Author: turnoverarocktoday

………..still dancing!

turnoverarocktoday Justice for Brennan Guigue

“And the music goes on and on……” from February 28 of this year examples but one exercise in why our governments’ expenses appear so out of control. Why do our civil servants spend so much time and money to achieve so little? Why hasn’t our collective wisdom found a solution to expediently meet our needs from the bodies we set up to govern? A debate for the ages, that.

We’ve been patiently waiting for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada to make a determination on our requests for information Correctional Service of Canada has withheld pertaining to July 22, 2014. Stephen Fineberg in Montreal, who is acting on Brennan Guigue’s behalf, has seen incremental steps toward that end, but his long experience in this area has nonetheless left him frustrated by the delays.

Here is the bulk of a July 11 update email:

…………. I was hoping it would be possible to supply you with news of a concrete development that I am waiting on. I can see now it is unrealistic to wait further, so I am writing with my news, such as it is.

As you already know, being dissatisfied with the results of our access and privacy requests to CSC’s access and privacy coordinator, I wrote on September 3, 2015 to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to initiate a complaint with the object of obtaining at least some of the material then withheld. On September 11, the OPC wrote to acknowledge receipt of our correspondence.

The OPC subsequently responded that, despite the existing correspondence confirming CSC recognizes me as Brennan’s representative, a new authorization signed by Brennan would be needed before I would enjoy that status with the OPC. Such authorization was provided by Brennan to the OPC, and on November 13, 2015 I wrote again to the OPC to initiate our complaint. I highlighted the fact that it made little sense for CSC to claim there were no entries in the medical file since Brennan’s previous privacy request (which predates the incident of July 22, 2014), and that we have been given CSC reports admitting rules were not followed, but have been prevented from reading the descriptions of those violations.

Eventually Brennan was able to view the shared video material and informed us that the hand-held camera footage is cut off early, so that material of great interest has not been made available In February I wrote to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner to communicate Brennan’s position on the hand-held camera sharing.

On March 11, 2016 the OPC called. I imagine it was at this point that an investigator had made sufficient sense of the file to discuss it for the first time. The OPC asked me if Brennan was still insisting on what they term “a standard investigation,” meaning that the OPC would demand the entire record from CSC and examine it to determine if the existing sharing was in compliance with the law. I answered in the affirmative. The call proved a useful opportunity to help them understand what we needed, especially in terms of visual material.

On April 5, 2016, I called the OPC and spoke with Chantal Latour, Senior Privacy Investigator. Despite her evident wish to assist, it was impossible to get an idea of when there might be results in our file.

On May 2, 2016, I received an undated letter from Mme. Latour confirming the nature of Brennan’s allegations to her office. It reads in part, “Based on the information you provided, a complaint file has been opened and it has been assigned to me. I have notified CSC of the details of your complaint and asked for a copy of the information held in the processing files that is relevant to your complaint. (….) I will make every effort to complete the investigation as soon as possible. Should you have any additional information or wish an update on my investigation, please do not hesitate…”

This is where things stand. I was hoping there would be something concrete to report from the OPC investigation, but I don’t know if that will take another month or another year. At some point Brennan will need to file in court if he wishes to hold CSC responsible in a civil suit, and that point must be before the third anniversary of the July 22, 2014 incident. You will remember that my mandate was to obtain material evidencing the illegal conduct of CSC so that Brennan (and you) could decide if it is worth pursing before the courts. What we have obtained to date is undoubtedly of some help, but Brennan claims the most damning visual evidence is that which has been withheld, and as of today we cannot know if the OPC will succeed in locating and sharing more, and, if so, when.

The civil litigation rules regarding discovery may succeed in turning up more than the access and privacy route has produced to date. Your dilemma, as I see it, is that you were hoping to have the material illustrating Brennan’s allegations before deciding if you should underwrite civil litigation. It may prove necessary eventually to decide on the basis of what you have. Still, you are not at the deadline for that decision yet…………

Our thanks for this status update were emailed to Stephen Fineberg along with two questions, one pertaining to the availability of the civil litigator he had recommended back in 2014, and the other on a point of clarification arising from the last part of his report. Was it correct to assume that CSC may not provide as much information to the OPC as they may be required to make available under a court order?

