Man charged `because of his race,' judge finds

They lied in court, is this not perjury?
....................................................



Published On Thu Nov 26 2009

Drug charges against a Toronto man have been thrown out after a Superior Court justice found police engaged in racial profiling when they pulled his vehicle over and then lied about it in court.

Justice Frances Kiteley found police "had no lawful basis to pull Mr. (Irshad) Ahmed over" on Nov. 25, 2008, while he was driving in Toronto's west end.

Constables Justyn Humeniuk and Ryan Willmer of 23 Division said they pulled 26-year-old Ahmed over because he ran a red light. Kiteley rejected that explanation, saying the officers had "lied." "He did nothing to cause the police officers to pay attention to him," she wrote in an 11-page ruling released Wednesday.

"I am compelled to draw the inference that Mr. Ahmed was investigated and arbitrarily detained because of his race," the judge wrote.

"I'm happy for Mr. Ahmed," his lawyer, Gary Grill, said Wednesday. "But he's been in jail for a year because of the colour of his skin."

This is the second time a judge has concluded officers lied in court about their dealings with Ahmed. Last year, a judge found officers used excessive force when Tasering Ahmed; Ahmed was sent to jail for 75 days for obstructing police.

The court heard a tape of the incident in which an officer is heard taunting Ahmed, who was lying face down in broken glass.

Toronto Star

Another Judge..........

Shannon Kari, National Post
Published: Sunday, November 22, 2009



TORONTO -- A second judge in Ontario has ruled that the province's stunt driving law is unconstitutional, which could increase the pressure on police to stop laying the charge until the issue is decided by a higher court.

Justice Peter West, a provincial court judge in Newmarket, found that a potential penalty of up to six months in jail violates the Charter of Rights because the law does not permit an accused person to put forward any defence.

"There is no air of reality to the Crown's submissions that a defendant charged with stunt driving has an available defence of due diligence," wrote Judge West, in a ruling released Nov. 19.

As a result, he dismissed stunt driving charges against Alexandra Drutz, who was 18 when she clocked at 157 km/h while driving her parent's car in March 2008 on Highway 407, just north of Toronto.

Stunt driving is defined as being more than 50 kilometres per hour over the speed limit, which is the same type of "absolute liability" offence as speeding infractions in the Highway Traffic Act, said Judge West. "Calling the conduct stunt driving does not change its characterization - it is still a speeding offence albeit by a different name," he stated.

An absolute liability offence means someone may not argue they took precautions and did not realize how fast they were driving. More than 20 years ago the Supreme Court of Canada stated that potential jail terms for offences that do not permit a defence breaches the Charter.

The ruling by Judge West comes just weeks after a provincial court judge in eastern Ontario came to the same conclusion and overturned the conviction of a 62-year-old grandmother charged with stunt driving.

The Ontario Provincial Police stated at the time that it would continue to lay charges under the stunt driving laws. The province also appealed that decision. It is scheduled to be heard by the Ontario Court of Appeal in about two months from now.

The two court rulings are binding on Justices of Peace in Ontario, who preside over many Highway Traffic Act trials.

Until there is a ruling on the stunt driving laws from the Ontario Court of Appeal, police should take a "time out" from laying these charges, said Enzo Rondinelli, a Toronto lawyer who along with Paul Cooper represented Ms. Drutz.

"The current score in provincial court is 2-0 in favour of a finding of constitutional invalidity," noted Mr. Rondinelli. "There are other sections under the Highway Traffic Act for police to deal with speeders," he added.

More than 10,000 people have been charged under the stunt driving provisions in Ontario since they were introduced in 2007 by then-attorney-general Michael Bryant.

Judge West noted in his ruling that the stunt driving provisions were passed unanimously by the Ontario legislature in what was billed as a law targeting street racing. The specific "regulations" however, which defined speeding as stunt driving and have now been found to be unconstitutional, were drawn up at a later date by the Ontario government.


National Post

Bike lane backlash

A Toronto Police officer who parked his cruiser in a bike lane to get his lunch is getting no love from his superiors, who are coming down hard on his "stupid" and "unacceptable" actions.

On Sunday,the Sun witnessed a city cop sitting inside the Grillway Cafe, at Runnymede Rd. and Annette St., while his cruiser was blocking a bike lane on Annette.

The officer was parked there for at least 20 minutes before leaving the cafe with a can of pop and a paper lunch bag.

But instead of protecting their own, Toronto Police brass called the officer's parking actions "stupid" and "unacceptable."

EXAMINE ISSUE

Last week, cycling advocates brought the issue of blocking bike lanes for non-emergency reasons to the attention of the Toronto Police Services Board, which asked Chief Bill Blair to examine the issue.

"That's not kosher at all. It's right in our procedures that, outside of exigent circumstances, you do not park illegally, and that includes in bike lanes," said Sgt. Tim Burrows, of the force's traffic services department. He added higher-ups at the force were "incensed" when they heard about the Annette St. incident.

"It's very unfortunate that the officer decided to do this, but from the top on down, it's something that will not be tolerated," he insisted.

Residents said yesterday it's not unusual for officers to park illegally in the bike lane while they get some food at the popular Grillway.

"They're parked there quite often," said Orest Zakydalsky, who lives a few doors from the cafe. His mother and aunt were both dinged with $60 tickets for blocking the bike lane on the day city management posted bike lane signs without warning during the civic strike.

"I think it's a bit strange that the very people who are giving us tickets for parking in the bike lane do it themselves whenever they feel like it," Zakydalsky said.

Staff Insp. Peter Lennox, who runs 11 Division where the officer is from, said he would be issuing a division-wide communique "right away" reminding officers they can't block bike lanes, or otherwise park illegally, except in specific situations.

"All things being equal, we expect them to follow the same laws as everybody else," Lennox said. "I'm going to make sure people know that that's not to be done.

"They can park legally along with everyone else when they go into not only the Grillway, but anywhere else in the division."

Lennox said it's "possible" the officer who blocked the bike lane will face a reprimand, but not without an internal investigation.

Former police services board chairman Alan Heisey urged current members Thursday to start a ticketing blitz against bike lane blockers.

Yvonne Bambrick, the executive director of the Toronto Cyclists Union, also raised concerns about the issue with the board last week, calling for the province to double the $60 fine for parking in a bike lane.

Her association also wants the city's emergency services to use common sense when it comes to blocking bike lanes.

"It happens all the time," she said. "We totally understand their need when they are working, but when they're having lunch, or whatever, find a side street or a parking space.


Toronto Sun