Sans Apathy: 2011

A long battle against a police officer
Toronto Sun, Mar 19 2012, Chris Doucette
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/18/a-long-battle-against-a-police-officer
Standing up to police is a daunting, even intimidating, process that can drag on for years. And for Jeff Green, who has tried since 2005 to have a Toronto cop punished for wronging him, it just wasn’t worth it.“It’s been very frustrating and very disappointing,” he told The Sun recently. “If I could do it all over, I wouldn’t bother.” Green’s story began with a dispute involving himself and a fellow condo board member, Sgt. Wayne Lakey, not exactly front page news. But Green’s relentless use of every avenue at his disposal over the last seven years illustrates how the odds are overwhelmingly stacked in favour of the police.“It’s an obstacle course,” he said, referring to the hoops and hurdles citizens must jump through to file a police complaint.“The obstacles are designed not to be passed,” Green added. “That’s the cruel joke.” And when citizens appear to be making progress through the obstacles, he claims the course is suddenly “redesigned.” “Just when you think you’re getting close, they dump a bucket of oil in your path,” Green said. “They don’t play fair.”He and Lakey lived in the same building and both served on their condo board seven years ago. The 55 Division officer ran Green’s name numerous times through the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC), which is for police work only — not personal use.Green complained to the Professional Standards Unit and a week later found himself facing mischief, harassment and intimidation charges — all of which were dropped 10 months later. When he was unsatisfied with Professional Standards, Green turned to the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC), which has since been replaced by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD). But Lakey’s only punishment has been a verbal warning from a superior officer, in passing. The ordeal has taken a huge financial and emotional toll on Green. “In the end, I was ridiculed for exercising my rights,” he claims.Green suggested citizens consider carrying a digital recorder at all times to protect themselves during interactions with police. “It’s unfortunate, but that’s the world we live in,” he said. “I use to trust the police, now I don’t.”

Computer Misuse Charge Dropped Against Police Sergeant
Toronto Star, Mar 29 2011, John Goddard
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/963498--computer-misuse-charge-dropped-against-police-sergeant
A criminal charge against a Toronto police sergeant was dropped Tuesday in a case of alleged misuse of a police database.Pursuing the case against Sgt. Wayne Lakey of 55 Division would not serve the public interest, Crown lawyer Ken Lockhart told the Ontario Court of Justice.Lakey was accused of conducting an unauthorized computer check on a resident in his condominium building with whom he was having a dispute.While there might be a reasonable prospect of conviction, Lockhart said, the police sergeant had twice been disciplined internally, had not used the database information for criminal or financial gain, and had not shared the information outside the police department.The officer, however wrongly, also believed himself to be conducting a quasi-investigation, the lawyer said, a factor further distinguishing the case.“Results of any search had no consequence whatsoever for Jeff Green,” said Lakey’s lawyer Joseph Markson, of the man who brought the charge and earlier police complaints.“A terrible decision,” said Green.“This is the wrong message to send to the public,” Green said. “They have chosen, in my opinion, to protect their own.”Green first filed a formal police complaint against Lakey in 2005, when the two lived in the same condominium building.Both were serving on the condo’s board of directors, taking opposite sides in a dispute over proposed building improvements.Later internal police investigations showed that Lakey conducted several criminal checks on Green, who had no criminal record.Green alleged police misconduct. A police disciplinary hearing against Lakey in November ended in a stay of proceedings.