Imagine how many of your tax dollars have been spent to this point, and we have yet to go face to face with Correctional Service of Canada.

Cheers to Eric Hoskins

turnoverarocktoday Justice & the Penal Systems

Naloxone is an opioid antidote. Ontario’s Ministry of Health restricts the distribution of this first-aid treatment to clinics that hand out clean needles to addicts. Public health doctors have asked the government for the last three years for take-home kits to just-released provincial inmates, who can be in particular danger of overdosing on opioids after they leave jail.

In spite of requests from a Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services’ senior medical consultant to regional medical officers of health for these kits, Health refused to act. Dr. Eric Hoskins, Ontario’s health minister stepped in and ordered his ministry’s staff to begin distributing naloxone ‘immediately’ to newly released inmates at high risk of overdosing.

Regardless of the benefit expanding the program may have, what is most notable here is that a politician stuck out his neck in support of what he sees as a good cause, and contrary to his bureaucrats’ policy. In spite of the support some CSCS officials have for the project though, a monitoring oversight is needed to ensure orders are followed.

Instructions from ‘head office’ can become corrupted ‘in the trenches’, and the case of Christina Jahn examples how orders go unheeded. Ms Jahn was held in solitary confinement for a total of seven months in 2011 and 2012 at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre without the support and medical attention she needed. She filed a human rights complaint, and the two sides agreed to a settlement on the first day the hearing was to begin in 2013.

Ms Jahn was awarded a sum of money, and Correctional Services was required to commit to 10 “public interest remedies” so no one would be in the same position again. But, her lawyers took action against the government in 2015 for violating the terms of the settlement, alleging some Ontario jails were failing to live up to their obligations. New explicit mandates and directives were subsequently issued by CSCS officials to all institutions. The matter is considered as resolved but there is no process to ensure compliance, and third party surveillance would still uncover some failures.

Nevertheless, Minister Hoskins deserves a laurel for the action he took.

July 11, 2016

The Honourable Dr. Eric Hoskins,
Minister of Health & Long-Term Care,
Hepburn Block, 10th Floor,
80 Grosvenor Street,
Toronto, ON M7A 2C4

Re: Congratulations! Naloxone program.

Dear Minister Hoskins:

The 1980s Britcoms “Yes, Minister” and “Yes, Prime Minister”, knowledgeably written by Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, offered an advanced study of how civil service bureaucrats stymie the best intentions of Ministers of the Crown.

It’s refreshing for a government member in your position to overrule staff and order the immediate distribution of naloxone to some newly released provincial inmates. (How refreshing too for ‘immediate’ to appear in government lexicon.) This writer wonders if anyone described the decision as courageous for a politician. Regardless, we need more of this from all areas of administration.

After almost thirty years of observing CSCS, I offer a note of caution. An instruction in place is not the same as an instruction followed. I give you but one sample of good work undone.

After seven months in solitary confinement at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre in 2011 and 2012, Christina Jahn filed a human rights complaint, and settled in 2013 for a sum of money and a commitment by MCSCS to 10 “public interest remedies”. Her lawyers took action against Ontario in 2015 for violating terms of the settlement, alleging some Ontario jails didn’t follow instructions despite direct orders from CSCS officials. Even today, compliance can be an issue.

Consider employing at-arms-length program inspectors.

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen
cc David Orazietti, MCSCS

Inmates’ protest.

turnoverarocktoday Justice & the Penal Systems

Our recent attention has focused on Ontario’s provincial jail system. The corrections arm of the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services is a ‘soft target’, providing rich fodder for complaint, and we could reasonably argue it’s a composter feeding a garden from which we harvest a cornucopia of colourful information to support a critical eye.

One inmate’s judgement that ‘corrections’ does not correct was equally directed at both federal prisons as well as this province’s jails, but the Ontario system’s lack of transparency and accountability make CSCS a particularly menacing Leviathan, an antithesis of the community safety branch of the same government office.

