OTTAWA POLICE SERVICE

PUBLIC COMPLAINTS

PART V – POLICE SERVICES ACT

Details of the Policy and/or Service Complaint Investigations

Completed from April 1 to October 23, 2002

INTRODUCTION

In relation to the police operation on November 16, 17, and 18, 2001, of the G-20 meetings held in Ottawa, the Ottawa Police Service received a total of 13 policy and service complaints.

November 21- December 3, 2001	6 Complaints filed
March 27- May 16, 2002	7 Complaints filed
Total	13 Complaints

BACKGROUND

G-20 and IMF/World Bank Demonstrations

Just over one month before the event, the Ottawa Police Service learned that it would have the security responsibilities for the G-20 meetings scheduled to occur in Ottawa in late November. The Government of Canada was asked to step in and host these meetings when the previous host government expressed concerns about its ability to provide the necessary security. With this short notice, the Police Service assembled a team of officers from the Ontario Provincial Police, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Metropolitan Toronto Police to provide police services for this series of meetings. The response also included a wide array of emergency response and public works officials from different public authorities and all levels of government. This was undertaken with a unified preparation process and unified command structure. The primary goal, first and foremost, was to ensure the safety and security of all who would be in Ottawa at that time. It was determined that there may be public order issues and the security operations were planned in order to meet that challenge. The meetings took place in Ottawa on November 16, 17 and 18, 2001. During this period, demonstrations took place in several locations in downtown Ottawa.

Individual Complaint Details

File No.	Date Received	Date of Classification Letter	Date of Decision Letter
02-0086	March 19, 2002	March 20, 2002	June 12, 2002
02-0101	March 18, 2002	March 28, 2002	April 17, 2002
02-0102	March 25, 2002	March 28, 2002	April 08, 2002
02-0116	April 10, 2002	April 16, 2002	June 17, 2002
02-0150	May 13, 2002	May 13, 2002	October 23, 2002
02-0155	May 16, 2002	May 21, 2002	June 28, 2002
02-0157	May 16, 2002	May 30, 2002	June 28, 2002

One complainant sought a review by the Police Services Board.

Classification Process

a) The Police Services Act provides for classification of complaints into one or both of two categories:

1. Conduct of a named officer; or

2. About the policy of or the service provided by a police service.

After a careful consideration of each complaint, all were classified as policy and service complaints. The reasoning is that while officers were involved, the pith and substance of the complaints concerned the operations (policies and service) and not the specific conduct of an individual officer(s). In accordance with the Police Services Act, each complainant was notified in writing of the classification and advised of their right to seek a review of the classification decision.

b) Section 59(5) of the Police Services Act states:

“The chief of police shall not deal with any complaint made by a member of the public if he or she decides that the complainant was not directly affected by the policy, service or conduct that is the subject of the complaint.”

The intent of the legislation is to have the person who was directly affected by the policy, service or conduct file the complaint. For the most part, the complaints received with respect to the G-20 meetings could have been disqualified on the basis of this section, due to the fact that the complainants, generally, may not have been directly affected by the actions complained within the meaning of Section 59(5), but rather were basing their complaints on observations and descriptions of actions. The Professional Standards Section in these special circumstances felt that refusing the complaints on the basis of section 59(5) would not be consistent with community accountability.

Complaint #02-0086

This complaint followed a slightly different process route. It alleged that during the G-20 protest the police blocked pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The complainant also complained about the tactics used by the Ottawa Police Service. The complaint was classified by the Professional Standards Section as being about the policies and the service provided by the Police Service.

Pursuant to the Police Services Act, the complainant appealed the classification to the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services. The Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services’ panel determined that in this case, the complaint should have been classified as relating to the conduct of individual officers. However, the panel also concluded that the complainant was not directly affected by the conduct that was the subject of the complaint and pursuant to section 59(5) of the Police Services Act determined that no further action would be taken with respect to this complaint.