Charge Dropped Against Cop
Toronto Sun, March 29 2011, Tom Godfrey
http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2011/03/29/17800671.html
A Toronto cop accused of using a police computer to investigate a neighbour he was having a dispute with had the charge against him withdrawn.Det. Wayne Lakey was accused of improperly conducting background searches on Jeff Green when the men lived in the same condo complex and Green was involved in a dispute with the building’s board of directors in 2004.The charge of unauthorized use of a computer against Lakey was withdrawn at a Finch Ave. W. court on Tuesday, according to Crown attorney Ken Lockhart.The charge against Lakey was filed by Green, who also a condo board member.A Toronto police tribunal found Lakey used the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) to conduct a background check on Green, a move that is strictly forbidden. Lakey was spoken to by a senior officer but was not disciplined.Green was not surprised the charge was withdrawn but claimed the reason given was alarming and concerning.“If our government can get away with the G20 debacle then I guess I shouldn’t be surprised by this,” Green said after court. “What message is our government sending to other police officers about abuse of power and accountability?”He said his concerns weren’t addressed as a victim and complainant in the case.“I didn’t get the sense that my concerns were being addressed nor taken seriously,” Green said. There was “strong evidence to continue prosecution but it appears the political will may have been lacking.”He plans to carry on his legal fight against the officer.

Police Sgt. Faces Improper Use Of Computer Charge
Toronto Star, March 1 2011, Henry Stancu
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/946771--police-sgt-faces-improper-use-of-computer-charge
A Toronto detective has been criminally charged in the unauthorized use of a police computer for allegedly conducting improper background checks.Sgt. Wayne Lakey of 55 Division in Toronto’s east end was accused of improperly conducting background searches when the two men lived in the same condo complex in 2005.Green had been involved in a dispute with the building’s board of directors.After a lengthy process Lakey was accused of conducting improper checks and brought before a Toronto police tribunal.Lakey testified he had been reprimanded twice by his superiors and he was granted a stay of proceedings last December when the hearing officer said it was sufficient punishment.Supt. Robin Breen also stated the tribunal would not proceed as Green had failed to sign the original police complaint, even though Supt. Jane Wilcox, who presided over the hearing the previous August ruled the case could go ahead without the signature.“I’m glad to see this case is finally before the courts. It’s been a long time – five years,” said Green.“It’s right there in the criminal code. Improper use of the police computers is a serious offence and this may reinforce the rules about the proper use of police information,’ said GreenGreen said he is attempting to appeal Breen’s decision to stay the police act charges against Lakey and has filed a criminal charge against the officer.Lakey now faces a charge of unauthorized use of a computer under the criminal code of Canada.He is scheduled to appear at 2201 Finch Ave.W. court on March 15 in courtroom 202 at 9 a.m

Cop Who Did Background Check On Neighbour Faces Possible Charge
Toronto Sun, March 1 2011, Kevin Connor
http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2011/03/01/17458806.html?sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4d6e33079a2625e3,0
A Toronto officer has received a court summons for using a police computer to investigate a man with whom he was having a dispute.Det. Wayne Lakey will appear in Finch Ave. W. court on March 15.“Mr. Lakey is facing a charge of unauthorized use of computer and is scheduled to appear,” said Brendan Crawley, a spokesman for the Ministry of the Attorney General.The charge against Lakey was brought forward by Jeff Green, a condo board member where both men lived.The two men did not get along, Green said.A Toronto Police tribunal found Lakey had used a police computer to do a background check on Green — a move that is strictly forbidden.The tribunal found that Lakey had been spoken to in an official capacity regarding the incident and did not discipline him further.Green was charged with mischief for filing the complaint with the tribunal — a charge that was later dropped.Green said he sought expert opinion and has now laid a charge against Lakey privately.“It took many years of difficult effort and overcoming many obstacles to get to this stage after my life, and my family’s life, was torn apart by the abusive actions of this officer,” Green said in a release. “Therefore, the wrong message would be sent to the officer, the police force, the attorney general, and the public, if this serious matter goes unreported, especially in a post G20 environment.”Green laid a criminal charge against Lakey on the advice of York University law professor Alan Young.“The judge issued a summons for misuse of a computer and now the Crown has to make a decision whether to prosecute,” Young explained.

