Cruel & unusual punishment….

….okay in Canada, federal prosecutors say.

Section 12 of the Charter states: Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

Dipping into our archives to review what’s been sitting on the back burner waiting for attention is Toronto Globe and Mail justice writer Sean Fine’s, “Federal prosecutors defend use of cruel, unusual punishment,” from last spring.

Several convicted people are using section 12 to challenge the legality of a Conservative-era law that imposes a financial burden on all convicted criminals, no matter how poor. “The mandatory victim surcharge was a centrepiece of the Harper government’s push to give more rights to victims and fewer to accused and convicted offenders,” says Sean Fine in his column.

Lawyers from the Public Prosecutions Service of Canada defended the surcharge before the Ontario Court of Appeal in mid-March, citing section 1 of the Charter where the government may seek to justify limits on rights, and courts must decide if the limits are reasonable. They claim the law is fair because the poor have extra time to pay, and cannot be jailed for defaulting.

The law ignited a judicial rebellion from the onset when judges in many provinces gave offenders up to 99 years to pay, or charged as little as thirty cents, or simply ignored it. And, the defence arguments are deeply at odds with the Liberal government’s present position on this law, and on the primacy of the Charter.

The federal prosecution service acts independently from the justice minister to avoid possible or perceived political interference. The minister does have the authority of a final say, and this case raises an issue about when that power should be employed. As it is, the present government is intent on reviewing the status of legislation that is not consistent with its commitments to a progressive approach to criminal law, and its support of Charter values.

An interesting sidebar is that if the prosecutors succeed in their arguments that the government can justify cruel and unusual punishment, the ruling might be used to defend practices up to and including torture.

One justice scholar recalls a 1982 conversation with Pierre Trudeau, father of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and the Canadian prime minister who initiated the Charter. According to the senior Trudeau, “You know, I think section 12 might be the only absolute right.”

The appeal judges reserved their decision.


Soleiman Faqiri… for the ages.

“No detective needed!”, posted October 8, sketched the proverbial tip of an iceberg in Ontario’s prison industry. Would observers in other provinces say differently about British Columbia or Manitoba or Nova Scotia? Not likely. Is our federal penal system immune? There’s plenty of evidence that says it’s not.

True, few inmates die, and only a minute number of survivors step forward to fight for the attention warranted. And, what does the general public say? Tear some away from their brain-hacking mobile devices long enough to see there’s a problem, and most will shrink into their shells, afraid to assert their authority, overwhelmed by circumstances over which they believe are beyond their control……or, lacking the interest to accept responsibility for the bad decisions of their public employees.

Yes, there are honest men and women with ethical intentions and moral centres working in provincial and federal institutions, but the constraints of a forced conformity negate good will and progressive foresight.

What about management? What about ministry staff? What about the politicians charged with the oversight of our jails and prisons? Yes, what about them? Where is the accountability and transparency? Are these civil servants of ours thick-headed, unable to recognize what is under their noses?

Of course they’re not. There’s an old Victorian adage which says, “I don’t care what you do, as long as you don’t do it in the street and frighten the horses.” Just keep a lid on whatever might float to the surface, damage control the leaks, and disparage the naysayers. When the pot does boil over, deny, deny, deny……and, quietly make the mess go away.

Change? Now that’s difficult. The ebb and flow of policy ‘corrections’ are meant to mollify the doubters and activists. Confining legislation is a necessary first step. But in spite of constant setbacks, there’s always hope.

For now, Soleiman Faqiri gave his life to ask us all…….where were you?

It didn’t have to happen!

No detective needed!

Soleiman Faqiri….another prison murder mystery?

Globe and Mail, Friday, July 21, 2017 – “Inmate died in solitary after dispute with officers: coroner’s report.”
Patrick White’s column began, “A 30-year-old Ontario man suffered at least 50 injuries before dying in a provincial solitary confinement cell last December, the culmination of an hours-long confrontation with prison guards.”

Soleiman Faqiri, a schizophrenic, was arrested on December 4, 2016, and charged with one count of assault and one count of uttering a death threat. He was transported to Central East Correctional Centre in Lindsay, placed in a segregation cell, and eleven days later, on December 15 and in deteriorating mental health, he died.

He died at the hands of jail guards. The coroner’s report noted a long list of injuries to Mr. Faqiri’s body, “including a bruised laceration on the forehead, multiple bruises about the nose, neck and ears, along with dozens of bruises and abrasions of his torso and limbs,” caused by blunt force trauma. All the same, the coroner would not, could not, explain this death.

