides to every story’, due process etc. What seems to be missing is: logic, fact finding & review, and timely & effective resolution. That this ‘incident’ has grown into this fiasco of lack of anything remotely reflecting these basic foundation steps of basic problem solving is indicative of a city hall system that has no real value or hope in ‘getting things done’. It’s broken.

Who is responsible? Who is accountable? Who is communicating with - all of the parties involved (city employees, their supervisors, affected community members ) - as to WT*! is going on? Rather than riding the merry -go round - can a city bureaucrat actually stop & provide meaningful information!? Stop speaking ‘bureaucratese’ and speak - one person to another? If this had happened at the outset (by a grown up who understands conflict resolution) and not had the ‘policy police’ put on high alert as a shield to hide behind for all future certainties that ‘nothing is ever going to happen’, this whole bizarre - mess- could have been resolved very quickly.

Imagine what .. talking.. to people can do. Sadly, it seems there is no room for such an experience in city hall bureaucracy. Scary.

From Michael Gfroerer

All Department of Recreation staff are unionized with Local 79 unless they are management and it seems likely that the union is involved in the complaint by staff and the facilitation of a meeting.

Have you contacted a lawyer? I read that there is a mediator involved, but that person is not necessarily qualified to address the issue of if a city employee provided false information regarding their claim that you assaulted them. Making a false statement resulting in someone being said to have assaulted someone is a criminal offense called "Public Mischief". [ https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-140.html ] Parkdale Legal Services might be a good place to get some advice. Who is this mediator and who appointed them? Police may have been trying to defuse the recreation employee's complaint, but it sounds like the police unnecessarily bothered you with the complaint, which probably should have been further evaluated. Toronto Police have a "professional standards" office, which isn't very professional in my experience. You can also try the provincial Law Enforcement Complaints Agency, but that probably won't solve any problems.

From H.M.

First - you only have 3 months under the statute of limitations from the date of the incident to follow any legal proceeding on your own behalf. I think you need a lawyer ASAP.

And this is not just about you. If the behaviour by these two is allowed to pass, this kind of thing will happen to others and it could reach a point where people can be banned simply because staff did not like them or see their rights only, not their own responsibilities.

I am no lawyer, but it seems to me there are several other legal aspects to this whole thing: please turn the way you are looking at this situation around and look at it differently - from your own perspective.

The employees in fact, intimidated and threatened you by their attitude and by not allowing you to leave at the time of the event. They restrained you by not allowing you to leave. They are both young, strong- and male. you are an older, visibly disabled woman with a cane. There are 3 aspects of human rights here - agism, ablism, gender discrimination. At the very least, this was bullying on their part.

Not only did these two employees lie about what had happened. Did they box your car in? Were you concerned at all for your personal safety during the incident? They would not allow you to leave. Is this forcible confinement? Check whether their keeping you there could be in fact a criminal act on their part. (That charge can result on a sentence of up to 10 years in jail.).

These may be young inexperienced people, but they are old enough to hold jobs that require police criminal checks. And old enough to drive.

The logical thing anyone sensible would have done in their position would be to simply take your license number and report any car damage to their insurance companies- And let insurance adjusters sort it out. They could have taken pictures to back them up.

• What on earth did this entire thing have to do with their employer- the City?

Were they even on the park property? Your having been at the park facilities has nothing to do with their cars. That is a private matter - one for the civil courts. It is not a hit and run, nor an accident with major damage.

There have been no consequences for them, nor recourse or fairness for you in this process.

The trespass notice, complaint by these two of harassment and leading to the ban from city parks property has the effect of slandering your reputation. And preventing your freedom of movement.

So you need to find out

1. whether you can or should lay charges against them for threatening, or forcible confinement

2. Whether there is a human rights part of this? Why did the City step in at all to support these two? And without any due process or fairness.

3. Whether your reputation has been slandered by their complaints to the City. Therefore a civil suit.

This kind of heavy handed approach by the City is an abuse of their power. The City and Union are highly litigious.

If the City and their employees get away with this - soon residents will have no rights to use public spaces. This is a very slippery slope.