Misconduct Charges Stayed Against Toronto Officer
Toronto Star, November 17 2010, Henry Stancu
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/892321--misconduct-charges-stayed-against-toronto-officer
A stay of proceedings has been granted in the disciplinary hearing of a Toronto police officer accused of conducting improper background checks.Hearing officer Superintendent Robin Breen ruled because the accuser failed to sign an original police complaint form and as the officer had already been punished twice “it would be pointless to continue these proceedings”.“This is a travesty, a horrendous decision,” said Jeff Green following the stay of proceedings granted Wednesday.Det. Wayne Lakey was accused of improperly conducting background searches on Green when the two men lived in the same condo complex and Green was involved in a dispute with the building’s board of directors in 2005.According to documents obtained by The Star and evidence presented in the tribunal the unofficial police computer searches had been conducted on Green by Lakey.Lakey testified he had been reprimanded twice by his superiors and the hearing officer agreed that was enough punishment.“This has not been disputed by any evidence to the contrary although the public complainant would prefer a more significant penalty,” Breen stated in his final motion.Although Supt. Jane Wilcox, who presided over the hearing last August, dismissed the defense argument that Green did not follow protocol when he initially complained to the internal investigations unit, Breen ruled the lack of a signature on the document was important.“The lack of a signature on Mr. Green’s complaint document is a failure to comply with a mandatory statutory precondition. Moreover, to expose Sergeant Lakey to the likelihood of additional penalty would clearly be an abuse of process and contrary to the laws of natural justice,” stated Breen.Green says the stay sets “a very dangerous precedent” for all future complaints against police and he is pondering whether to appeal the decision.“It is such an adversarial process. The police evidence shows he (Lakey) did wrong. If I couldn’t succeed on this after five long years, what message does this send to other people that don’t have as hard a head as I do?” Green asked.He has the option of appealing the decision, but wonders whether he has the energy left to do so.“If Mr. Green is dissatisfied then he has options, but I would absolutely reject his comments about the process,” said Mark Pugash, director of corporate communications for the Toronto police service.“The hearing officer has explained the issues in great detail and I think the lengths he’s gone to should reassure people that issues put before the tribunal are looked at very carefully and very truthfully,” he added.Pugash said police disciplinary hearings are open to the public and all of the documentation on evidence, motions, arguments and decisions are available to everyone.

Tribunal Decides Against Penalizing Cop
Toronto Sun, November 17 2010, Kevin Connor
http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/11/17/16189541.html
A Toronto police officer who used police computers to do background checks on a man he was having a dispute with will not be disciplined by a Toronto Police Tribunal.
Sgt. Wayne Lakey used police computers in 2004 to look into his neighbour, Jeff Green, for personal reasons, which is strictly forbidden.Trouble began when Green was a board member in the same condo where Lakey lived. The officer used police computer programs numerous times to check out Green.Green filed a complaint with the tribunal over Lakely, who had been spoken to by senior officers.Hearing officer Supt. Robin Breen ruled that Lakey — who was not present for the sentencing hearing — shouldn’t be penalized a second time on the same set of facts.“To expose Sgt. Lakey to the likelihood of additional penalty would clearly be an abuse of process and contrary to the laws of natural justice when he has already been disciplined by the service,” he said“I find that a stay in proceedings is justified in this case when the facts are weighed against the elements of the test articulated by the commission,” added Breen. “To do otherwise would clearly violate the conscience of the community, fundamental justice and fair play as well as prejudice the accused officer and the integrity of justice.”They are simply letting him off the hook, Green insisted.“Having a superior officer simply talk to him for the use of a police computer for other than police work doesn’t safeguard rights. He was told he screwed up: ‘Don’t do it again, let’s go to lunch,’” Green said.“The police are sending a message to the public not to complain, we have things under control. To make a complaint they put a wall in front of you,” he added. “If you try to climb over it, they pour oil down on you. They are not playing fair and the wall was never meant to be climbed ... Cops protecting cops.”Green was charged with mischief for filing the complaint and later had the charges dropped. He said he may consider appealing the ruling.