Mr. Faqiri’s family want answers. In the meantime, Brennan Guigue has written an opinion, based on material published in the Globe and Mail, and the Toronto Star, and on his long experience with Canada’s prison industry:-

So, Chris Butsch, local union president representing correctional officers at Central East Correctional Centre in Lindsay, rejects allegations of wrongdoing by his members?! He doesn’t know the exact cause of Soleiman Faqiri’s death?!


Let’s assess the situation based on the information contained in Patrick White’s Globe and Mail article from July 21, 2017……and my knowledge of, and experience with, similar circumstances.
1) Five or six guards escorted Soleiman Faqiri from the showers to cell B-10. Control of an inmate dictates the number of guards. One is assigned to each limb (4), one officer is assigned control of the inmate’s head (Mr. Faqiri was “hunched over” because the guard was physically holding it down.) Finally, one officer is assigned control of the capsicum canister to ‘charge’ the pepper spray for the duration of the event.
These are standard procedures for the handling of an aggressive or…..”rebellious” inmate.
2) Mr. Faqiri was handcuffed and shackled, lending even more control for the guards.
3) But, because 6 prison guards didn’t have enough control over this one individual in full restraints, he was ‘doused’ with pepper spray. That word alone conjures up visions of someone having a bucket of water dumped over them.


Understand the purpose of pepper spray and how it is to be used.
Pepper spray is part of a guard’s arsenal of tools, for use as a deterrent when an inmate is acting in a threatening or aggressive way toward staff/self/or others.
That’s it……, that’s all. It’s very simple.
No matter what MCSCS may claim, chemical agents are not to be used on a handcuffed and shackled inmate who refuses to enter a cell, and is surrounded by 5 or 6 jail guards.

So now, the inmate has been sprayed, and I guarantee that spray was directed at his face, mouth, and nose, contrary to training and policy, and he is then wrestled to the floor by 5 or 6 guards, all the while struggling to breathe.

What is it like to be ‘doused’ with pepper spray? Take the cayenne, chili, and any other pepper in your kitchen, boil it in a pot of water until reduced to sludge. Smear that all over your face, including your eyes and nostrils, and then even gargle with it. Now, try to pick a fight with six other people while your hands and feet are tied. As a by-the-way, capsicum is 7 to 10 times more potent than the sludge from your kitchen’s pepper supply, but media reports are always woefully understated.

Excusing the aside, you really need to understand what happened to this human being, and empathize with the torture to which he was subjected.

Making this worse, the inmate was then sprayed a second time! For certain, this second dose was also directly in the face at a range of only two to three inches. Believe me, when that happens, the one and only thing your mind tells your body to do is…..SURVIVE!

To quote Patrick White’s article, Mr Faqiri was “continuing to raise himself off the floor”. This was a clear sign he was in pure “fight or flight” mode. Could you struggle with 6 people, one on each limb, while handcuffed and shackled, and with such intensity that the guards called for help, calling a Code Blue? And that, after being sprayed not once, but twice, in the face with a chemical agent that is specifically designed to inhibit sight and breathing?

In one particular incident last year at Toronto South when two guards were assaulted, one male and one female who sprained a wrist, that was a justified Code Blue circumstance where immediate assistance was needed. This situation at Lindsay on December 15 was not. But the call was made, and 45 to 90 seconds later, the “second shift” arrives and places “a hood over his head” (Faqiri), further restricting the inmate’s breathing. It’s the youngest, fittest, strongest, most gung-ho male guards who respond to the Code Blue; they have to sprint from all areas of the institution.

The result? “A lengthy list of injuries”, “dozens of bruises”, nose (punches to the face, or a grown man’s weight smashing his head into the floor, and probably both), neck (choke hold), ears (again, strikes or smashing of the head into the floor), “blunt force trauma.” The coroner suggests that Mr. Faqiri’s arrhythmia could have been triggered by a combination of physical struggle, emotional agitation, and pain. Oh…., and there’s the presence of antipsychotic medication.

Really? Basically then, handcuffed, twice pepper sprayed, choked, beaten, and having his head covered with a hood, all the while having two separate groups of 5 or 6 guards on top of him had absolutely nothing to do with this man’s death!

