|
Police - Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA). Deveaux v. CORNWALL POLICE SERVICES
In Deveaux v. CORNWALL POLICE SERVICES (Div Court, 2024) the Ontario Divisional Court considered a JR, here where a self-presenting complainant to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) sought a review of LECA's suspension of it's investigation while a related civil case was resolved. This in the context of a situation where "the Crown withdrew the charge right before the cross-examination of a police witness", and the complainant submitted "that he has proof that officers who arrested him lied to the SIU initially and in court during his trial".
Here, Myers J essentially pleads with respondent lawyers involved to take the case in hand and "lead the clients to a fair outcome and not simply make the process impenetrable and inaccessible":[24] I obviously have no idea at this stage whether there is truth to Mr. Deveaux’s complaints. But someone among the government respondents should know. Watching a self-represented party try to understand and valiantly battle the procedural complexities thrown up by the phalanx of legal talent being brought to bear by government leads me to wonder how someone who truly has a provable claim can be expected to ever access civil justice.
[25] I am not sure I understand the war in which this proceeding is just one battle. Shouldn’t our police services be transparent and accountable to the public whom they serve? Are there documents or recordings that people know will prove the truth of the claims one way or the other? Is there a public interest in having them produced to answer the questions raised in these proceedings? If Mr. Deveaux’s allegations are not true, shouldn’t those involved be publicly exonerated? If they are true, shouldn’t those involved be accountable? In whose interest is requiring motion after motion after motion and three or more different legal proceedings to access evidence that will resolve an issue about alleged police misconduct pro or con? Who can afford the battles let alone the war of attrition being waged?
[26] I can only express the hope that if there is a lawyer who knows the truth of the allegations, that he or she will lead the clients to a fair outcome and not simply make the process impenetrable and inaccessible. Our system of justice is built upon the principle that lawyers are duty-bound to ensure that all parties receive a fair hearing. They are not just champions for the rich and strong. See: Law Society of Ontario, Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 5.1-1: The lawyer’s duty to fearlessly raise every issue for their cleint [sic] is to be performed, “in a way that promotes the parties' right to a fair hearing in which justice can be done.” . Liu v. London Police Service
In Liu v. London Police Service (Div Court, 2024) the Divisional Court dismissed a JR of "the decision of the Chief of Police of the London Police Service (LPS), and the unreported decision of the Director of the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA), formerly known as the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD), confirming the Chief’s decision.":Request for OIPRD review
[15] On March 9, 2024, the applicant requested that the Director of the OIPRD conduct a review of the Chief’s decision, pursuant to s. 71 of the Police Services Act.
OIPRD becomes LECA
[16] On April 1, 2024, the Police Services Act was repealed and replaced with the Community Safety and Policing Act, S.O. 2019, c.1, Sched. 1. The Community Safety and Policing Act created the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) which replaced the former OIPRD. LECA is an arms-length agency of the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General that is tasked with investigation of public complaints about the conduct of police officers in Ontario.
Complaints Director’s decision
[17] On April 17, 2024, the Complaints Director with LECA wrote to the applicant setting out his decision confirming the decision of the Chief of Police that the allegations of misconduct were unsubstantiated. In his decision, the Complaints Director advised that, given the request for review had been made prior to April 1, the Director had conducted the review pursuant to s. 71 of the Police Services Act.
....
Standard of Review
[22] The decision of the OIPRD (LECA) is reviewable on a standard of reasonableness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII), 2019 S.C.C. 65, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653.
|