Only by chance did we come across Dan Taekema’s Toronto Star article, “Inmates protest against more lockdowns at Toronto South Detention Centre” published on Friday, June 10 in the on-line edition of the paper.

On Thursday evening, June 9, as many as 160 inmates from the four units on the third floor refused to return to their cells for a lockdown by sitting peacefully in the prison’s yard. The protest was a demonstration against one inmate’s description of “inhumane conditions” because of frustration over frequent lockdowns. This has been an ongoing issue since the superjail opened two years ago, and is a particular problem at Toronto South where lockdowns are frequent (did we say ‘frequent’) and can last for hours or sometimes days.

For public consumption, Andrew Morrison, a spokesperson for the ministry, and OPSEU correction’s division chair Monte Vieselmeyer passed Thursday night’s protest off almost as routine operational procedure. Staff and inmates on the ground saw it differently. The crisis intervention team was brought in, “they got rough with everybody”, according to one account, and guards said the inmates involved were “going through hell.” One inmate’s take: “The guards are tearing the whole place upside-down, taking everyone’s stuff, their clothes and leaving them all in their shorts. They take their mattresses and leave them in their cells with the hatches closed. TVs are off, no phone, no showers for God knows how many days.”

Monte Vieselmeyer explained it was a “peaceful protest” but said he wasn’t sure why the inmates were protesting. We couldn’t leave that uncontested:-

June 28, 2016

Monte Vieselmeyer,
Chair, Corrections Division,
OPSEU,
100 Lesmill Road,
Toronto, ON M3B 3P8

Re: How was Mars?

Chairman Vieselmeyer:

The on-line Toronto Star for June 10 ran Dan Taekema’s “Inmates protest against more lockdowns at Toronto South Detention Centre.” In this piece, you weren’t sure why the inmates were protesting!

You were once on staff at TSDC, and may still be. There’s no Toronto South guard, civilian employee, administrator, lawyer, social/health care worker, volunteer, professional or family visitor, inmate, CSCS minister, deputy minister, or assistant minister who is not familiar with the relentless pattern of lockdowns there, as there are also at other provincial institutions.

Courts are equally well-informed. Superior Court Justice Douglas Gray awarded two Maplehurst inmates $85K last month over the lockdown issue. Also in May, Ontario Court Justice Mary Hogan was prepared to award a TSDC inmate an enhanced credit for time served until his defence and the Crown came to terms on a sentence. Lockdowns are why the media has paid so much attention to Ontario jails.

It’s claimed most lockdowns result from staff shortages, and CSCS has begun a long overdue hiring blitz to address the problem. But, there is another cause of staff shortages; that is, the number of uniformed staff members who do not report for work as scheduled. Access to Information requests indicate dozens of employees are sometimes absent from Toronto South. No doubt the same is true in other jails.

With the clamour over lockdowns, one wonders just where you’ve been to have missed it all.

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen

blind copies (The blind copies went to CSCS Minister David Orazietti, TSDC Superintendent Mike Wasylyk, and the Toronto Star’s Dan Taekema.

The noise is deafening……

turnoverarocktoday Justice & the Penal Systems

…..they’re pretending not to hear us.

Mary Dwyer is the current manager of health care services at the Toronto South Detention Centre. She came to our attention when she testified in early February in an action by a TSDC inmate looking for redress from the lack of proper medical care in the institution, particularly during lockdowns which are rampant there.

The above is from “Jail health care? Ontario, challenge this!”, an April 10 posting underscoring neo-medieval conditions in parts of the operation of the province’s provincial jails. This entry fleshes out the story referenced on April 10 as one further example of violations of Ministry policy and best practices, Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the United Nations’ “Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.”

Gregory Chaytor spent seven months in pre-trial custody in Toronto South awaiting the disposition of drug charges. He pleaded guilty to two offenses, but a sentencing application submitted by his lawyer Michael Leitold (lay-i-told) alleged that Chaytor was subject to “frequent and ever-increasing” lockdowns at Toronto South, amounting to “arbitrary administrative segregation.” Further, he contends he didn’t get appropriate medical or mental health care. As a result, he was seeking an enhanced credit of 1.75 days’ credit for each day served before trial, rather than the usual 1.5 days’ credit.

