A wild week on the G20 front. Here we are, five months and counting after the rumble in the concrete jungle between cops and protesters, and we’re still dealing with the blowback.
This week, triple whammy. First those non-findings by the SIU into alleged police head bashing then rockets red Blair, as in Toronto police chief Bill Blair’s sorry attack on the SIU’s supposed reliance on tampered-with video evidence into the aforementioned police head bashing followed by the SIU re-opening one of its criminal investigations into said head bashing
Dear chief. Your boys got off, so WTF?
If all of this has shaken your trust in police accountability, citizen taxpayer, here’s another kick in your face for ya.
Turns out your hard earned tax dollars may end up footing the bill for that Officer Bubbles cat, aka Constable Adam Josephs, the Toronto cop, and self-described “garbage collector,” who’s suing Google after his tough-guy act against a bubble-blowing female protestor was caught on video and posted on YouTube.
Bubbles has filed a $1.2 million lawsuit demanding the names of anonymous online viewers who posted “disparaging” comments and uploaded their own cartoons and videos mocking Josephs after watching his infamous G20 stare down online.
Just how can a cop who’s bringing a personal suit charge taxpayers for the legal costs?
It’s called “legal indemnification.” (Quick. Call Rob Ford. Here’s his cell number: 416-805-2146. He won’t mind.)
Under the Police Services Act, police can apply to the Police Services Board to have their legal costs reimbursed.
The applicable sections of the Act are only supposed to apply to the legal costs of cops forced to defend themselves in a criminal proceeding or civil action that may arise from actions taken in the course of their duties. Those costs, however, will only be reimbursed if the officer in question is not found liable. Fair enough.
But there is a catch-all section in the Act (isn’t there always?) under which the Police Services Board may reimburse police “in respect of any proceeding in which the member’s manner of execution of the duties of his or her employment was an issue.”
The operative words in that section: “if the member (officer) is found to have acted in good faith.”
Clearly, Josephs, was at all relevant times, in the performance of his duties as a police officer. Was he acting in “good faith”? His suit suggests there was an imminent danger of Black Bloc tactics being employed by protestors when he was getting heavy with Ms. Bubble Blower.
Board chair Alok Mukherjee, without commenting on the Josephs case specifically, says each claim for legal costs is determined on a case by case basis. It’s not automatic.
Besides the “good faith” clause, he says, a determination must also be made by the board as to whether the amount being claimed by lawyers for reimbursement is “reasonable.”
It’s unclear, in fact, if Josephs is paying his own legal bills (requests for comment from his lawyers went unanswered). Or, if it’s his union, the Toronto Police Association, that’s picking up the tab.
On that question, union president Mike McCormack offers a “no comment.”
McCormack says the association exercises discretion on what legal fees it may ask the board to reimburse on a police officer’s behalf.
“Having said that,” he adds, “the association will back any officer against whom death threats are made. (Josephs suit alleges he received death threats from his online exposure). I’ll leave it to you to read between the lines on what that means.”
We won’t read too much between those lines except to note that the firm hired to push Josephs’ claim has worked on some of the association’s most high-profile cases, including the infamous Entertainment District corruption scandal involving Toronto police.
Clearly, the Josephs case is of some import to the association. The legal precedent the case will establish, if successful, will have a chilling effect on the rights of citizens to comment anonymously on police actions online. That’s the real bottom line.