If the second shift of guards was necessary because the first shift was exhausted from struggling with one person, how exhausted would Mr. Faqiri have been? Perhaps the guards mistook Mr. Faqiri for Dr. David Banner, and feared he was about to transform into the HULK. That’s about as believable as Mr. Butsch’s claim that his members “acted professionally to subdue a rebellious inmate”! And then he goes on to say neither he nor anyone else knows the exact cause of death!

Oh well then……case closed people, job well done. Mr. Faqiri must have been suicidal and he somehow managed to kill himself while being restrained by a total of no less than 10 to 12 grown adults.

Case closed.

Sometimes the answers are less important than the questions.
1) All capsicum canisters are weighed at the start of each shift, as well as at the end. When a guard sprays any amount of chemical agent during a use-of-force incident, that canister is weighed to determine how much agent was used. That’s the policy. Each canister holds a specific number of ‘doses’, and the amount used indicates how many doses were deployed against an individual.
Question: How many doses were used against Mr. Faqiri? How much time elapsed between the first ‘dousing’, the second round, the Code Blue response time and, finally, the end of staff intervention? Did the coroner find traces of capsicum in the lungs and throat?
Remember, during this whole incident this man could not breathe, move, see, and was being choked, enduring dozens of blunt force strikes.

In the end, any reasonably intelligent person could see that, (1) the guards used their pepper spray as a weapon and not as a deterrent, (2) 5 or 6 staff members should have been able to control a person who was already subdued in full restraints….or has their training not prepared them for such situations, (3) they then employed excessive, gratuitous force, beat him up, claiming it was necessary to gain his compliance, but more likely, it was to teach him a lesson, (4) and, this is the kicker……THE MAN DIED!

A final thought: what would happen if you and four or five of your friends jumped an individual, tied him up, beat him, causing “dozens of bruises” (more that 50……..50!), choked him until he stopped moving and breathing….., and then found that you had killed that person. What would happen in a court of law, given the available evidence?
Question: Why should those we hold to a higher standard be able to commit murder, and not be held responsible for their actions?
“Held responsible”…..isn’t that the basis of our legal system?

When these cases come to light, people act surprised; there’s incredulousness in their viewpoint. Inmates who witness, or experience, such circumstance are always scoffed at. Criminals have no credibility……right? Chris Butsch can be as dismissive of the evidence as his conscience will allow, but no matter how clean the castle, pull back it’s carpet and you’ll find some dirt.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, ANYBODY can end up in one of these places. From murder to trespassing, to unpaid fines, and contrary to the provisions in sections 7 & 8 of the Charter of Rights, there really is no guarantee of walking out unharmed. If unforeseen traumatic events can happen in a hospital, why is it so hard to believe it could happen in a jail?

If you think the ‘blue wall of silence’ is thick with the police…..they got nothin’ on correctional officers!

Thugs and bullies!

It’s one of the best jobs in the world. Where else can you kick a man to death and get six months paid leave in order to deal with the trauma of it all?

Brennan Guigue

August 7, 2017

Brennan Guigue has an active lawsuit against Correctional Service Canada over an unwarranted use-of-force pepper spray incident in 2014. He is well-versed on Canada’s prison industry protocols and the use of chemical agents.
See more at for Brennan Guigue

One step at a time……

……and make no mistake, Correctional Service of Canada does not want paper and video documentation on this July 2014 incident in the public domain. It’s bad PR, and just when the agency is under increased criticism and scrutiny in the media, and in the courts in Ontario and British Columbia, over its use of solitary confinement.

Both parties to this action against Canada’s federal ‘prison industry’ completed their portion of the Case Protocol, and Kalman Samuels filed the document in the Superior Court record in Montreal on September 7.

The government has asked that Eric Charbonneau’s name be removed from the Application. That has been rejected. The government has also requested a stay of proceedings for two months in order to engage in negotiations. It believes the information in its possession will allow the matter to be settled. That too has been rejected. What has been proposed is the scheduling of pre-trial examinations in mid-October or November to allow time for negotiation before the case moves forward. The government has accepted that proposition.

Brennan Guigue approved the Case Protocol, but the matter of available medical reports as a part of the material under consideration is questionable. Brennan was unable to bring in independent and outside medical assessment and treatment, and had to rely on what was available through CSC’s Health Care. This has been discounted in previous postings as corrupted for lack of due diligence, but would be subject to argument at trial.

Brennan Guigue is open to a negotiated settlement of course, but rightly insists there must be a level playing field. He and his counsel must have all the information available to the government. That includes the complete and unedited video, plus the redacted data CSC has so far offered to release, and there must be an opportunity to determine if other redacted data is necessary in order to reach a fair and equitable resolution.