The sentencing phase began in December of 2015. The Toronto Star published Amy Dempsey’s print and on-line account of the February 5 appearance by Toronto South’s Michael MacLennan, security manager, and Mary Dwyer, the institution’s health care manager, at a pivotal court date in the process.

Ms. Dwyer testified that she had never seen the Star’s articles describing staff and inmate complaints about inadequate medical services, claiming, “I don’t read newspapers….which as you know are not accurate.” Mr. Leitold also asked her about several Ontario Court decisions in which judges criticized health care at the institution. “First time I’m hearing it,” was her response. Not only was her testimony considered surprising given the wide-spread coverage of problems at Toronto South, but Ontario’s Ombudsman had investigated dozens of health-care complaints at the jail and would have been in touch with her department.

Security manager Michael MacLennan conceded that lockdowns are much like solitary confinement, but he contested defence figures on their frequency. During his testimony, it was revealed that not all jail records available on lockdowns had been provided to the defence or the Crown. As a result, Ontario Court Justice Mary Hogan, criticizing the lack of complete information but reserving judgement of whether anyone was to blame, adjourned the hearing until a May date, the earliest available on the calendar, allowing the balance of the records to materialize.

With that, the story ended. No further news appeared in the media. I contacted Michael Leitold in early June for a clarification and resolution.

As it turned out, the Supreme Court of Canada had struck down one of the previous government’s ‘tough-on-crime’ provisions while the Chaytor matter was adjourned. This allowed the defence and the Crown to agree to a sentence of time served for the two offenses, and the judge further sentenced Chaytor to a $10 fine. The SCC decision rendered the application for a super-enhanced credit for adverse pre-trial conditions moot, and so the Court did not rule on the application.

But, according to Mike Leitold, “in passing judgement, the presiding Justice M. Hogan made clear her concern with the evidence she had heard to that point, and opined that she would have likely granted Mr. Chaytor’s application for the enhanced credit.”

It continues to confound that the judiciary frequently faults Ontario’s Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services’ operation of the province’s jails, while those we elect to ensure what is happening in those institutions does not happen appear oblivious to the issues raised every day by hundreds of inmates and their advocates.

Do your job…..or pay!

turnoverarocktoday Justice & the Penal Systems

Ontario Superior Court Justice Douglas Gray awarded $85,000 to two inmates at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex in Milton after ruling their charter rights were violated by staffing-related lockdowns.

In the May 9 week judgement, Justice Gray ruled that recurring and relentless lockdowns, for sometimes up to 50% of the time on average, violated the inmates’ rights to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. “Degrading”, “disproportionate” and “excessive as to outrage standards of decency” is how the judge described the practice. “The conditions of detention during lockdowns are very close to segregation or solitary confinement. In some ways they are worse. The inmate is holed up with another inmate not of his choosing. The actual periods of confinement for 24 hours a day are entirely arbitrary, and unpredictable, both as to timing and length.”

As reported by Amy Dempsey in the Friday, May 13, Toronto Star, the judge rejected an argument made by the province’s lawyers that conditions described by the inmates were not anywhere close to being egregious or shocking to the public and did not violate their rights. Justice Gray ruled that lockdowns “do not arise from legitimate safety and security concerns” but rather because the ministry has been “unwilling or unable to have sufficient staff available.” Not only that, but Ontario has known about the problem since at least 2002 and not corrected it.

Jamil Ogiamien triggered the lawsuit when he filed an application last July alleging unlawful detainment, and inmate Huy Nguyen joined the action. Nguyen was awarded $25,000, to be paid by the province. Ogiamien was awarded $60,000, to be paid jointly by the province and the federal government, since Ottawa is responsible for his detention.

Both men represented themselves in court.

The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, and the Ministry of the Attorney General would not comment as the case is still in the appeal review period, and they would not say if there are plans to appeal.

