Update: see previous posts – January 22, 2012 Five Officers Should be Charged in G20 Protester’s Arrest, Police Watchdog Says, January 18, 2012 G20 Lawsuit Emerges After Largest Mass Arrest in Canadian History, December 22, 2011 G20 Activist Unapologetic As She Receives a Sentence of 10 Months, December 10, 2011 McGuinty to Declare the1939 Public Works Protection Act Null & Void in the New Year, November 23, 2011 11 G20 Defendants Set Free, November 3, 2011 G20 – Chair of Toronto Police Services Board concerned about G20 Photo’s (June, 2010), October 27, 2011 G20 Arrest for Weapons Charge Results in Acquittal, October 5, 2011 G20 Review by Toronto Police Services Board is Expected to Conclude by March, 2012, August 12, 2011 Toronto Deputy Police Chief Tony Warr Defends Actions of Police During G20 (June, 2010), July 29, 2011 Judge Rules that Man Arrested at G20 Should Have Been Provided Counsel, July 23, 2011 Twenty One (21) Month Sentence for Man Who Set G20 Police Vehicle Ablaze, July 22, 2011 G20 Investigator Wants Law to Ban Disguises After 17 Suspects Unidentified, July 21, 2011 Toronto Police Chief Blair’s Report on the G20 is Deferred, June 25, 2011 G20 Summit Toronto – First Anniversary (June 26 & 27, 2011), June 18, 2011 Harper Falls Short on Toronto Businesses’ G20 Claims, June 10, 2011 G20 – Final Public Hearing for the Toronto Police’s Civilian Review, June 10, 2011 G20 – Another Arrest, June 7, 2011 G20 Update – Who Assaulted Adam? Nooobody!, June 1, 2011 Ottawa Police Enjoy Their Share of the G20 Money Pie, McGuinty to Scrap the Secret G20 Law (1939 Public Works Protection Act), March 31, 2011 The “G20 Bump” Translates into a 60% Increase of Toronto Police Making the 2010 Sunshine List, March 19, 2011 Harper Screws Toronto’s Businesses, March 18, 2011 New G20 Lawsuits Launched Against Toronto Police Board, December 7, 2010 Ontario Umbudsman André Marin Delivers Report on G20 “Caught in the Act”, August 8, 2010 G20 Litigation, August 1, 2010 Damage$ Flowing from Charter Breaches

see source

As of Tuesday, four of the five officers named in the report of an independent review of police actions during the 2010 G20 summit — including Const. Michael Adams — were not facing charges of misconduct under the Police Services Act.

The Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) concluded Constables Michael Adams, Babak Andalib-Goortani, Geoffrey Fardell, David Donaldson and Oliver Simpson used unnecessary force against protester Adam Nobody in June 2010. Its report was made public last week.

The OIPRD probes public complaints of misconduct against police. Unlike the police watchdog called the Special Investigations Unit, it does not have the power to lay criminal charges.

Instead, when OIPRD findings are deemed of a “serious nature” (as was the case in the Nobody probe), legislation requires the chief of police to charge the officers under the Police Services Act and order a disciplinary hearing. A hearing officer, like a judge, considers whether there’s merit to the evidence.

Penalties for officers facing misconduct range from reprimand to dismissal.

Usually, charges must be laid within six months of the incident unless the civilian Police Services Board approves an extension. A source told the Star Friday the board has granted Police Chief Bill Blair the right to lay charges.

Asked whether the officers would face charges under the act, police spokesman Mark Pugash explained he didn’t want to predict what may happen in the future.

Const. Andalib-Goortani is, however, facing three police misconduct charges, including unnecessary use of force for striking “W.B.M.” and neglecting to carry out an order. The officer from 31 Division is also facing a criminal charge of assault. All stem from G20-related matters.

It’s unclear who, exactly, “W.B.M” is, but early last year photographs of Andalib-Goortani wielding his baton over blogger Wyndham Bettencourt-McCarthy at Queen’s Park on the Saturday of the G20 summit were published in the Star. Bettencourt-McCarthy said she was struck twice, leaving a welt on her right hip.

Here are a few passages of the Police Services Act.

