Ontario – OIPRD Found Not To Be Sooo Independent After All

Ontario police watchdog skewered for back-room chats that cleared officer of misconduct

Back-channel chats that led Ontario’s police watchdog to set aside its own finding of misconduct against an officer were inappropriate and undermined the integrity of the process, an appeal court has ruled.

In a decision this week, Divisional Court said the Office of the Independent Review Director had compromised its independence and ordered it to reinvestigate a complaint against a Toronto constable from scratch.
“As is emphasized by the name of the decision-maker, the Director of the Office of Independent Police Review was obliged to conduct an independent investigation and reach an independent  decision,” the Divisional Court panel said in its ruling. “Here, in circumstances which belie the independence of the OIPRD, the director had undisclosed discussions with the TPS about changing his decision and, ultimately, he did change his decision.”
The case arose in April 2014 when Toronto police searched the Stanley family home based on a tip about the presence of a firearm. None was found.

The Stanleys alleged police misconduct, including that Const. Chris Howes had stomped on one of the family member’s head or neck while they were lying handcuffed on the ground. Among other things, they alleged assault, that police deliberately destroyed their property and made racial slurs.

Following an investigation, the independent review director in March 2015 reported finding enough evidence to support an allegation of “serious misconduct” against Howes. The director notified the  family and said the file had been passed onto police for disciplinary action.

In response, an inspector with the police service contacted the watchdog via phone and letter to complain about its decision. The upshot, according to the court file, was that the review director, Gerry McNeilly, agreed to reopen the investigation.

McNeilly then notified the Stanley family in May 2015 that the investigation had been flawed, was being reopened, and the findings suspended. He made no mention of the conversations with Toronto police.

In December 2015, McNeilly told the Stanleys the investigation had now found all allegations of misconduct to have been unsubstantiated.

The Stanleys turned to Divisional Court, asking that the second report be quashed, the original misconduct conclusion reinstated, and the Howes allegations be sent to a disciplinary hearing.

The review director argued the Stanleys had been notified about the decision to reopen the investigation and were reinterviewed as part of it. The agency also maintained it had simply taken a “second look.”

In its decision, the court found the secretive back-channel communications between the director and police were inappropriate and unfair. Instead of Toronto police initiating a disciplinary hearing against Howes, they had “undisclosed discussions with the director” about changing his decision, the court said. – CBC News

read the full article here

“Here, in circumstances which belie the independence of the OIPRD, the director had undisclosed discussions with the TPS about changing his decision and, ultimately, he did change his decision.”

Oh….Sooo the OIPRD director has undisclosed conversations that affect his decisions?  The “I” in OIPRD does not really stand for independent?  Interesting.

I believe both the OPRD and Sinclair reports were far from impartial. The results were not unexpected. Any other findings would not have been acceptable to the city’s Indigenous population.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Leave a Reply

enter code *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.