These same conditions that led to the decision exist elsewhere, notably Lindsay and Toronto South. Barbara Jackman, a lawyer who assisted in the case but did not directly represent the complainants believes this is the first time monetary damages have been awarded for conditions created by lockdowns. Daniel Brown, a criminal defence lawyer and a director with the Criminal Lawyers’ Association, agrees with Ms. Jackman that this may open the door to a class action lawsuit, that other people may bring similar applications in the future, and that this isn’t an isolated problem.

As Daniel Brown put it, the inmates “weren’t asking for steak dinners and comfier beds. They were just saying, don’t lock us up for no reason. Don’t deny us our basic liberties, our right to have a shower and a phone call and contact with our family.”

As we see it, one major obstacle to a flood of actions is the reluctance of some defence lawyers to take on the province, the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, prison guards, and OPSEU (Ontario Public Service Employees Union) which represents Ontario’s uniformed jail staff. As a reference, please see the May 15th posting on this site, “Where are the angry lawyers?”

Just whose back does Ottawa have?

turnoverarocktoday Constructive Sedition

Are you sure you’re in the picture?

Brennan Guigue is a product of the ‘system’…..the child welfare system, the juvenile justice system, the adult penal system. This triad doesn’t prepare anyone for a life in the community free of constraints, ready and able to engage the world in the ways most of us usually take for granted and handle by rote. As one example, coping with money can be a mystery.

Brennan visited his local Royal Bank branch recently during one of his brief respites from prison to take care of some business. His account there was opened in 2008 on another stay in the community when he strode confidently into the branch, announced his intention to a teller, and then spent some time with the manager who was intrigued by an intelligent and articulate ex-con only too willing to share his prison experience with the uninitiated. Here was the consummate bank robber looking to be an upstanding citizen.

There had never been an account balance of more than a few dollars through the years but it was active even while he was incarcerated. On this particular occasion in 2015, he was told he qualified for a Visa card with a $2000 spending limit! What? A man of 45 with no credit history, no assets, a lengthy criminal record and no experience at managing money, qualified for a Visa card? Albeit unknown to the bank, a man saddled too with emotional and mental health issues, but those didn’t matter given that he shouldn’t have been offered the service in the first place. Or should he?

Brennan wanted to do well. Brennan wanted to belong. He eventually accepted the Visa card, promising he would spend only what he could repay each month. The balance reached $1500 in about three weeks. To show the bank he was serious about his responsibilities he paid half of the $1500 using his Ontario Works cheque, leaving almost nothing for the rest of that month. The balance again ballooned to about $1500. This time, a Good Samaritan paid his bill.

By the time the stressors of contending with life outside prison walls overwhelmed him and he once again ran afoul of the law, the Visa card balance was $2100. He accepts the debt; he wants to pay it off; he hopes Visa will bide its time. Truthfully though, it’s a long shot. It’s a hole-in-one on a par five.

But, the $2100 will be repaid. You and I will cover it in the various ways an organization like Visa employs to recoup its losses. And, it does so with our government’s blessing. This is not about Visa. This is not about the Royal Bank of Canada. All banks and all credit vendors are the same. This is about our government allowing these businesses to operate in the ways they do to our detriment.

Here’s one more brief tale of government complicity with big business.

A friend in Toronto is a long-time Bell Canada customer. He has a land line with two phones in his home. His only “feature” is voice mail. He has no need for more, and no need to spend beyond the minimum.

Unusual for him, he called a sister in Oshawa for her birthday. She wasn’t home; he left a short message. When the bill arrived later in the month, he saw an 80 cent charge for the one minute long distance call, but a further $2.95 ‘ld’ charge, both amounts plus tax. Curious, he called Bell. The $2.95, plus tax, was a charge for the use of the long distance (ld) service, since he didn’t have a plan.

Are you kidding us, Bell Canada?

And finally, as an “oh, by the way”, it’s not news that the Toronto Police Service executed raids on dozens of marijuana medical dispensaries in the city a short few weeks ago. Some of these stores apparently would sell to anyone of age. Operators and staff were handcuffed, money and product seized, and many, many charges were laid. Now, not all marijuana businesses were affected, but the dozens that were was a message to all that the illegal trafficking in marijuana would not be tolerated…….until the law was actually changed.