Investigation

Staff Sergeant Webber, the officer responsible for the operations of the Professional Standards Section and a police officer with extensive complaint investigation experience, coordinated the investigation. Due to the uniqueness of the G-20 complaints generally as well as the magnitude of the police actions under review, the aspects under consideration were subject to scrutiny and analysis by all members of the Professional Standards, Legal Services and Policy Development Sections from the Ottawa Police Service. (This process was above and beyond the reviews conducted by the operational units and the G-20 team.)

As with any complaint, the Professional Standards Section process is divided into two major components: fact finding and an analysis of the complaint. Fact finding is done according to the circumstances but generally, depending on the case, employs the full range of police investigative techniques.

Normally, each complaint has a different fact situation and further, since there are different categories of complaints, it follows that not all investigations are alike. With the G-20 complaints, the fact finding portion of the complaint process was somewhat different. Usually, when a public complaint is received, the Professional Standards Section investigator does not necessarily know all the facts involved in the complaint and therefore, as a first step, must determine the facts. In the case of the G-20 complaints, the facts were not really an issue in that the demonstrations took place in public in downtown Ottawa in broad daylight with several video recordings of the events. The emphasis therefore was not on what happened, but rather whether the actions of the police about which the complaints were made were legal, proper, justified, fair, consistent with policy, and generally compatible with professional policing.

Therefore, as a result, the emphasis of the investigation focused on a critical analysis of the circumstances raised in letters of complaint. The areas that were studied included allegations related to:

· tactics used and the presence of Public Order Units;

· alleged intimidation by the police;

· the use of K-9 Units;

· the identity of the officers involved;

· arrest procedures;

· access to counsel; and

· overall police conduct.

The investigative approach to G-20 complaints taken by the Professional Standards Section was to:

· confirm the facts;

· review the applicable policies;

· review the planning prior to the demonstrations;

· review the overall police operation;

· review the debriefing notes;

· search for patterns (generally); and

· go behind the decisions and find out why they were made.

With respect to the individual component of the complaint the process was:

· to review the facts surrounding the individual complaint;

· to identify, review reports and any other documentation, if any, related to the specific allegation; and

· to conduct any specific interviews necessary to elaborate on the facts.

Each complainant received a very detailed response from Professional Standards. In addition, the Police Service launched the Agenda for Excellence process in April of 2001 and further has had the benefit of the Report of the Citizens Panel.

Impact on Policies and Service

Extensive work has been conducted by the Ottawa Police Service in relation to the management of major events such as the G-20. This work has resulted in:

(a) The Agenda for Excellence – a process that is on-going; and

(b) A redrafting and implementation of most of the policies related to major events.

Overall as a result, significant changes have been incorporated into the policies and procedures for major demonstrations as found in the new policies and as implemented for G-7 and G-8.

Significant time and resources from the Professional Standards Section, Legal Services and Policy Development were directed at the G-20 complaints. All of the steps were followed carefully, thoroughly and professionally in the review of each of these complaints.

The Police Service continues to recognize the strong concerns held in some quarters within the community. Enormous internal and external effort has been devoted to addressing issues arising from the G-20 police operation. Further, it is submitted that the extensive changes to the service delivery model for major events implemented in the G-8 process demonstrate the Police Service’s commitment to listening to our community and improving the delivery of service.

CONCLUSION

The Ottawa Police are aware of and sensitive to the concerns raised concerning the police operation at the G-20 meetings. The Police Service has carefully and thoughtfully reviewed its policies and made extensive revisions, in fact in some cases virtually re-writing the entire policy. Some of the new policies were available in time for the G-7 meetings in February 2002, while others were fully introduced into operation for the G-8 meetings in June 2002.

Over the last year, much has been learned by all participants in major demonstrations. The Ottawa Police Service believes that their operational approaches have evolved and will continue to do so as more is learned through the Agenda for Excellence Project.

Vince Bevan

Chief of Police