Cop's Disciplinary Process Drags On
Toronto Sun, August 24 2010, Chris Doucette
http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/08/23/15117791.html#/news/torontoandgta/2010/08/23/pf-15117786.html
G20 protestors complaining about Toronto Police misconduct during June’s summit should prepare themselves for the long road that lies ahead if they plan to seek answers.
It’s a road Jeff Green knows all too well.The 43-year-old has been trying for more than five years to have officer and former neighbour, Wayne Lakey, held accountable for inappropriately using police computers to do a background check on him during a personal dispute.“It’s a completely unbalanced process and the police control everything, regardless of what they say,” Green said Monday after attending the latest instalment of Lakey’s disciplinary hearing at Toronto Police Headquarters.“It’s all just an illusion of accountability,” he added of the process citizens go through to file a complaint against a cop.Trouble between the two began in 2004 when Green was a condo board member in the same building where Lakey lived.Green claims he became locked in a fight with the developer over problems with the building. Lakey and some other residents disagreed with his stance.The officer used eCOPS and CPIC — police computer programs — numerous times to check out Green, who at that point had no criminal record.Green pushed for about three years — phoning and writing letters to anyone who would listen — and ultimately the officer was charged under the Police Services Act with insubordination.Since then, there have been upwards of a dozen adjournments and delays, Green said, explaining the actual disciplinary hearing has yet to start.On Monday, the tribunal dealt with yet another motion — a stay of proceedings requested by the officer’s new lawyer, Joseph Markson.Markson argued Green never signed the letter he typed out at the request of a senior officer in the professional Standards Unit when he filed his complaint back in February of 2005.Under the PSA, all complaints must be in writing and signed.Markson also argued his client was reprimanded by superiors on two occasions and cautioned not to use police computers for personal reasons. So punishing Lakey again would be equivalent to “double jeopardy.” “Even a child knows that’s unfair,” Markson said.Lakey, a 22-year-veteran, took the stand during the motion and spoke for the first time about how his life has been impacted.He claims he has been “held back” from promotions and his reputation has “taken a hit.”“I’m a good cop,” Lakey professed. “I’ve always tried to be professional. I’ve always tried to treat people fairly.”Green was shocked to hear the accused officer talk as though he is the victim.“While I appreciate that Mr. Lakey has been under some duress for a number of years, my life has been ripped to shreds,” he alleged, after confronting the officer for the first time since launching his complaint.Green said he was forced to sell his condo and move into his elderly parents’ basement.He was also charged with mischief, intimidation and harassment about a week after he filed his complaint — charges he says were dropped about 10 months later.The hearings officer will announce his decision when the tribunal reconvenes Oct. 25.