The news conference on the action held by the chief of police was disrupted by noisy protesters. No one doubts most if not all charges will be dropped, dismissed or resolved summarily with minor fines. So why was such a major and expensive effort launched for such a meager return in the end?

Was there a legitimate reason to act in the best interest of the people? Or, did the multi-million dollar corporations expecting to control the billions of dollars in legal marijuana trade prompt the move? How many of these organizations have ex-political figures on their boards?

Food for thought. Maybe Bernie Sanders should spend some time with us?

Torture us no more. Now for the feds.

turnoverarocktoday Justice & the Penal Systems

The May 29 posting critical of the overuse of solitary confinement in Canada’s penal institutions targeted Ontario’s provincial system.

The letter to Ontario’s Yasir Naqvi published last week was followed closely by a recommendation to Canada’s Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale for our federal prisons. Correctional Service of Canada has a history of practiced and adroit sidestepping of progressive measures endorsed by the Correctional Investigator, other stake holders, and even political leaders. That’s why Lisa Kerr has insisted that positive structural and procedural changes must be enshrined in legislation.

I wonder if the Trudeau government has the chutzpah to show CSC management that it’s “our way or the road.”

June l, 2016

The Honourable Ralph Goodale,
Minister of Public Safety,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6

Re: Solitary confinement: Stop the torture

Dear Minister Goodale:

You may be familiar with the Toronto Globe and Mail’s Tuesday, April 26th editorial, “Stop the torture”, a condemnation of Canada’s overuse of segregation in our provincial and federal penal institutions. A copy is attached.

Included as well with this is Lisa Kerr’s “Solitary confinement rules must be written in law”, from the Globe’s Monday, May 2nd edition. Professor Kerr accuses Correctional Service of Canada of pre-empting substantive reforms by only improving procedural inmate protections, which any informed observer knows is no reform at all. She argues that only legislative action will result in the changes your government supports.

Current CSC management has a history of recalcitrance. If you intend to leave the team in place, then at least send Mr. Head and his subordinates on a tour of European prison systems. Denmark and Germany should top the list. Their observations will either inform the direction Canada’s prison policies will take, or persuade Mr. Head, et al, to consider their career options.

Dillydally no more. Act now!

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen

cc Don Head, Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada

Stop the torture! Good idea.

turnoverarocktoday Justice & the Penal Systems

An unsolicited email received from Yasir Naqvi and dated May 11 invited submissions for the “Comprehensive Review of Segregation” Ontario’s Community Safety & Correctional Services is undertaking. This has been in the works since the media began heavily criticizing federal and provincial governments and our penal systems for its overreliance on the use of solitary confinement, and the resulting damages of the practice.

The invitation came about because of letters sent to Minister Naqvi over time questioning the operation of this province’s jails. However, the deadline for submissions was May 15, too late for us to offer an opinion. It’s never too late though to argue a position. We’ve published our letter to Mr. Naqvi here, and have copied five stakeholders as listed.

There is a reference in the letter to the Globe and Mail’s Tuesday, April 26 editorial, “Solitary Confinement: Stop the torture”, and copies were attached to the addressees. Copyright prevents our reproducing it here, but we can quote from it.

Firstly, the title is definitive. The editorial begins, “What does it take to get governments to pay attention to crises of their own making? In the case of the cruel overuse of solitary confinement…….., the answer would appear to be that there is nothing at all that can move authorities to action.” It continues, “….only Ottawa has made a firm commitment of any kind to ban long-term solitary confinement in federal prisons…”, and concludes, “Solitary confinement, when misused the way it too often is in Canada, is torture. Only the 14 governments that oversee it can fix this. That only one has made a commitment to do so is shameful.”

May 24, 2016

The Honourable Yasir Naqvi,
Minister of Community Safety & Correctional Services,
18th Floor, George Drew Building.
25 Grosvenor Street,
Toronto, ON M7A 1Y6

Re: Comprehensive Review of Segregation

Dear Minister Naqvi:

I thank you for your May 11 email requesting submissions around a review of segregation policies in the province’s jails, but your May 15 deadline left me unable to contribute. Nonetheless, I will comment.