The wheels turn………

That’s a wrap!

….on policing……for now.

Long, long ago, in a land far, far away……., well actually, it was the United States of America in the late 1980s……….
……the U.S. print and broadcast media highlighted stories of judges dismissing what were often serious criminal charges against defendants who were more often than not guilty of the crimes for which they were accused. The police and/or prosecutors and/or defense lawyers and/or lower court rulings were cited in these orders to dismiss. Media was sometimes objective in its reporting, sometimes critical.

There came a moment when an eminent retired jurist, whose name wasn’t recorded at the time, made news with a relevant comment. If all involved in the prosecution of the law and administration of justice did their jobs properly, he said, miscarriages would not arise. That signaled a shift away from a focus on criminals who escaped punishment to a closer look at civil servants who avoided accountability in a less than transparent process.

The camera’s had a major impact on justice in the last many years. Video technology has fed social media across North America with a proliferation of images of police officers behaving badly. To be sure, we also see film of cops dutifully doing a difficult job, pictures of officers going beyond routine, angels in uniform. But, pictures have too often put a stark reality right under our noses. Law enforcement is not what it’s made out to be by ‘spin doctors’, bureaucrats, politicians, and sometimes the courts. And, there continues to be a conundrum we see in all this film…..and it’s not pretty.

We all want to be at our best when someone’s watching, or if we think we’re under scrutiny. If we mess up, even in a small way, our mental reflexes kick us in the right direction. We look for redemption, and barring a mental or emotional imbalance, the reflex is inborn. We’ll look to cover our trail too when there’s no alternative….the panic that comes with ‘fight or flight.’

Pictures of our police officers going where they cannot go, and doing what they cannot do, aren’t an invention of the camera. The camera captures what has always been, but the increasing number of cameras everywhere results in a moderating of past practices, the impact of ‘someone is watching’. That we continue to see what we see, despite video, is alarming.

September 15, 2017

Mark Saunders, Chief of Police,
Toronto Police Service,
40 College Street,
Toronto, ON M5G 2J3

Re: A bad apple

Dear Chief Saunders:

You command about 5,000 men and women on the TPS force, and most perform according to mandated standards.

The Toronto Star, your favourite newspaper, recently published a column by one of its journalists addressing the use of ‘bad apple’ as it applies to some police officers reportedly not living up to their code of conduct. He pointed out that the term is only part of a whole, being “A bad apple spoils the lot.”

The camera, a boon to social media, is not always a friend to the police, citing, Officers Amanpreet Gill, Adam Lourenco, Sharnic Pais, Dusan Dan Provica, and Corey Sinclair as examples. Media attention has targeted Brian Davy, Joseph Dropuljic, Benjamin Elliot, John and Michael Theriault, and Bradley Trenouth, among others, using various sources without video backup.

Then there are the reports of civilians such as James Bishop, where there is some film, or Tyrone Phillips, Josh Odorico, and the family of Kevin Simmonds, to name a few, who complain about their police contacts, and just so as with Waseem Khan’s experience.

One source notes a staple of Sunday morning sermons in 19th century America was: “As one bad apple spoils the others, so you must show no quarter to sin or sinners.” You and your management team would be well-served to protect the integrity of the force and its members by expelling the “sinners.”

Yours truly,

Charles H. Klassen

Remember the August incident on video in a Utah hospital when a nurse calmly explained to a police detective why she couldn’t draw blood from a unconscious patient without consent or a warrant? She was aggressively arrested and briefly detained. “This cop bullied me. He bullied me to the utmost extreme. And nobody stood in his way,” is how nurse Alex Wubbels described her ordeal.

September 12, 2017

Chief Mike Brown,
Salt Lake City Police Department,
P.O. Box 145497,
Salt Lake City, Utah,

Re: “Utah police apologize after arresting nurse in blood-draw dispute”
        Sally Ho & Lindsay Whitehurst, Associated Press

Dear Chief Brown:

When detective Jeff Payne arrested nurse Alex Wubbels for doing her job properly on July 26th, he forgot one important principle.

Every morning, your detective gets out of bed and dresses for the day. Ms. Wubbels’ tax dollars pays for the underwear he’s wearing.

Detective Payne must remember who really is in charge.

Yours truly

Charles H. Klassen

We leave the policing file here for the moment, and move on………

POLICING….still more….

“It is difficult to imagine how public confidence can be maintained in the rule of law when police officers present false evidence against accused persons. Our justice system cannot function unless courts can rely on the willingness of witnesses to……tell the truth.”

So wrote Judge Katherine Corrick in her August 8th decision when staying charges against one defendant, and finding his two co-accused not guilty of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of the proceeds of crime.

She found Toronto police Constable Bradley Trenouth“deliberately misleading” in testimony to “strengthen the case” against an accused, and “falsely attributed” a large piece of crack cocaine to one Jason Jaggernauth. He and two others, Jordan Davis and Jimal Nembrand-Walker, were discovered in a Scarborough apartment in 2014 with multiple types of drugs and drug paraphernalia. Drugs were found on two of the accused but not on Jaggernauth.

“The false attribution of evidence to an accused’s possession, and false testimony by a police officer constitute precisely the type of state misconduct that undermines the integrity of the judicial process,” Corrick wrote.

While the judge is described in the August 12 Toronto Star as ‘scathing’ in her decision, a Toronto police spokesperson “can’t say whether (Trenouith) will face any discipline.”

“I CAN’T PICTURE THIS HAPPENING TO A GROUP OF WHITE KIDS”, captioned a photo of Dafonte Miller’s family on the front page of the July 19th Toronto Star.

Star staff reporter Peter Goffin began, “An off-duty cop outside his jurisdiction. A young Black man allegedly beaten with a metal pipe. A family making accusations of racial profiling and a mishandled police investigation.”

In the early hours of December 28, 2016, 19-year-old Dafonte Miller was walking on a Whitby, Ontario sidewalk near his home with a group of friends…also black….on their way to another friend’s home. The group passed a house where off-duty Toronto police Constable Michael Theriault was in the garage with his younger brother. They’re both only a few years older than Miller, and the house is owned by their father, John Theriault, a detective with more than 30 years of service with Toronto Police, currently working in the professional standards unit.

The two men approached the group, one identifying himself as a police officer, and asked where the friends lived and what they were doing in the neighbourhood. They kept walking. The Theriault brothers gave chase, later claiming a car in their driveway had been broken into (later debunked), caught up with Miller and punched, kicked, and struck him in the face repeatedly with a metal pipe.

Miller tried to call 911, but Theriault grabbed the phone, and identified himself as a police officer making an arrest. A number of Durham police showed up and charged Miller with possession of a weapon (Theriault claimed it was Miller attacking him with the pipe), two counts of assault with a weapon, theft under $5000, and possession of marijuana. All charges were later dropped.

Miller was hospitalized with a broken nose, broken orbital bone, fractured wrist, and his left eye was so badly damaged, it had to be removed.

Neither Durham or Toronto police called the SIU, which they are legally bound to do under the circumstances. Dafonte Miller’s family hired attorney Julian Falconer and he notified the SIU in May. As a result, the Theriault brothers have been charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and public mischief.

In the months following, Star writers Jennifer Pagliard, David Rider, and Wendy Gillis have joined Peter Goffin in covering this ongoing saga of accusations of police cover-up by both Toronto and Durham forces, interference by the brothers’ father, Detective John Theriault, and further, that the brothers misled the police investigation.

Criticisms have come from many quarters. Durham police announced they will investigate themselves, but their report will not be made public. Toronto Chief Mark Saunders enlisted Waterloo police to look at his force’s actions here, and promised to make this report public. Still, we once again face this question of the police investigating police. Not right, not good for us, not good for policing. Look for the ‘spin’ on this to make Miller the villain.

There was a “We’re here for Dafonte” protest outside an Oshawa courthouse on Thursday, September 7, when the Theriault brothers made a brief appearance.

“For the second time in just over a month, the Toronto Police Service is under fire for failing to report a case of a seriously injured Black man to Ontario’s police watchdog.” This time it was Jacques Gallant writing in the Toronto Star, grabbing the paper’s front page on August 25.

A 23-year-old black man was getting into a cab in front of his apartment building in November of 2015 when Toronto police dragged him from the car, kneed him in the back, beat him, illegally searched and groped him, and dragged him toward a police cruiser. He lost consciousness at one point and suffered a concussion and mental trauma. Police claimed they were responding to reports of gunfire in the area. They didn’t find a gun.

Now 25 and wanting to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals, he told reporters police refused his offer to follow him into his building to retrieve ID, and only when his mother came out with his identification did the police leave him alone.

He didn’t discuss this for months, but after reading reports of black men being beaten and killed by police, he went to the African Canadian Legal Clinic. They in turn reported this to the Office of the Independent Police Review Director, who then notified the SIU, almost a year after the incident. Here again, by not bringing in the SIU, police did not do what they are required to do by law. As a result of a SIU investigation, Constable Joseph Dropuljic was charged with assault.

Adding insult to injury, police called him a “f—–g idiot” and told him to “shut the f—k up” when he asked why they were trying to arrest him. When Dropuljic couldn’t come up with a reason to further detain him, the man was told to “Get the f—k out of my car.”

Nice, eh?


….this shouldn’t be, but it is.

“DUI charge thrown out….”, began a Toronto Star headline over court reporter Alyshah Hasham’s byline on July 31 of this year.
“After ruling that a Toronto police officer assaulted a drunk driving suspect and told him to urinate in the back seat of a police cruiser, a judge threw out an impaired driving charge this month” (July).

Jong Won Jung failed a roadside breathalyzer test and was arrested at a RIDE stop late on February 28. Video from the police cruiser shows Jung telling Officer Amanpreet Gill that he really needed to go to the washroom as he was waiting to enter the police station. Gill told Jung to hold it ‘til after he was processed, and, according to Ontario Court Justice Joseph Bovard, “Gill went further and demonstrated a belligerent and demeaning attitude toward Mr. Jung. He told him to urinate in the police cruiser.”

Jung used a washroom eventually, and was later handcuffed to a bench in the station when he was assaulted by Gill for accidently hitting the officer with a phone receiver put to his ear to speak to his waiting girlfriend. Gill repeatedly shoved the handcuffed man, knocking his head against the wall behind the bench and then further hit his head six or seven times with the phone receiver. Constable Corey Sinclair, Gill’s rookie partner, denied witnessing an assault, and Jung didn’t complain further given a lack of response to his initial objections.

Judge Bovard ruled that 15-year police veteran Gill showed a “lack of honesty” about what happened that night, and that the testimony of both officers “lacked candour” when it came to what happened in the police cruiser…..until confronted with the in-car video. Gill and Sinclair were not forthright with the court, the judge found, and charges against Jung were dismissed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, the province’s highest court, ‘quashed’ multiple convictions against Perth County’s Frank Strauss in a 3-0 decision at the beginning of August. The court ruled that police had violated the rights of this Hells Angel member who’d been convicted of charges that resulted in an 11-year jail sentence.

Police found guns, drugs, cash and ammunition behind a fake wall in a barn leased to Strauss, according to a report by Sean Fine, a justice writer for the Toronto Star in an August 2nd story. The police had a warrant to search but had earlier in the investigation picked a lock and broken into the same barn…..without a warrant.

“The court said the justice system’s reputation needs to be protected from what it described as blatantly illegal police behaviour”, read the article.

“A senior investigating officer and his team made a conscious decision to ‘gamble’ with the law and the courts,” wrote Justice Mary Lou Benotto in her ruling.

The Star quoted University of Alberta law professor Steven Penney, a criminal law specialist, describing police behaviour as “pretty shocking misconduct, to deliberately and knowingly violate the Charter just because they felt it was in some general public interest.”

“Policing & ‘alternative facts’”, our February 5th posting, covered an event leading to Toronto Police Sergeant Eduardo Miranda facing a hearing for use of ‘excessive force’ when he appears to repeatedly taser and stomp on a man during an arrest. The event was captured on video by complainant Waseem Khan who was told over and over he couldn’t record, even though citizens have a right to do so if they are not obstructing.

A reading of the earlier posting details what led to the complaint. Ontario’s independent police review director, Gerry McNeilly, issued a report covered by the Toronto Star in its August 11 edition, where the OIPRD found that there was “evidence of misconduct” by officers on site.

He went on, “Clearly, in my view, this matter had to be investigated, not just based on the complaint filed, but also on the videos and so on. I see what’s on TV. I found that the actions of the officer reached a threshold for misconduct based on the excessive use of force and I determined that it was serious. That means that the matter must go to a tribunal hearing. The chief has no choice.”

Against police orders, Sgt. Miranda and five constables failed to activate in-car camera system microphones upon reaching the scene. The five constables not singled out in the report will be subject to less serious informal discipline for misconduct.

Waseem Khan has full standing at the September 26 hearing, and plans to attend. He believes the police are losing public trust, and this case will underscore that operating outside the law is not “okay.”