On the weekend of June 26, 2010, Toronto was held hostage by the G20 summit, literally. Six years have passed. Since then, there have been a series of precedent-setting decisions which hold the police accountable for their actions that weekend. Perhaps the most significant of them was released last month.
On April 6, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of our Divisional Court in the case of Good v. Toronto Police Services Board. It is the first class action lawsuit dealing with use of the “kettling” technique, where police surrounded and detained hundreds of people and, in many cases, took them to jail.
The primary issue in the Court of Appeal’s decision was whether Good’s case could proceed as a class action, as opposed to an ordinary civil action involving only her. The benefit of the former is that it enables anyone who was detained in the various “kettling” incidents described in the claim to join the action without hiring their own lawyer and commencing separate lawsuits. The court’s decision will significantly increase any damages award made against the police. Good’s lawyers estimate this is in excess of 1,000 people. Many of these people were merely walking the streets of the city when they were detained – they weren’t even part of a protest.
Like any class action lawsuit, the case involves a “representative plaintiff,” Sherry Good, who represents the interests of the group (i.e. the “class”). Her statement to the court is compelling:
“At Queen and Spadina that afternoon, during a peaceful protest, with no warning, we were surrounded by hundreds of police in riot gear, fully armed. We could not leave. They kept us standing in one of the worst rain storms of the year for over four hours with no information disseminated to us, no food, no water, no toilets. Sometimes the police charged into the crown, picking out people indiscriminately for arrest, and dragging them away.”
Good goes on to describe having a panic attack afterwards and losing trust in the police.
Because the Court of Appeal is the most authoritative court in the province, its decision is likely to set the course for similar cases in the future, both within and beyond Ontario. Justice Hoy, who wrote the decision for the court, emphasized the importance of the case proceeding as a class action by contrasting it with the recommendations that have been made since the G20:
“The reports regarding police conduct during the G20 summit make non-binding recommendations. In my view, the remedies sought by the plaintiffs, which include a declaration that class members’ Charter rights have been violated and an award of damages, would be stronger instruments of [police] behaviour modification.”
Eric Gillespie, one of Ms. Good’s lawyers, said, “This is actually about much more than just one event. This class action will help protect the basic freedoms of all Canadians.”
Good’s case is one of several that have been decided in favour of people who were mistreated by the police during the G20. Klippensteins, one of the law firms representing her, also represented Paul Figueiras, who was walking down University that weekend when he was told by a police sergeant that he would not be allowed to walk further unless he subjected himself to a search. Figueiras brought a civil action, not for money, but for a declaration that his Charter rights had been violated. He lost at the Superior Court, but the decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal on March 30, 2015.
On August 15, 2015, Superintendent Mark Fenton – the officer in charge of the police who were responsible for two of the “kettling” incidents – was found guilty of one count of discreditable conduct and two counts of unlawful arrest after a disciplinary hearing.
The fact that courts have reprimanded the conduct of the police during that weekend is an important step towards correcting the injustices that occurred during the G20 weekend. However, none of this conduct should have occurred in the first place.
Brian Eberdt is a criminal defence lawyer with Lockyer Campbell Posner. In the interest of full disclosure, his law firm has represented individuals who were charged during the G20 Summit. Reasonable Doubt appears on Mondays.
A word of caution: You should not act or rely on the information provided in this column. It is not legal advice. To ensure your interests are protected, retain or formally seek advice from a lawyer. The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of Lockyer Campbell Posner or the lawyers of Lockyer Campbell Posner.
website@nowtoronto.com | @nowtoronto