First, I would recommend the Globe and Mail Editorial from Tuesday, April 26 of this year, entitled “Solitary Confinement: Stop the torture”, copy attached.

Reform evasion: Correctional Service of Canada has attempted to pre-empt federal reforms to segregation by voluntarily revising its use of solitary confinement, but only by improving procedural policies. Practices don’t change. Likewise, CSCS is using SHU (Special Handling Unit) ranges to move inmates out of segregation into an environment which can easily be as bad, or worse, than segregation, primarily because of incessant lockdowns. When staff shortages arise elsewhere in an institution, guards are pulled from SHU ranges and inmates there are simply locked down, sometimes for days. But, technically, the SHU is not ‘segregation’ and not subject to the review you are undertaking.

Compliance: Your office and CSCS management presume policies, practices and procedures in force within our provincial institutions are followed as a matter of course. I don’t doubt they are, to a large degree. However, there isn’t an inmate or inmate support who doesn’t understand best practices are at times compromised as “suggestions”, while relevant documentation will conform to the management model all the same. CSCS has not thus far guaranteed safeguards to independently scrutinize compliance.

Inmate Remedy: Provincial inmates have no substantive resource to challenge a segregation placement, or any institutional decision for that matter. Internal options are weighted against a complainant. Most external choices manage broad mandates which can leave jail inmates in a priority margin. Not only that, but even if an inmate is able to access the Inmate Information Guide for Adult Institutions (September 2015), pages 10 to 15, and can obtain assistance from staff, the complexities of the process can seem daunting, be discouraging, and too often regarded as futile, particularly where there are financial considerations.

There is no Utopian solution, but a major move in the right direction would see Ontario establish a dedicated destination solely for prisoner petitions, similar to the federal Office of the Correctional Investigator. An important distinction between the federal OCI and an Ontario equivalent though would have the provincial office submit its annual report directly to the legislature, rather than through CSCS or the Attorney General.

Whatever changes your office proposes, the objective must be a level playing field, both in substance, and with the perception, of fairness, legitimacy and impartiality, backed by an at-arms-length enforcement component.

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen

Margaret Welch, Associate Deputy Minister, Correctional Services, MCSCS
Christina Danylchenko, Assistant Deputy Minister, Institutional Services, MCSCS
Paul Dubé, Ombudsman, Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario
Human Rights Legal Support Centre,
Honourable Glen Murray, Ministry of Environment & Climate Change

Note:  Glen Murray is our local MPP

A badge but no gun?

turnoverarocktoday Policing

Comedian Chris Rock once suggested we should outlaw bullets, not guns. But, either way, guns and bullets are a lethal combination.

“If we keep enabling deadly police confrontations, we will be forced to keep justifying deadly outcomes.”
This is from Desmond Cole’s Toronto Star column of December 3rd last year, “Time to disarm the police”. He’s become a weekly contributor to the newspaper’s op-ed page, his work centering on racial, policing, and social justice issues.

Desmond argues that Toronto police are too quick to resort to deadly force, resulting in multiple fatal shootings. He makes an unfavourable comparison with Montreal’s more progressive police service when dealing with people in mental health crises, citing examples which “proved that police often do put their lives on the line, and can do so without needlessly jeopardizing the lives of the people they serve.”

The Toronto Police Accountability Coalition, http://www.tpac.ca, goes even further in its Bulletin No. 95 of March 21 this year. Noting not only the number of police shootings, plus the budgeting for a “substantial number of new weapons”, and the increasing use of CEW weapons (tasers), the TPAC concluded that “it is time to talk seriously of taking weapons out of the hands of rank and file constables.”

One telling observation came out of the trial of Constable James Forcillo, who was convicted of attempted murder in the death of Sammy Yatim, one of Toronto’s more infamous police shootings. Sammy Yatim died on an empty Toronto streetcar on the evening of July 27, 2013. He was in mental distress and carrying a small knife when confronted by several police officers at a distance who were outside the vehicle.