Police Complaint System Still Flawed: Critics
Toronto Star, August 3 2008, Brett Popplewell
http://www.thestar.com/article/471827
On an autumn night in 2002, a white Ford Explorer mounted a sidewalk on Richmond St., hit a pole and veered into Owen Mathias and Magda Gryc, a young couple walking home from a late supper.
Mathias was thrown into a nearby bush and woke up in hospital. Gryc was launched into the street. She was dead when paramedics arrived.Despite acknowledging at the scene that he had been drinking, the driver – later convicted of careless driving – was not given a Breathalyzer test.And after burying their 23-year-old daughter, Gryc's parents began asking police: "Why not?"To this day, they still don't know. They have been unable to get what they consider a clear answer from Toronto police despite hiring lawyer Alan Young, who complained to the force shortly after the accident."As soon as the complaint was filed, the buck-passing began," Young says.The professor of criminal law at Osgoode Hall said neither police nor the province properly dealt with the complaint."Getting information out of the police is about as difficult as getting information out of Stalinist Russia."Three years ago, Patrick LeSage, the former chief justice of Ontario, declared the province's system for reviewing public complaints against police was "flawed" and required "significant systemic changes."The Liberal government incorporated LeSage's recommendations into the Independent Police Review Act, which became law in May 2007. Michael Bryant, then the attorney general, said the new system would be operating by May of this year.It isn't.The commissioner for the planned police review system, Gerry McNeilly, the former head of Legal Aid Manitoba, took office only two months ago. He says nothing will be in place until the end of 2009.A spokesperson for Attorney General Chris Bentley says the provincial election last fall slowed progress on the new regulations. Critics say the real problem is a lack of political will."It's as though they aren't interested in changing this," says John Sewell, head of the Toronto Police Accountability Coalition.At present, people must make complaints of police misconduct, racial profiling or abuse to the same police force. But internal investigators can dismiss the complaint without publicly revealing the results of their investigation.Complainants sometimes aren't told even if an officer is disciplined."Most of the complaints that I've brought to the police just disappear," says Young, lost in "a huge black hole of obfuscation."Unhappy complainants can appeal to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services (OCCOPS), which reviews complaints and can order hearings into an officer's actions. However, OCCOPS can't conduct its own hearings; they're handled by the same police force that received the initial complaint.The process can take years and Young says it offers police many opportunities to hide information behind a blue wall of secrecy.LeSage recommended 27 changes, chief among them that a civilian police review body be formed.All provinces, except P.E.I., have a civilian oversight commission to police the police, but none operate completely autonomously from the police.In Ontario, the civilian Special Investigations Unit investigates cases of serious injury, death or sexual assault involving police, but it doesn't deal with public complaints. The province had a separate civilian oversight commission for public complaints against police until 1997, when it was scrapped by the Harris government to cut costs and appear tough on crime.Complaints against police fell by more than 30 per cent after the current system was introduced, as lawyers began advising clients not to file complaints."I wouldn't use (this system), it's dishonest and rigged" in favour of police, says defence lawyer Clayton Ruby.Three years ago, Jeff Green launched a formal complaint against Det. Wayne Lakey, a Toronto police officer.Green, who acknowledges being doggedly determined and occasionally obsessive, was battling his condo's board of directors over a series of improvements he wanted for the building. But his efforts and methods proved unpopular and led Lakey, who lived in the building, to look into Green's past.Lakey conducted four criminal record checks on Green, who had no past convictions, then forwarded complaints against Green from condo residents to an officer at 22 Division, according to files obtained from the police and OCCOPS."He was playing sheriff for the building," says Green.Lakey did not return phone and email messages left by the Star. However, he is quoted in a report seen by Green and written by Det. Sgt. Ellery Butula of Professional Standards, the division within the Toronto police that handles public complaints."I did the first check to see if Jeff had contact with police and because if I'm going to deal with this guy I want to make sure I know who he is from an officer safety standpoint," the report quotes Lakey as saying.In February 2005, Green was charged with making harassing phone calls to residents of his building and mischief over alleged sabotage to the building's heating system. He spent 45 minutes in jail, signed a peace bond (the charges were withdrawn), sold his unit and moved back into his parents' basement, where he tried to sort out what led to his arrest.Suspecting that Lakey had improperly accessed his information, Green filed a complaint with Professional Standards. In his investigation, Butula initially advised that Lakey was "not suspected of any wrongdoing and no further action will be taken in this matter." Green was refused access to the investigation report because Butula had classified it as internal."It does appear that the police were stonewalling Jeff," says Young, who has also worked on Green's case.Butula declined to comment.It took two years before Green's complaint file was made available to him – by order of OCCOPS, who had looked into the incident. By then, Green had received a new report from Butula stating "evidence indicates that (Lakey) conducted computerized queries that were unrelated to the performance of his duties. Based on all the available information, there is evidence of misconduct."Last month, OCCOPS ordered a hearing into Lakey's alleged misconduct.Toronto police will once again review the matter, with the hearing overseen by the same superintendent who oversees the professional standards division – the division that three years ago said Lakey had shown no signs of misconduct."It's absolutely ridiculous," says Green. "The system is broken."It was only my doggedness, my pit-bulledness that got me this far. ... Police policing themselves just doesn't work."

Sans Apathy

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Dear Attorney General

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Is This Police Accountability ?