PART IV

POLICE OFFICERS AND OTHER POLICE STAFF

Chief of Police

Duties of chief of police

41.  (1)  The duties of a chief of police include,

(a) in the case of a municipal police force, administering the police force and overseeing its operation in accordance with the objectives, priorities and policies established by the board under subsection 31 (1);

(b) ensuring that members of the police force carry out their duties in accordance with this Act and the regulations and in a manner that reflects the needs of the community, and that discipline is maintained in the police force;

(c) ensuring that the police force provides community-oriented police services;

(d) administering the complaints system in accordance with Part V. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, s. 41 (1); 1995, c. 4, s. 4 (8, 9); 1997, c. 8, s. 27.

Power to disclose personal information

(1.1)  Despite any other Act, a chief of police, or a person designated by him or her for the purpose of this subsection, may disclose personal information about an individual in accordance with the regulations. 1997, c. 17, s. 9.

Purpose of disclosure

(1.2)  Any disclosure made under subsection (1.1) shall be for one or more of the following purposes:

1. Protection of the public.

2. Protection of victims of crime.

3. Keeping victims of crime informed of the law enforcement, judicial or correctional processes relevant to the crime that affected them.

4. Law enforcement.

5. Correctional purposes.

6. Administration of justice.

7. Enforcement of and compliance with any federal or provincial Act, regulation or government program.

8. Keeping the public informed of the law enforcement, judicial or correctional processes respecting any individual. 1997, c. 17, s. 9.

Same

(1.3)  Any disclosure made under subsection (1.1) shall be deemed to be in compliance with clauses 42 (1) (e) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and 32 (e) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. 1997, c. 17, s. 9; 2006, c. 34, Sched. C, s. 27.

Same

(1.4)  If personal information is disclosed under subsection (1.1) to a ministry, agency or institution, the ministry, agency or institution shall collect such information and subsections 39 (2) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and 29 (2) of the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act do not apply to that collection of personal information. 1997, c. 17, s. 9.

Chief of police reports to board

(2)  The chief of police reports to the board and shall obey its lawful orders and directions. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, s. 41 (2).

Police Officers

Duties of police officer

42.  (1)  The duties of a police officer include,

(a) preserving the peace;

(b) preventing crimes and other offences and providing assistance and encouragement to other persons in their prevention;

(c) assisting victims of crime;

(d) apprehending criminals and other offenders and others who may lawfully be taken into custody;

(e) laying charges and participating in prosecutions;

(f) executing warrants that are to be executed by police officers and performing related duties;

(g) performing the lawful duties that the chief of police assigns;

(h) in the case of a municipal police force and in the case of an agreement under section 10 (agreement for provision of police services by O.P.P.), enforcing municipal by-laws;

(i) completing the prescribed training. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, s. 42 (1); 1997, c. 8, s. 28.

 

 PART V

Review and Investigation of Complaints

Complaints about police officer’s conduct, Independent Police Review Director investigation

68.  (1)  The Independent Police Review Director shall cause every complaint retained by him or her under clause 61 (5) (c) to be investigated and the investigation to be reported on in a written report. 2007, c. 5, s. 10.

Unsubstantiated complaint

(2)  If at the conclusion of the investigation the Independent Police Review Director is of the opinion that the complaint is unsubstantiated, he or she shall report that opinion in writing to the chief of police of the police force to which the complaint relates and the chief of police shall take no action in response to the complaint and shall notify the complainant and the police officer who is the subject of the complaint in writing of the decision, together with a copy of the written report. 2007, c. 5, s. 10.

Matter referred to chief of police

(3)  If at the conclusion of the investigation the Independent Police Review Director believes on reasonable grounds that the conduct of the police officer who is the subject of the complaint constitutes misconduct as defined in section 80 or unsatisfactory work performance, he or she shall refer the matter, together with the written report, to the chief of police of the police force to which the complaint relates. 2007, c. 5, s. 10.

Same

(4)  If the Independent Police Review Director is of the opinion that the conduct of the police officer constitutes misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance that is not of a serious nature, he or she, in referring the matter to the chief of police under subsection (3), shall so indicate. 2007, c. 5, s. 10.

Chief of police to hold hearing

(5)  Subject to subsection (6), the chief of police shall hold a hearing into a matter referred to him or her under subsection (3) by the Independent Police Review Director. 2007, c. 5, s. 10.

 

Update:

see source

Curses, foiled again.

The city that’s trying to clean up its act has been caught using dirty words — on Twitter of all places.

Brampton the Bad has been identified as Canada’s most vulgar city for tweeting more four-letter profanities than anyone else. Those “f” and “s” words appeared in 1.41 per cent of all tweets over a one-month period, according to a survey.

TBK Creative, a social media agency, looked at more than 1 million tweets across Canada’s largest cities to rank them based on the most frequent use of bad words.

Hamilton and London placed second and third with 0.9 and 0.7 per cent respectively. Toronto the Good ranked fourth with 0.62 per cent, followed by Laval and Montreal. Ottawa had the cleanest tweets to place 10th.

To be fair, not every tweet was tapped by someone in Brampton; the text just included the bad word in the same cyberbreath as the city name.

Wrote Torontosoul: “If I had to live in Brampton, I’d swear a lot too.”

And it’s not as if they haven’t tried to wash out those potty mouths. This is a place that frowns on foul language, even advising residents to call police over prolonged swearing that’s “likely to disturb the inhabitants.”

They’ve even sworn off off-colour artwork at city hall where exhibits with “offensive, obscene, profane or indecent content” are strictly forbidden.

 

Some footnotes on this data:

1) Relativity - We didn’t look at what cities were tweeting the most (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, etc. likely win based on volume), but rather, referenced what cities held the greatest percentage of vulgar-related tweets vs. total city tweets. This gave us a percentage.

2) Date Range & Size -1,089,949 tweets were aggregated over a 30 day range from Oct. 7 to Nov. 5, 2011.

3) Aggregated Data - The tweets we aggregated that included the vulgar term must have been combined with the city’s name. This means, not every tweet came from the City or its citizens, but instead were simply tweets that mentioned the city name and the vulgar word. Draw your own conclusions.

4) Sample Group - The sample group we used consisted of Canada’s largest 15 cities in terms of population.

5) Types of Tweets - Only English tweets from Canadian users were aggregated. Regarding Quebec-based cities (Laval, Montreal, Quebec City), we used the English tweets coming from those cities and still maintained overall relativity (as per #1 above).

6) London Ontario – The term London (not #LdnOnt) was used in this exercise. Our algorithm for determining London England vs. London Ontario tweets is 49% (read why at Twitter Did Not Bless London Ontario).

7) Quebec City - Quebec City is the other tricky city to monitor because when someone uses the term “Quebec”, it’s difficult to distinguish if the user is referring the Province or the City. In a random sampling we took of 100 tweets by Canadian users that contained the term Quebec, 21% of those tweets referenced Quebec City specifically. Hence, 21% was used to gather the data above.

If you want another fun twitter infograph, read Canada’s Happiest Cities on Twitter.

If you want more of these web design and social media marketing thoughts delivered to your inbox for free, you can subscribe here.

Andrew Schiestel is the Chief of WOW! Projects at tbk Creative, a web design & social marketing agency that instigates and accelerates consumer action around brands. To contact Andrew about speaking at your upcoming web marketing & communications event, click here. Andrew can be followed on Twitter here.

Update:       

see source

An Ontario Provincial Police (O.P.P) officer is facing a charge, pursuant to the HTA after a 76-year-old Wiarton resident was hit while crossing the street at the intersection of William and Berford Street.

 

The incident giving rise to the charge occurred on January 15, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. in broad daylight.

 

Bruce Peninsula O.P.P investigated and found that an officer, operating a fully marked cruiser, struck the 76-year-old gentleman.

 

The victim suffered minor injuries during the collision and was taken to the hospital where he was both treated and released.

 

As a result of a thorough investigation in the collision, OPP have charged Sergeant David Tewkesbury, a 29 year member of the Service, with “Failing to Yield to A Pedestrian” contrary to section 144(7) of the Highway Traffic Act.

View Larger Map

 

Traffic Control Signals and Pedestrian Control Signals

144.  (1)  In this section,

“driver” includes an operator of a street car; (“conducteur”)

“emergency vehicle” means,

(a) a vehicle while used by a person in the lawful performance of his or her duties as a police officer, on which a siren is continuously sounding and from which intermittent flashes of red light or red and blue light are visible in all directions, or

(b) either of the following vehicles, on which a siren is continuously sounding and from which intermittent flashes of red light are visible in all directions:

(i) a fire department vehicle while proceeding to a fire or responding to, but not while returning from, a fire alarm or other emergency call, or

(ii) an ambulance while responding to an emergency call or being used to transport a patient or injured person in an emergency situation; (“véhicule de secours”)

“intersection” includes any portion of a highway indicated by markings on the surface of the roadway as a crossing place for pedestrians; (“intersection”)

“pedestrian” includes a person in a wheelchair; (“piéton”)

“vehicle” includes a street car. (“véhicule”) R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (1); 2007, c. 13, s. 18; 2009, c. 5, s. 44 (1).

(2), (3)  Repealed. See: Table of Public Statute Provisions Repealed Under Section 10.1 of the Legislation Act, 2006 – December 31, 2011.

(4)  Spent: R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (4).

Where to stop – intersection

(5)  A driver who is directed by a traffic control signal erected at an intersection to stop his or her vehicle shall stop,

(a) at the sign or roadway marking indicating where the stop is to be made;

(b) if there is no sign or marking, immediately before entering the nearest crosswalk; or

(c) if there is no sign, marking or crosswalk, immediately before entering the intersection. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (5); 2006, c. 19, Sched. T, s. 6 (1).

Where to stop – non-intersection

(6)  A driver who is directed by a traffic control signal erected at a location other than at an intersection to stop his or her vehicle shall stop,

(a) at the sign or roadway marking indicating where the stop is to be made;

(b) if there is no sign or marking, immediately before entering the nearest crosswalk; or

(c) if there is no sign, marking or crosswalk, not less than five metres before the nearest traffic control signal. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (6); 2006, c. 19, Sched. T, s. 6 (2).

Yielding to pedestrians

(7)  When under this section a driver is permitted to proceed, the driver shall yield the right of way to pedestrians lawfully within a crosswalk. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 144 (7).

Update:     

see source

Ontario’s governing Liberals have their doubts about whether they’ll be able to meet their own lofty target to cut down on court appearances that delay criminal cases.

Progress has been made to cut the average number of appearances by 30 per cent, but it “remains to be seen” whether the province will meet that target this year, Attorney General John Gerretsen told The Canadian Press.

“It’s difficult for all of us to change the way we’ve traditionally been doing things, and perhaps the target of 30 per cent may have been too ambitious at the time,” he said in an interview.

“But I see some value in the fact that we have reduced, on average, the number of appearances and that we’re heading in the right direction. But much more proactive work has to be done.”

Gerretsen, a practising lawyer of 35 years, acknowledged he’s the “new kid on the block” and is still getting up to speed on the project after being shuffled to the justice portfolio last October.

His predecessor Chris Bentley — now energy minister — launched “Justice on Target” with much fanfare in 2008.

But with six months to go until the June deadline, it appears the province will likely fall short of its ambitious goal.

Processing times province-wide have only decreased about seven per cent, according to statistics compiled by the government.

It took an average of 8.56 appearances to complete a criminal charge in the province last June, down from 9.2 appearances in 2007.

Some courts are faring better than others, however. Kirkland Lake cut the average number of appearances about 45 per cent to 4.7 from 8.5, while Gerretsen’s hometown of Kingston saw appearances reduced about 19 per cent to 7.9 from 9.7.

The numbers actually increased slightly in Ottawa — to 9.3 from 9.2 — and Toronto’s Old City Hall courthouse to 12.9 from 12.6.

And according to a review conducted last year, some judges, court workers, defence lawyers and Crown prosecutors have voiced concerns about the program and the lack of resources to implement it.

The 137-page review, which looked at how the project was being implemented in five Toronto-area courthouses, was conducted at the request of the Justice on Target management committee.

Some Crowns from Old City Hall who were interviewed for the review showed “a clear sense of frustration” with the project, it found.

“Some expressed a belief that they are being held responsible for achieving Justice on Target objectives, despite many factors being outside of their control,” the review said.

Judges in Brampton were worried about “unintentional consequences” of the project — such as having additional cases “unnecessarily set for trial” and adding to already crowded trial dockets.

Judges at Toronto’s College Park courthouse were also skeptical of the program.

“Some (interviewees) feel that the judges were awaiting signs of progress and change driven by the ministry to support what was viewed as a high amount of initial fanfare surrounding the initiative,” the report said.

“When progress was slow to come, the skepticism remained and participation in Justice on Target among judges was low.”

It’s not surprising that the government’s target won’t be met because the project was flawed from the start, said NDP justice critic Jagmeet Singh.

“It didn’t provide all the tools necessary to reduce delays,” such as easier access to legal help, said the former criminal defence lawyer.

Delays often seem to be more prevalent in cases involving people who can’t afford to retain a lawyer, said Singh.

They have to apply and wait for legal aid, which creates even more delays, he said. Those who don’t qualify for financial aid often end up in a legal limbo.

A shortage of courtrooms and judges is compounding the problem, Singh added.

And the province doesn’t have much money to throw at the problem.

Many ministries outside health and education are bracing for significant budget cuts as the government struggles to slay a $16-billion deficit.

Something needed to be done to reduce court delays, which can thwart justice if a case takes too long to be resolved, said Progressive Conservative critic and former lawyer Christine Elliott.

But putting the justice system under that kind of stress without the resources needed to move things along faster can create a host of new problems, she said.

It puts pressure on prosecutors to deal with cases faster and on accused people to enter guilty pleas because they don’t have the benefit of legal assistance, she said.

“There’s no question that the whole project was under-resourced to begin with and is putting a lot of people — particularly in the Crown attorney offices — under tremendous strain.”

According to the Ministry of the Attorney General’s Website:

Ontario is moving toward faster, focused justice by targeting 30 per cent reductions in the provincial average of days and court appearances needed to complete a criminal case. The province plans to meet its target by June 2012.

In 1992, it took an average of 4.3 court appearances to bring a charge to completion. By 2007, this figure had more than doubled to 9.2 appearances.

Justice on Target has reversed the increasing trend in criminal court delay.

More than 360,000 court appearances have been eliminated. Ontario courts now provide more information sooner so that court appearances are more meaningful. Straightforward cases are completed faster so that the system can more effectively focus on the more serious and complex cases. Across the province, criminal courts are now consistently completing more charges than are coming into the system every year. The clearance rate for the most serious and complex charges is up 15 per cent.

Update: see previous posts – August 28, 2011 Bixie – Wants to Expand in Toronto, While Charging Torontonians $17 More and Provides 15 Minutes Less, June 26, 2011 Bixie – When Will Bixie Give Torontonians the Same Deal They Give to Montrealers?, May 11, 2011 Bixi – Car Crashes Into Bike Rack at Bay & Queen Street Bixi Station , May 6, 2011 BIXI Quebec Already Lays Off Employees, May 4, 2011 Bixi Charges $17 More in Toronto and Gives 15 Minutes Less Free Time than Montreal, May 2, 2011 Bixi, April 30, 2011 Bixi – Toronto (Arriving Soon)

see source

The Toronto Cyclist’s Union would like to see cyclists riding on the streets of Toronto year round.

On Monday, January 30, 2012 they have organized a noon (12 p.m.) ride (“Coldest Day of the Year Ride”) from the Toronto City Hall at 100 Queen Street West to the Royal York Hotel located at 100 Front Street West. Cyclists will ride with a police escort along Queen Street west to University Ave, south on University Avenue to Front Street West, where cyclists will ride east along Front Street ending at the Royal York Hotel (across from Union Station) where hot chocolate will be served, compliments of the Fairmont Royal York.

On Thursday, February 2, 2012 the Cyclist’s Union will present “365 Days of Cycling: An Evening of Art and Cycling” between 7 p.m. – 10 p.m. at the CSI Annex at 720 Bathurst Street (north of Harbord St and south of Bloor Street West). They are calling the event “an evening of photography and cycling” – free for bike union members and five ($5.00) dollars for non-members.  Beer and wine costs five ($5.00) dollars.

To become a member of the Toronto Cyclists Union, it costs $30 Friend, $75.00 Sustainer and $150.00 Patron.

 

You like BIXI? You like to ride a bike during winter?

Come and join us for the Coldest Day of the Year Ride on January 30th. BIXI members can use a BIXI bike for the ride; for this special occasion, there will be no usage fees for extra time! The ride starts at noon at City Hall and will end at Fairmount Royal York where free hot chocolate will be served.

Hope to see you there and enjoy the ride!

For more information, visit www.bikeunion.to/bike-winter.