One, James Forcillo, fired nine rounds within seconds of coming on the scene, hitting his target eight times. The first three shots were fatal, the other five were for what, “good measure”? Not only that, another officer subsequently tasered the prone and almost dead man.

After the trial, CBC’s Metro Morning’s Matt Galloway briefly spoke with a British police officer who had reviewed the evidence. Under similar circumstances in Britain, he said, the police there would probably not have deployed weapons.

The police in Britain would probably not have deployed weapons.

Where are the angry lawyers?

turnoverarocktoday Justice & the Penal Systems

A social/legal worker who frequently visits Ontario’s provincial jails to assist inmates with navigating our courts arrived at an institution one evening for an 8pm appointment. The meeting was to finalize a court-ordered report which would expedite an inmate’s release. But, time was short, and a deadline loomed.

After signing in, shown into an interview room, and then waiting twenty minutes, a staff member told this worker that the inmate had refused the meeting. This wasn’t true, the worker knew that, but said nothing, and left the institution.

Why would the worker be told what all involved knew was a lie, and why would the worker not protest? Why would one of your public servants interfere?

Well, perhaps a guard was angry with the inmate for some reason, or annoyed with the worker. Maybe no guard wanted to escort the inmate to the meeting. Perhaps available guards just couldn’t be bothered. The possibilities are aplenty.

Doesn’t happen? Really? Then you need to speak to an officer of the court, a social/legal worker, a lawyer…..or, perhaps a jail guard.

Why wouldn’t the worker complain? Because, quite simply, a complaint would make later work more difficult in any provincial jail.

Doesn’t happen? Really? Then, you need to speak to an officer of the court, a social/legal worker, a lawyer…..or perhaps a jail guard.

Why not post names, dates, places, more complete details? Well, if the HonourableYasir Naqvi, Ontario’s Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Service, thinks all is right with the world, then more information puts people at risk…….from our own public servants.

One other example, but with a another inmate. A lawyer arrived at an institution to meet a client, and was subsequently told the visit was refused. And to repeat, this was a lawyer trying to confer with a client. Of course the inmate had not refused, the lawyer knew this and perhaps wasn’t compliant and humble, so when the same lawyer arrived at another time to meet with the same client, the lawyer was told the client had been moved to a different institution. The lawyer went to the other location only to learn no such transfer had taken place. Again, identifying details only jeopardizes the lawyer/client relationship…..again, from our own public servants.

Doesn’t happen? Really? Then you need to speak to an officer of the court, a social/legal worker, a lawyer….or perhaps a jail guard.

Granted, this isn’t part of the daily routine and the frequency with which it occurs is a subject for speculation, but that it happens at all is unacceptable. This is but one of a few shortcomings within our provincial penal system that confounds the administration of justice and which prompted this letter to the Criminal Lawyers Association:-

April 28, 2016

Anthony Laycock, Executive Director,
Criminal Lawyers Association,
189 Queen Street East, Suite #1,
Toronto, ON M5A 1S2

Re: Ontario’s provincial jails

Dear Director Laycock:

For the last twenty-five years or more of observation and tapping into the first-hand experiences of others, the penal institutions operated by Ontario’s Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services posit one omni-present question.

Why are you putting up with the conditions under which you and your clients suffer?

Set aside how widely known to the public the circumstances in our jails are, certainly every person walking the corridors of any Ontario provincial courthouse is aware of a high degree of ethical and moral corruption among some front-line uniformed jail workers. At the very least, this is costly to you, the people you represent, and the operation of our courts. At worst, it ‘brings our system of justice into disrepute.’

Bottom line: this would be better if it didn’t stink!

Remedies? MCSCS management and their political masters do their jobs, insisting that policies, procedures, best practices……and the law, are not only followed, but that compliance and accountability are watchwords throughout the ministry. A responsible, progressive, responsive government sets up an inmate-exclusive resource like the federal Office of the Correctional Investigator.

Reform is unlikely though until you, your organization, lawyers, their firms, and the courts prod, provoke and challenge the status quo. Change cannot come soon enough.

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen