Strategy for a Safer Ontario – OHRC submission to MCSCS

Page controls

Page content

Ontario Human Rights Commission
Submission to the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services

April 29, 2016

Executive summary

Twenty-five years after it was enacted, the provincial government (Government) is reviewing and revising the Police Services Act as part of its Strategy for a Safer Ontario (SSO).

This is a critical moment – and an important opportunity – to clearly articulate a framework for policing that puts human rights at its centre, recognizes the tremendous value of ongoing and responsive community engagement, and fosters trust amongst the most vulnerable Ontarians. For nearly two decades, the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) has raised concerns about systemic discrimination in policing and suggested ways to eliminate practices that, in far too many instances, have become part of the culture of policing in our province. Public safety and protection of Ontario’s most marginalized groups depend on a new and progressive approach, grounded in the principles articulated in Ontario’s Human Rights Code.

Relationships between the police, First Nations, Métis and Inuit Peoples (Indigenous peoples), African Canadians, other racialized peoples, and people with mental health disabilities and/or addictions are strained. Community concerns about racial profiling, discriminatory use of force on people with mental health disabilities and/or addictions, inequity in funding for First Nations police services, and racism and sexism in investigations of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls have contributed to mistrust. This lack of trust has negative implications for the functioning of our justice system. It increases the risk of non-reporting of crime and non-cooperation with police during investigations.

The OHRC welcomes the opportunity to provide input to the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (Ministry) on the SSO. Given the gravity of anti-Black and anti-Indigenous systemic racism in policing, discriminatory use of force on people with mental health disabilities and/or addictions, and the resulting lack of trust in police, the time for action on the OHRC’s recommendations is now.

We are pleased that our recommendations have been reviewed and endorsed by a wide-range of community and advocacy groups. To date, they include:

Aboriginal Legal Services
African Canadian Legal Clinic
ARCH Disability Law Centre
Association of Black Law Enforcers
Black Action Defense Committee
Campaign to Stop Police Carding
Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Canadian Friends Service Committee
Canadian Arab Federation
Canadian Association of Black Lawyers
Canadian Human Rights Commission
Colour of Poverty – Colour of Change
Empowerment Council
Human Rights Legal Support Centre
Jamaican Canadian Association
Law Union of Ontario
Metro Toronto Chinese & Southeast Asian Legal Clinic
Ontario Federation of Indigenous Friendship Centres
Peel Coalition Against Racialized Discrimination
South Asian Bar Association
South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario
Toronto Police Accountability Coalition

Background

The SSO will include updating the Police Services Act and the Ministry is seeking specific input on how to:

Promote collaborative partnerships between police, the public and other sectors such as education, health care and social services, to make sure that people who need help receive the right response, at the right time, and by the right service provider
Improve interactions between police and vulnerable Ontarians, including enhancing front-line responses to people in crisis
Modernize training programs
Expand the use of technology to support community safety
Enhance accountability and strengthen civilian governance of police services boards, and ensure police oversight bodies are effective and have clear mandates
Ensure equitable and culturally responsive policing for Indigenous communities in Ontario.

Each of these topics has a clear link to the rights and responsibilities outlined in Ontario’s Human Rights Code. Each includes an opportunity to improve policing by improving the essential relationship between the police and the communities they serve.

To be successful, the Ministry must consider actions that go beyond updating the Police Services Act and fall within the other parts of its mandate, including:

Updating standards and guidelines
Inspecting police services on an ongoing basis to ensure compliance with
the Police Services Act
Overseeing recruitment and training of new and experienced officers and
civilian employees
Keeping abreast of trends that affect policing.

Racial profiling

Racial profiling is a systemic problem in policing. It has a profound negative impact on Indigenous peoples, African Canadians and other racialized groups. Racial profiling is more than carding and is not limited to decisions to stop, question or detain someone. It occurs in a wide variety of police interactions, including traffic stops, searches, DNA sampling, arrests, and use of force incidents. Unfortunately, we continue to see instances of racial profiling. The Ontario Court of Justice ruled last week that a Toronto Police Service officer engaged in racial profiling in a traffic stop of three Black men.

The Government must adopt and implement all appropriate standards, guidelines, policies and strict directives to address and end racial profiling, including clear guidelines on when and how police stop and question people; an appropriate framework for rights notification; and a prohibition on conducting immigration status checks on victims, witnesses or individuals under investigation, unless there are credible, non-discriminatory and bona fide reasons for doing so.

Serving vulnerable people

Changes are needed to end the discriminatory use of force on people with mental health disabilities and/or addictions.

People with mental health disabilities and/or addictions are often more likely to be subject to officer use of force because of behaviours and responses to police instructions that are interpreted as unusual, unpredictable or inappropriate. As well, some officers rely on stereotypical assumptions about dangerousness or violence when deciding whether to use force. Both can have disastrous results, including serious injury and death.

The Government must adopt and implement all necessary standards, guidelines, policies and strict directives to end discriminatory use of force on people with mental health disabilities and/or addictions, including requirements that officers de-escalate and use communication strategies to effectively serve them, and refrain from using force for as long as possible, consistent with officer and public safety. Furthermore, the Government must make mobile crisis interventions teams (MCITs) or officers with specialized training and enhanced skills available at all times.

The reasons why people with mental health disabilities and/or addictions can find themselves in difficult interactions with police are not limited to policing. Root causes cannot be addressed without more comprehensive, non-punitive care for people with mental health disabilities and/or addictions. We ask the Government to address this systemic issue proactively.

Policing and the Indigenous community

The concerns facing Indigenous communities in their interactions with police are myriad, with the end result of Indigenous peoples being over-represented at every stage of the criminal justice system. The Government must meaningfully engage and work closely with Indigenous communities to understand the concerns and issues they face in the context of law enforcement; and work with the federal government to develop a clear action plan with detailed timelines to address these concerns.

Concerns persist about inequity in funding and resources for First Nations police services in Ontario, with a clear impact on public safety in affected communities. The Government must ensure that funding for First Nations police services is equitable so that funding does not result in the provision of inferior policing for First Nations, and fully implement related recommendations from the Ipperwash Inquiry.

Family members of Indigenous women in Canada have informed the United Nations that police officers have treated them with “indifference or hostility.” Municipal police services and the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) handle the majority of police investigations of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls in Ontario. The provincial government should work closely with the federal government to ensure that its Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls is national in scope, and includes consideration of racism and sexism in municipal and provincial police investigations. If it does not include these considerations, the provincial government should conduct an inquiry. The provincial government should commit to implementing any relevant recommendations arising from the Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

Accountability

To prevent discrimination in policing, there must be accountability throughout the system.

Human rights-based data collection and body-worn cameras can enhance accountability for racial profiling and discriminatory use of force on people with mental health disabilities and/or addictions.

The Government must, among other things:

Require police services to establish permanent data collection and retention systems to record human rights based-data on all stops of civilians, use of force incidents, and interactions where officers ask about immigration status or conduct immigration status checks. The data should be standardized, disaggregated, tabulated and publicly reported by each police service.
Commission an independent study to examine the feasibility of requiring all uniformed officers to be equipped with body-worn cameras, and make the findings of the study public.

We understand that the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario supports the OHRC’s call for human rights-based data collection and public reporting.

At the service level, body-worn video and human rights-based data must be reviewed. Officers must be disciplined, up to and including dismissal, when their behaviour is consistent with racial profiling or discriminatory use of force on people with mental health disabilities and/or addictions.

At the board level, police service performance on racial profiling and discriminatory use of force on people with mental health disabilities and/or addictions must be measured and evaluated using human rights-based data. Police services boards must take corrective action where appropriate and address systemic discrimination. The distinction between service operations and board policy cannot frustrate accountability for human rights.

At the highest level, accountability for human rights must be strengthened. The Government must require independent, arms-length and public monitoring of police services and police services boards regarding systemic discrimination through, for example, periodic audits; inspections of policies, procedures, training, databases and records; and public reporting.

We understand that the Ministry of the Attorney General will begin its own consultation on police oversight and will be reviewing the roles of the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD), Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC) and Special Investigations Unit (SIU). Given the mandate of the Ministry of the Attorney General, the OHRC will make submissions on how to improve accountability for human rights through changes to police oversight as part of this process.

Human rights organizational change

Detailed ongoing training on racial profiling and discriminatory use of force on people with mental health disabilities and/or addictions, and measures to ensure that police services and boards reflect Code-protected groups and the communities they serve are important components of a human rights organizational change strategy – and they must be implemented by the Government. However, on their own, they cannot eliminate systemic discrimination and should not be the Government’s sole response.

Recommendations to the Government of Ontario:

Racial profiling

Adopt and implement all appropriate standards, guidelines, policies and strict directives to address and end racial profiling in policing, including but not limited to:

A clear definition of racial profiling that is consistent with the Human
Rights Code

Criteria for when an officer may approach an individual in a non-arrest scenario, and criteria for what may not form a basis for an officer approach (see, for example, Appendix A)

An appropriate framework for rights notification (see, for example, Appendix A)

A prohibition on using race in suspect, victim or witness selection, unless the police are dealing with a sufficiently specific description.

At a minimum, prohibit police services from conducting immigration status checks on victims, witnesses or individuals under investigation, or from asking them about their immigration status, unless there are credible, non-discriminatory and bona fide reasons for doing so.

Serving vulnerable individuals

Use of force and crisis intervention

Commission an independent, human rights-focused review of the provincial use of force model, make the result public, and commit to implementing any recommendations.

Adopt and implement all necessary standards, guidelines, policies and strict directives to end discriminatory use of force on people with mental health disabilities and/or addictions, including but not limited to:

Requirements that officers de-escalate and use communication strategies to effectively serve people with mental health disabilities and/or addictions, and refrain from using force for as long as possible, consistent with officer and public safety

24 hours per day, seven days a week, availability of Mobile Crisis Intervention Teams (MCITs) or officers with specialized training and enhanced skills so police can provide equitable and appropriate services to persons with mental health issues and/or addictions.

Situation tables

Adopt and implement all necessary standards, guidelines, policies and strict directives to ensure that members of Code-protected groups are not discriminated against in any way through the work of situation tables, including clear limits on discriminatory disclosure of personal information. As a starting point, the Government should adopt the recommendations of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario with respect to situation tables; require that outcomes be tracked using human rights-based data; and commission an independent, human-rights focused review of situation tables, make the result public, and commit to implementing any recommendations.

Tasers

Adopt and implement all necessary standards, guidelines, policies and strict directives to minimize the adverse impact of the use of tasers on people with mental health disabilities, addictions or people who are intoxicated, to the point of undue hardship.

Policing and Indigenous communities

Meaningfully engage and work closely with Indigenous communities to understand the concerns and issues they face in the context of law enforcement; and work with the federal government to develop a clear action plan with detailed timelines to address these concerns.

Work closely with the federal government to ensure that its Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls is national in scope, and includes consideration of racism and sexism in municipal and provincial police investigations of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. If it does not include these considerations, the provincial government should conduct an inquiry that does so. The provincial government should commit to implementing any relevant recommendations arising from the Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.
Meaningfully engage and work closely with Indigenous communities to transparently address any remaining concerns related to racial profiling in policing of Indigenous protests.
Ensure that funding for First Nations police services is equitable so that funding does not result in the provision of inferior policing for First Nations, and fully implement related recommendations from the Ipperwash Inquiry.

Accountability

Require independent, arms-length and public monitoring of police services and police services boards regarding systemic discrimination through, for example, periodic audits; inspections of policies, procedures, training, databases and records; and public reporting.

Police services

Data collection

Require police services to establish permanent data collection and retention systems to record human rights-based data on all stops of civilians, use of force incidents, and interactions where officers ask about immigration status or conduct immigration status checks. The data should be standardized, disaggregated, tabulated and publicly reported by each police service.

Body-worn cameras

Commission an independent study to examine the feasibility of requiring all uniformed officers to be equipped with body-worn cameras, and make the findings of the study public.

Develop appropriate privacy guidelines for the use of body-worn cameras in consultation with the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

Discipline

Ensure that officers are disciplined, up to and including dismissal, when their behavior is consistent with racial profiling or discriminatory use of force on people with mental health disabilities and/or addictions.

Expressly provide police disciplinary tribunals with the jurisdiction to allow intervention by a non-party as a “friend of the court” in officer misconduct hearings.

Police Services Boards

Require police services boards to address systemic discrimination by directing chiefs of police with respect to policy or practices informed by policy governing the carrying out of duties and responsibilities of the police.
Direct police services boards to measure and evaluate police service performance on racial profiling and discriminatory use of force on people with mental health disabilities and/or addictions, take corrective action to address systemic discrimination, and provide clear and transparent information to the public on racial profiling and discriminatory use of force on people with mental health disabilities and/or addictions.

Human rights organizational change

Adopt and implement all measures necessary to ensure that police services and police services boards reflect Code-protected groups and the community they serve. Report on activities, outcomes (census data), and progress publicly.

Ensure that police services, boards, the OIPRD, OCPC and SIU have the resources, skills, competencies, and training to effectively address discrimination, fulfill their governance role and ensure accountability for human rights.
Require regular, detailed and ongoing human rights-focused training, developed in consultation with affected groups, on racial profiling, mental health, de-escalation, and unconscious bias for new recruits, current officers, investigators and supervisors. Police officers should be required to take human rights training at least every three years.

Introduction

The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) is the provincial statutory agency responsible for promoting and advancing human rights, and preventing systemic discrimination in Ontario. The OHRC has several functions under the Ontario Human Rights Code, including policy making, public education, inquiries, Commission-initiated applications to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO), and interventions in legal proceedings. In addition, the OHRC has the power to monitor and report on anything related to the state of human rights in the Province of Ontario. This includes reviewing legislation, regulations and policies for consistency with the intent of the Code.^[1]

The OHRC has created several resources that may be of assistance to the Ministry in undertaking the SSO. These include but are not limited to:

We have also made submissions in other contexts which should inform the Ministry of our long-standing position on systemic discrimination in policing. These include, but are not limited to, submissions to the:

The Human Rights Code and its relationship to the Police Services Act

The Code sets out our most fundamental rights and responsibilities and has quasi-constitutional status.^[12] Section 1 of the Code protects individuals from discrimination in police services, because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or disability.^[13] The ground of disability includes past, present and perceived mental health disabilities, and addictions.

The Code protects against both direct discrimination and adverse effect discrimination, both of which may be systemic.

People may experience direct discrimination based on their identification with a Code ground or grounds. This kind of discrimination may be based on stereotypes that are consciously or unconsciously held about a particular group. Stereotyping involves making assumptions about a person based on the presumed qualities or characteristics of the group they are perceived to belong to.

Systemic or institutional discrimination consists of patterns of behaviour, policies or practices that are part of the social or administrative structure of an organization, and which create or perpetuate a position of relative disadvantage for Code protected-groups.

Racial profiling is an example of direct discrimination that is systemic. The OHRC defines racial profiling as: “any action undertaken for reasons of safety, security or public protection that relies on stereotypes about race, colour, ethnicity, ancestry, religion or place of origin – rather than on reasonable suspicion – to single out an individual for greater scrutiny or different treatment.” Racial profiling can occur because of a combination of the above factors with other grounds, like age and/or sex.^[14]

Adverse effect or constructive discrimination results from practices, policies, rules, standards or other factors that appear to be neutral, but have a negative impact on some people and groups based on their identification with a Code ground. Organizations may develop policies, guidelines and practices that exclude people who are protected under the Code or fail to take into account their actual needs and circumstances.

Adverse effect discrimination can also overlap with other forms of discrimination to further disadvantage marginalized groups. For example, the adverse effect of an organization’s policy on persons with mental health disabilities can be compounded if the staff person administering the policy has discriminatory attitudes.

Some policies, rules or standards that have an adverse effect on a particular group or groups may nevertheless be justified. For example, a police service may be able to show that a policy, practice or standard that has a negative impact is linked to a significant and real health and safety concern. However, the police service still needs to show that it cannot take other steps to address these concerns without undue hardship.

A person may also experience discrimination based on several overlapping and intersecting aspects of their identity. For example, a young Black man can be seen as a “Black person” or as a “young person” or as a “man.” All these aspects of identity overlap and may also intersect in a socially significant way. This person may face discrimination based on any of the individual grounds of race and/or colour, age, sex, and gender identity/gender expression. However, the person may face a unique intersectional form of discrimination when identified as a “young Black man” based on the various assumptions and/or stereotypes that are associated with this socially significant intersection.

The Code generally has primacy over other Ontario laws.^[15]The Ministry should have regard for the Code when interpreting, applying or amending the Police Services Act, and when developing standards, guidelines, policies and training.

The declaration of principles of the Police Services Act includes:^[16]

The importance of safeguarding the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code; and
The need for sensitivity for the pluralistic, multiracial and multicultural character of Ontario society.

Justice Morden reviewed these principles in his report on policing at the G-20 Summit and stated:^[17]

It could be thought that it should not be necessary to refer to the Charter and the Human Rights Code because, from their own force, they apply directly to every case in which the facts make them applicable. The purpose of section 1, paragraph 2 is not, however, to provide for the application of these two documents but, rather to remind those acting under the Police Services Act of their constant bearing on the performance of their duties. This is critically important because the exercise of so many police powers, for example, those of arrest, detention, search and seizure, and the laying of charges, involve rights that are protected by the Charter or the Human Rights Code. Accordingly, it is important that the Police Services Act should draw attention to these legal protections of fundamental rights that are so highly valued in our society and are at risk of infringement by police action. [Emphasis added]

In Shaw v. Phipps, the Divisional Court reviewed these principles and determined that “police officers therefore have a statutory duty to uphold the Code.”^[18]

Finally, the importance of human rights is reflected in the prescribed Code of Conduct of the Police Services Act, which prohibits discrimination or harassment on Code grounds.^[19]

The Strategy for a Safer Ontario

The OHRC understands that the SSO will include updating the Police Services Act and the government is seeking input on how to, among other things:^[20]

Promote collaborative partnerships between police, the public and other sectors such as education, health care and social services, to ensure that people in need of help receive the right response, at the right time, and by the right service provider
Improve interactions between police and vulnerable Ontarians, including enhancing front-line responses to those in crisis
Modernize training programs
Expand the use of technology to support community safety
Enhance accountability and strengthen civilian governance of police services boards as well as ensure police oversight bodies are effective and have clear mandates
Ensure equitable and culturally responsive policing for the province's First Nations communities.

These areas, as well as the recruitment, retention of promotion of under-represented groups at the service and board levels are closely related to human rights.

In addition to updating the Police Services Act, the Ministry can use a variety of other tools in its mandate to ensure that respect for human rights in policing is part of the SSO, including but not limited to:^[21]

Updating standards and guidelines
Inspecting police services on an ongoing basis to ensure compliance with the Police Services Act
Overseeing recruitment and training of new and experienced officers and civilian employees
Keeping abreast of trends that affect policing.

OHRC response to discussion questions

Community safety and well-being

How would you describe the relationship between the police and members of your community?
Are there any ways in which the relationship between the police and members
of your community can be improved to further enhance trust and respect and carried out in accordance with the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to build even safer communities? If yes, please explain.

Relationships in Ontario between the police, Indigenous peoples, African Canadians, other racialized peoples, and people with mental health disabilities and/or addictions are strained. Community concerns about breaches of their human rights through racial profiling, discriminatory use of force on people with mental health disabilities, inequity in funding and resources provided to First Nations police services, and racism and sexism in investigations of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls have furthered mistrust.^[22]

Negative perceptions of the justice system and/or a lack of trust in the police have profound consequences for the functioning of the justice system and public safety. For example, people with poor perceptions of the justice system are less likely to report crime, cooperate with police investigations and provide testimony in court.^[23]

Addressing community concerns about racial profiling, discriminatory use of force on people with mental health disabilities, and the myriad of issues facing Indigenous peoples in policing, will enhance trust and build safer communities. Strategies to do so are outlined in the section entitled “Serving vulnerable individuals.”

What is the most effective way to engage a broad spectrum of community representatives from diverse backgrounds and interests in the development of these plans? And how can we ensure broad engagement with community representatives who reflect the different backgrounds, interests, challenges and beliefs of their communities in the development of these plans?

OHRC recommendation 5: Situation tables

Adopt and implement all necessary standards, guidelines, policies and strict directives to ensure that members of Code-protected groups are not discriminated against in any way through the work of situation tables, including clear limits on discriminatory disclosure of personal information. As a starting point, the Government should adopt the recommendations of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario with respect to situation tables, require that outcomes be tracked using human rights-based data, and commission an independent, human rights-focused review of situation tables, make the result public, and commit to implementing any recommendations.

The OHRC supports improvements to integrated provision of services that promote the well-being of all Ontarians in a way that is consistent with the spirit and letter of the Code, and that will also address more deeply the social determinants of well-being. However, the “situation table” model that underlies the “Connectivity” project in Waterloo region,^[24] which is highlighted in the Ministry’s public discussion paper, carries with it the risk of violating the human rights of vulnerable Ontarians. This must be addressed.^[25]To this end, the OHRC supports the recommendations of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario on collaborative partnerships in its submission to the Ministry on the SSO:

Collaborative community safety and well-being initiatives should be supported by clearly defined governance frameworks that meet transparency and privacy best practices, as well as and the requirements in FIPPA, MFIPPA and PHIPA.

The government should ensure that any legislative reforms governing collaborative community safety and well-being initiatives respect the data minimization principle.

The OHRC’s concern is that, because of the specific risk factors used at the “Connectivity” situation tables (such as disability or addiction), a decision may be made to disclose personal information and personal health information without the person’s consent, and that the person’s Code identity may inappropriately be a factor in that decision, thus potentially rendering the decision discriminatory.

Discriminatory disclosure of personal information without consent at a situation table can have several damaging effects, such as:

Stigmatization of the person or family among organizations at the table.
Retention of disclosed information in the records of table members, and possible use of that information to the detriment of the person or family in the future.
The fundamental loss of dignity that is inherent in having highly sensitive personal information or personal health information disclosed without consent.^[26]

Members of situation tables in Waterloo region include police, social service agencies, schools and other important community service providers.^[27]They meet weekly to discuss situations brought forward that a member organization believes involve acutely elevated risk to individuals and/or families. The situation table members collaborate and strategize about ways to address the immediate risk and what organizations should be involved.

During the presentation of a case to the situation table, a police service or other agency provides de-identified information on client risk factors. Where there is agreement at the table that the situation constitutes an acutely elevated risk that the presenting agency cannot sufficiently mitigate through its own services, basic identifying information about the client is shared to help determine which agencies could usefully be involved in risk reduction.

This highly sensitive personal information, which may involve personal health information, is generally disclosed without the consent of the person or family involved to as many as two dozen or more agencies that are represented at the situation table.

According to an evaluation report of the Waterloo region situation tables, “The Connectivity Tables do not conduct formal risk assessments to decide if an individual qualifies for service. Risk factors are subjectively recorded based on narrative descriptions made by Table members.”^[28] The OHRC is concerned that such subjective assessments and discretionary decisions are more prone to reflect stereotyping and biases that lead to discrimination.

Moreover, the OHRC is concerned that the risk factors^[29] used to determine whether or not acutely elevated risk exists include several characteristics that are prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Code. These include various factors and sub-factors related to “alcohol abuse,” “drug abuse,” mental health and physical health,
all of which could fall under the ground of disability; and, in one case, to the ground of sex – “pregnancy”.

One sub-factor, “Mental health – suspected mental health problem,” is particularly problematic because of the subjectivity involved in the informal assessment that leads to the suspicion of mental health disability. Similarly, “Suicide – person previous suicide risk” is included, without any apparent limit on how long ago the person was believed to be a suicide risk and whether that is still a risk factor.

In these cases, it appears that sex or disability – in some cases, the disability of the person whose situation is under review, and in other cases, the disability of a family member – is treated as a risk factor in and of itself, whether or not anything about the disability or pregnancy is actually creating or exacerbating risk in the situation at hand.

Some of the other risk factors that are not directly related to a prohibited ground of discrimination on their face, such as “negative peers,” “gang association,” “negative neighbourhood” and “parenting” tend to be associated with Code-protected groups due to stereotypes and racial profiling; the racialization of poverty; and the over-representation of Indigenous and racialized children in child welfare.

It is clear that these risk factors play a significant part in decisions to disclose personal information at situation tables, which likely amounts to a prima facie case of discrimination under the Code.^[30]

Serving vulnerable individuals

What are the challenges during interactions between police and vulnerable people, especially those who may be experiencing a mental health crisis?

To best serve vulnerable individuals in your community, what resources, including training, should be available to police services? What additional supports might be needed to better support police in assisting vulnerable populations?

Racial profiling

OHRC recommendation 1a:

Adopt and implement all appropriate standards, guidelines, and policies and strict directives to address and end racial profiling in policing, including but not limited to:

A clear definition of racial profiling that is consistent with the Human Rights Code

The OHRC defines racial profiling as “any action undertaken for reasons of safety, security or public protection that relies on stereotypes about race, colour, ethnicity, ancestry, religion or place of origin – rather than on reasonable suspicion – to single out an individual for greater scrutiny or different treatment.” Racial profiling can occur because of a combination of the above factors with other grounds, like age and/or sex.^[31]This definition has been cited favourably by the Supreme Court of Canada.^[32]

Racial profiling is a significant challenge facing police officers in their interactions with Indigenous peoples, African Canadians and other racialized individuals. Racial profiling by police in Ontario is a violation of section 1 of the Code^.^[33]

Courts and tribunals have repeatedly recognized that racial profiling is a systemic problem in policing.^[34]Racial profiling has a profound negative impact on Indigenous peoples, African Canadians and other racialized groups^[35] – and it also undermines effective policing.^[36]

Racial profiling must be viewed in the larger context of anti-Indigenous racism and anti-Black racism.^[37]Moreover, there is a history of mistrust between Indigenous Peoples and the police that is rooted in the legacy of colonialism, including: the role of the police in attempts to assimilate Indigenous peoples, including through apprehension of children; government reliance on the police to resolve Indigenous rights disputes; and the over-representation of Indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system.^[38]

Over-policing is a concept commonly identified with racial profiling of Indigenous peoples. In Mckay, the HRTO was cognizant of the social context evidence that indicated that Indigenous peoples are especially vulnerable to over-policing. Over-policing causes Indigenous peoples to have disproportionately more frequent contact with police, often for less serious matters like “public drunkenness,” and engenders mistrust.^[39]

Over-policing not only affects Indigenous Peoples, but also African Canadians and other racialized peoples. In his partially concurring reasons in Grant, Justice Binnie stated that “visible minorities and marginalized individuals are at particular risk from unjustified ‘low visibility’ police interventions in their lives.”^[40] According to the Ontario Court of Justice in Fountain, young Black males “seem to find themselves the target of pro-active-community policing on very frequent occasions.”^[41]

Racial profiling is more than street checks or “carding.”^[42] It is not limited to decisions to stop, question or detain someone, but can affect how an officer continues to deal with a person after an initial encounter.^[43] For example, it can occur in traffic stops,^[44]searches,^[45] DNA sampling,^[46]arrest decisions^[47]and incidents involving use of force.^[48]

Addressing racial profiling in policing requires a systemic response that speaks to the concerns of affected communities.

Although the street checks regulation is a step forward, it does not go far enough to eliminate racial profiling in policing:

The regulation does not monitor and address racial profiling in all stops of individuals or incidents that involve use of force. It only applies to officer attempts at gathering personal information.^[49]
The regulation is unclear about whether it applies to street checks that involve investigating a specific offence.^[50] So much of racial profiling occurs when officers are investigating a specific offence.^[51]
The category of “inquiring into suspicious activities to detect offences” in the regulation does not sufficiently guide officer discretion to prevent racial profiling.^[52]
African Canadians are already over-represented in street checks for “suspicious activities,” which is indicative of racial profiling.^[53]
Officers are not required to advise individuals about their right to leave a street check.^[54]

As discussed further below, there are also concerns police are more likely to use force in their interactions with Indigenous peoples. A more physical or aggressive police response based on the Indigenous ancestry is Code-prohibited racial profiling against Indigenous peoples.

Guiding officer discretion to stop and question people

OHRC recommendation 1b:

Adopt and implement all appropriate standards, guidelines, policies and strict directives to address and end racial profiling in policing, including but not limited to:

Criteria for when an officer may approach an individual in a non-arrest scenario, and criteria for what may not form a basis for an officer approach (see, for example, Appendix A)

The courts and the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System recognize the negative influence of broad and unguided discretion on racial profiling.^[55] Indeed, the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System recommended that guidelines be created “for the exercise of police discretion to stop and question people, with the goal of eliminating differential treatment of black and other racialized people.”^[56]

Officers should exercise caution and restraint when deciding whether to engage in a casual or informal interaction with Indigenous peoples, African Canadians and other racialized peoples. As noted above, relationships between police and Indigenous peoples, African Canadians and other racial peoples are strained. The effect of police stop and question activities on these groups is a contributing factor.

The OHRC has developed criteria for when an officer may approach an individual in a non-arrest scenario to ensure that officers have sufficient guidance to address racial profiling, which may be useful to the Ministry (see Appendix A).

Race and suspect, victim and witness selection

OHRC Recommendation 1d:

Adopt and implement all appropriate standards, guidelines, policies and strict directives to address and end racial profiling in policing, including but not limited to:

A prohibition on using race in suspect, victim or witness selection, unless the police are dealing with a sufficiently specific description.

The Code prohibits the police from casting their investigative net widely on racialized individuals when dealing with a vague description involving race.^[57]As noted in the OHRC’s criteria for when an officer may approach an individual in a non-arrest scenario (see Appendix A), “a suspect, victim or witness description that lacks sufficient detail other than race” is not a basis for an officer approach.

The inappropriate use of race in descriptions is a significant human rights concern. The OHRC has heard concerns from Black Toronto community members that they are often told that they match the description of a suspect during street checks.

Rights notification

OHRC recommendation 1c:

Adopt and implement all appropriate standards, guidelines, policies and strict directives to address and end racial profiling in policing, including but not limited to:

An appropriate framework for rights notification (see, for example, Appendix A)

The police duty to inform an individual of his or her section 10(b) Charter right to retain and instruct counsel is triggered at the outset of an investigative detention.^[58] It includes the right to do so in private^[59] and be advised of the existence and availability of Legal Aid and duty counsel^[60]. The Charter right to counsel that arises on detention under section 10(b) also reflects the principle against self-incrimination – a principle of fundamental justice under section 7.^[61] Furthermore, section 10(a) of the Charter requires that individuals who are detained for investigative purposes be advised, in clear and simple language, of the reasons for the detention.^[62]

Young people have additional informational and procedural rights because of their vulnerability in the presence of persons in authority due to their age, life experience and level of maturity. These values are enshrined in s. 146 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.^[63]

The responsibility for notification about the right to leave and not answer questions must reside with the police, given the power imbalance between police officers and Indigenous peoples and racialized individuals protected by the Code. The exercise of power is inherent in the interaction between a police officer and any member of the public, given the powers that are granted to a police officer by statute. However, it can be “inappropriately exacerbated when it is layered on top of a racial and gender power dynamic.”^[64]

The OHRC has developed a framework for rights notification that may be useful to the Ministry in terms of implementing Recommendation 1a (see Appendix A).

Racial profiling in officer use of force

A particularly damaging manifestation of racial profiling is a more physical or aggressive police response to an individual or situation based on the race, colour, ancestry, ethnic origin, place of origin or religion of the person or group.^[65]

There are concerns that police are more likely to use force in their interactions with African Canadians and Indigenous peoples. For example, a report published by the Urban Alliance on Race Relations revealed that Black communities in particular felt that they were “disproportionately vulnerable to police violence” and that racialized people are disproportionately likely to be killed by the police.^[66]

Stereotypes about Black men that may affect officer use of force include that they are physical, violent and more likely to be criminal.^[67] Similarly, stereotypes about Indigenous peoples that may affect officer use of force include that they are violent and prone to petty crime.^[68]

Although there is limited data available on race and police use of force, some Canadian studies that examined media coverage and Special Investigations Unit Investigations suggested an over-representation of Indigenous peoples and African Canadians in police use of force incidents involving serious injury or death.^[69]

OHRC recommendation 2: Racial profiling in immigration enforcement

At a minimum, prohibit police services from conducting immigration status checks on victims, witnesses or individuals under investigation, or from asking them about their immigration status, unless there are credible, non-discriminatory and bona fide reasons for doing so.

There is a link between concerns about racial discrimination in immigration enforcement by Ontario police services, and public safety. Immigration enforcement by police is a deterrent to the reporting of crime and co-operation with police by non-citizens who are undocumented or have precarious status.^[70]

In its 2015 report entitled Often Asking, Always Telling: The Toronto Police Service and the Sanctuary City Policy,^[71]No One is Illegal raised concerns about racial profiling in immigration status checks^[72]conducted by the Toronto Police Service (TPS). Between November 4, 2014 and October 16, 2015, the TPS made 4,894 calls to the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). Status checks were the reason for 4,254 calls, or 87% of the calls – that is, inquiring about the immigration status on an individual for reasons of suspicion when no immigration warrant appeared on CPIC. Warrant inquiries and database verifications were the reason for 8% of the calls.

Clearly many immigration status checks conducted by TPS officers may be the product of racial profiling. The broad criterion of “officer suspicion” is fertile ground for racial profiling. Stereotypes about criminality and non-status could inform TPS officer decisions about immigration status checks. Indeed, there is support in the narratives in the report and the TPS practice of carding more broadly, which are consistent with racial profiling.^[73]Data in the report also raises concerns about racial profiling in immigration status checks beyond the TPS.^[74]Immigration enforcement through pretext stops and irrelevant officer questions about immigration status also raises concerns about racial profiling.^[75]

Racial profiling in policing of Indigenous protests

OHRC recommendation 9:

Meaningfully engage and work closely with Indigenous communities to transparently address any remaining concerns with respect to racial profiling in policing of Indigenous protests.

There are long-standing concerns regarding racial profiling in policing of Indigenous protests,[76] including by the Ontario Provincial Police.[77] Indeed, Amnesty International has raised concerns about Ontario’s failure to fully implement the recommendations from the Ipperwash Inquiry on policing of Indigenous protests.[78]

Discriminatory use of force on people with mental health disabilities and/or addictions

People with mental health disabilities and/or addictions are among the most vulnerable people in Ontario. They also tend to have significantly more frequent contact with the police.^[79]

Human rights issues emerge when considering officer use of force on people with mental health disabilities and/or addictions. They may be more likely to be subject to officer use of force because of behaviours and responses to police instructions that may seem unusual, unpredictable or inappropriate^[80]or due to police reliance on stereotypical assumptions about dangerousness or violence.

Certain language, tone and gestures may be perceived as more threatening by persons who are in a mental health crisis and should be avoided, subject to health and safety concerns. Different communication strategies when assisting persons with mental health issues is a form of accommodation of their disabilities and was recommended by the jury in the Inquest into the Deaths of Reyal Jardine-Douglas, Sylvia Klibingaitis, and Michael Eligon^[81] and in Justice Iacobucci’s Independent Review of the Use of Lethal Force by the TPS^[82].

There is a socially significant intersection between race and mental health that may affect officer decisions about use of force. First, people with mental health issues who are Indigenous or racialized may be more likely to be profiled as a security risk than other people. As noted earlier, there are concerns that police are more likely to use force in their interactions with African Canadians and Indigenous peoples – corresponding stereotypes for both groups include them being violent.

Conducted Energy Weapons (CEWs, commonly known as tasers)

OHRC recommendation 6:

Adopt and implement all necessary standards, guidelines, policies and strict directives to minimize the adverse impact of the use of tasers on people with mental health disabilities, addictions or people who are intoxicated, to the point of undue hardship.

The Government must take steps to minimize the adverse impact of the use of tasers on people with mental health disabilities and/or addictions. They include but are not limited to:

Studying the physical and mental effects of tasers^[83]
Adding information about risk of harm or death proximal to CEW use into
CEW policy^[84]
Commissioning an independent, human rights-focused review of the guidelines and training on taser use, making the results public, and committing to implementing any recommendations.^[85]

Police forces in Ontario decide which officers can carry tasers. In the past, tasers were restricted to certain designated officers, such as members of tactical units, hostage rescue teams, containment teams and front-line supervisors.^[86]

People with mental health disabilities and/or addictions may be adversely affected by the use of tasers. Foremost, they may be more likely to be tasered.^[87]They may also be at a greater risk of death when tasered if they are experiencing “acute psychiatric decompensation” or are in a “drug induced toxic state.”^[88]

The Ministry’s revised guidelines one use of force state that a Chief of Police may permit an officer to use a CEW when:

the officer believes a subject is threatening or displaying assaultive behaviour or, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, the officer believes there is an imminent need for control of a subject; and
the officer believes it is reasonably necessary to use a conducted energy weapon, which may involve consideration of the following factors:
1. whether efforts to de-escalate the situation have been effective;
2. whether verbal commands are not practical or are not being followed;
3. the risk of secondary injury (e.g., as a result of a fall); and
4. the conducted energy weapon’s capabilities in relation to the context and environment.^[89]

The OHRC is concerned that the subjectivity and risk threshold of the standard for the use of tasers in the revised guidelines (i.e. threatening or assaultive behaviour) may have an adverse impact on persons with mental health disabilities and/or addictions.

People with certain mental health disabilities may be more likely to exhibit behaviour that can be perceived as threatening or assaultive by virtue of their condition. This behaviour may also affect their ability to comprehend and respond to a police officer’s requests or instructions.^[90]

The OHRC is further troubled that officers are no longer required to consider whether efforts to de-escalate the situation have been effective and whether verbal commands are not practical or are not being followed.^[91]This may have a negative impact on people with actual or perceived mental health disabilities and/or addictions. De-escalation techniques help minimize the adverse impact of use of CEWs on persons with perceived or actual mental health disabilities and/or addictions.^[92]

Finally, the guidelines do not appear to make allowances or offer guidance to police officers on using tasers when encountering people who may be displaying symptoms that are consistent with their mental health disability or, by virtue of their condition, may not appear cooperative.

Standards, guidelines and policies

OHRC recommendation 4a: standards, guidelines and policies

Adopt and implement all necessary standards, guidelines, policies and strict directives to end discriminatory use of force on people with mental health disabilities and/or addictions, including but not limited to:

Requirements that officers de-escalate and use communication strategies to effectively serve people with mental health disabilities and/or addictions, and refrain from using force for as long as possible, consistent with officer and
public safety

A call to develop standards, guidelines and policies on the use of force and bias/ stereotyping is consistent with recommendation 47 in Minds that Matter, the OHRC’s report on its consultation on human rights, mental health and addictions:^[93]

Police services should develop police policies and protocols that address human rights and policing issues as they relate to people with mental health disabilities and addictions.

De-escalation and least amount of force are supported by several of the Eligon Jury Recommendations^[94] and Justice Iacobucci’s review.^[95] However, the inquest and Justice Iacobucci’s review did not consider race.

Mobile Crisis Intervention Teams

OHRC recommendation 4b:

Adopt and implement all necessary standards, guidelines, policies and strict directives to end discriminatory use of force on people with mental health disabilities and/or addictions, including but not limited to:

24 hours per day, seven days a week, availability of Mobile Crisis Intervention Teams (MCITs) or officers with specialized training and enhanced skills so police can provide equitable and appropriate services to persons with mental health issues and/or addictions.

MCITs pair a police officer with a nurse or mental health worker.^[96]24-hour services from MCITs or officers with similar training are particularly important given the links between poverty, lack of affordable housing, homelessness and mental health.^[97]For example, studies have shown that persons with mental health disabilities are over-represented in the homeless population and are disproportionately likely to experience poverty.^[98]

Including persons who are intoxicated and/or experiencing a drug overdose in the scope of MCIT calls is also important, as people with addictions have the right to access policing services without discrimination under the Code.

OHRC recommendation 3: The provincial use of force model

Commission an independent, human rights-focused review of the provincial use of force model, make the result public, and commit to implementing any recommendations.

A human rights review should consider, among other things: ^[99]

How bias or stereotypes about persons with mental health issues, including racialized and Indigenous persons with mental health issues, may enter into decision-making processes
The adverse effects of the use of force model on persons with mental health disabilities and/or addictions to make sure the model includes measures, short of undue hardship, to minimize the adverse impact (e.g. de-escalation)
How certain symptoms of mental disabilities may not in fact indicate a greater risk to officer or public safety.^[100]

Human rights-based data collection

OHRC recommendation 12: Human rights-based data collection

Require police services to establish permanent data collection and retention systems to record human rights-based data on all stops of civilians, use of force incidents, and interactions where officers ask about immigration status or conduct immigration status checks. The data should be standardized, disaggregated, tabulated and publicly reported by each police service.

Race and mental health-based data collection are important components of a comprehensive strategy to reduce racial profiling and discriminatory use of force on people with mental health disabilities. The purpose of these systems is not to gather intelligence, but to identify, monitor and address these forms of discrimination and, ultimately, to increase community trust.

The data must be housed separately from intelligence or investigative data and not be accessed for these purposes. Data should be collected in a manner consistent with Count me in!, the OHRC’s guide to collecting human rights-based data^.[101]

Traffic and pedestrian stops

Each police service’s data system should record race information on both traffic and pedestrian stops. It should not include informal interactions (e.g. when an officer is simply saying “hello”), and need not include calls for service (e.g. when an officer is dispatched to respond to an alleged domestic assault).

The information collected on each stop should include: name, address, age and gender; as well as the date, time, location, reason for and outcome of the stop (e.g. no action, warning, ticket, summons, detention, arrest, etc.). Racial background should be recorded based on officer perception. This is the approach being taken in the Ottawa Police Service’s Traffic Stop Race Data Collection Project.^[102]

Use of force

In addition to perceived race and officer perception of whether the individual has a mental health disability, each police service’s data system should include information about the name, age, gender, date, time, location, context of the interaction, outcome and level of force used.

Immigration enforcement

In addition to perceived race, each police service’s data system should include information about the name, gender, context of the interaction, reason for asking about immigration status or conducting an immigration status check and outcome.

Accountability for racial profiling, discriminatory use of force

OHRC recommendations 15 and 18:

Ensure that officers are disciplined, up to and including dismissal, when their behavior is consistent with racial profiling or discriminatory use of force on people with mental health disabilities and/or addictions.

Direct police services boards to measure and evaluate police service performance on racial profiling and discriminatory use of force on people with mental health disabilities and/or addictions, take corrective action to address systemic discrimination, and provide clear and transparent information to the public on racial profiling and discriminatory use of force on people with mental health disabilities and/or addictions.

Simply put, to prevent racial profiling and discriminatory use of force on people with mental health disabilities and/or addictions, there must be accountability for them.

Supervisors can review human rights-based data and body-worn video, which is discussed in the “Technology” section of this submission, as part of the disciplinary process.

Accountability beyond police services boards is discussed in the “Governance and Accountability” section.

Policing and Indigenous communities

OHRC recommendation 7:

Meaningfully engage and work closely with Indigenous communities to understand the concerns and issues facing their communities in the context of law enforcement; and work with the federal government to develop a clear action plan with detailed timelines to address these concerns.

Inequity in funding and resources for First Nations police services, and racism and sexism in police investigations of missing and murdered Indigenous women are just some of the concerns that must be addressed by the provincial government.

Inequity in funding and resources for First Nations police services

OHRC recommendation 10:

Ensure that funding for First Nations police services is equitable so that funding does not result in the provision of inferior policing for First Nations, and fully implement related recommendations from the Ipperwash Inquiry.

First Nations police services in Ontario are partially funded by the province. Concerns about inequity in funding and resources for First Nations police services in Ontario persist. They may reflect discrimination under the Code, to the extent that there is provincial jurisdiction. Substantive inequality may still result even if there is dollar for dollar funding with municipal police forces. Determining whether provincial funding of First Nations police services achieves substantive equality is not determined by considering how much money is spent on First Nations police services. The effect of the funding must be considered – does it result in the provision of inferior policing for First Nations?^[103]More broadly speaking, the OHRC and Canadian Human Rights Commission support funding for First Nations police services that achieves substantive equality in policing services for First Nations, regardless of jurisdiction.

Ontario, by tripartite agreements with the federal government and First Nations communities, has established a program with respect to the policing of on-reserve First Nations communities. This program is guided by the federal First Nations Policing Policy (FNPP) and established through the combined effect of section 54 of the Police Services Act, the Ontario First Nations Policing Agreement (ONFPA) and, where applicable, tri-partite agreements with particular First Nations. Under the FNPP, the federal government pays 52% and the provincial or territorial government pays 48% of the cost of First Nations policing services. The Aboriginal Policing Bureau of the OPP administers the funding under the OFNPA. The OFNPA gives First Nations governments the right to choose the type of First Nations policing arrangements to be implemented on their territories.^[104]

The Report on the Ipperwash Inquiry stated that “research, consultations, forums, and submissions from the parties have consistently confirmed that First Nation police services are working with restricted budgets and substandard facilities, which frustrates their efforts to provide high quality police services.”^[105]Unfortunately, these concerns persist.^[106]

Racism and sexism in police investigations of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls

OHRC recommendation 8:

Work closely with the federal government to ensure that its Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls is national in scope, and includes consideration of racism and sexism in municipal and provincial police investigations of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. If it does not include these considerations, the provincial government should conduct an inquiry that does so. The provincial government should commit to implementing any relevant recommendations arising from the Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

There are particular concerns about racism and sexism through under-policing in investigations of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls. Given that these investigations in Ontario are mostly conducted by municipal police forces and the OPP,^[107]the concerns likely reflect discrimination contrary to the Code.^[108]

Particular concerns about racism and sexism in police investigations of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls through under-policing were articulated in an environmental scan and consultation report of the Ontario Native Women’s Association (ONWA). ONWA stated “because of the systematic oppression, there is a collective truth of the marginalization and devalued attitudes towards Aboriginal women in domestic violence situations.”^[109]

Concerns about racism and sexism in police investigations of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls through under-policing were echoed in the United Nations Report of the Inquiry concerning Canada of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).^[110]

As a starting point, the OHRC is pleased that Ontario, a participant in the 2016 National Roundtable on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, has agreed to work with families and local partners to, among other things, support the development of Indigenous-led cultural competency, anti-racism and anti-sexism training programs for all public servants across governments, police and the justice system to include components focused on Indigenous history, impacts of policies, legislation and historical trauma.^[111]However, additional solutions must be identified and implemented through coordinated action with the federal government on its Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.

Technology

Are there any forms of technology that you believe would enhance community safety? If yes, please describe.

Body-worn cameras

OHRC recommendation 13:

Commission an independent study to examine the feasibility of requiring all uniformed officers to be equipped with body-worn cameras, and make the findings of the study public.

Body-worn cameras can enhance accountability for racial profiling and discriminatory use of force on people with mental health disabilities, and thus, have a positive effect public safety.

First, body-worn cameras can encourage officers to think twice about decisions to stop and question, detain, arrest and use force. The CBC reported on a study from Rialto California, which introduced body-worn cameras for 50 its officers. In the 12 months that the cameras were used, there was a 60% drop in use of force incidents and 88% drop in citizen complaints about police behaviour. The CBC reported that other studies had similar results.^[112]

Second, they can further access to justice for human rights. An individual involved in an incident with a police officer can file a Freedom of Information request to obtain the video of the encounter and, if necessary, use it as evidence in a complaint or application about racial profiling or discriminatory use of force at the OIPRD or HRTO respectively.

Third, police supervisors can review video to make sure that there are non-discriminatory reasons for decisions to stop, question, detain, arrest or use force. For example, supervisors can make sure that there was a credible, objective basis to stop and question a Black or Indigenous individual, or that de-escalation strategies were used on a person with a mental health disability to the point of undue hardship. If officer behaviour on video is consistent with discrimination, disciplinary action can be taken.

To be an effective deterrent of racial profiling and discriminatory use of force on people with mental health disabilities and/or addictions, cameras need to be on at the beginning of an approach or in anticipation of one beginning shortly, and stay on during the interaction, to capture any questions, use of force, searches, de-escalation techniques, etc. There should be consequences to officers when cameras are turned off prematurely.

The video might capture discrimination, but governance needs to ensure that police services hold officers accountable when they engage in behaviour consistent with discrimination.

Do you have any concerns about privacy associated with greater use of technology by police services? If yes, please explain what your concerns are.

Body-worn cameras

OHRC recommendation 14:

Develop appropriate privacy guidelines for the use of body-worn cameras in consultation with the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

The body-worn cameras should not themselves become a tool for discrimination. Addressing privacy concerns may address the potential discrimination associated with their use. For example, if an officer is investigating a suspect for a robbery and the interaction is captured on video, the police service should not be permitted to review the video to investigate people in the background based on stereotypes about race. To prevent this, the use of cameras should be focused on those people whom the police have a proper justification for stopping and questioning, and not be used to gather intelligence on people in the background. Furthermore, there needs to be restricted access to the video and appropriate retention periods.

The OHRC supports the recommendation of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario on the expanded use of technology in its submission to the Ministry on the SSO: “the government should enact province-wide standards governing the use of surveillance technologies.”

Human rights and organizational change^[113]

What skills and education do you think is important for policeofficers to have?

12. Is there any other training you would recommend?

In your view, should police services boards oversee police in every community, including those policed by the OPP, and what could the province do to ensure that police services boards better reflect the needs of the communities that they serve?
What type of skills should board members possess in order to effectively carry out their roles and responsibilities?

Detailed ongoing training on racial profiling and discriminatory use of force on people with mental health disabilities and/or addictions, and measures to ensure that police services and boards reflect Code-protected groups and the communities they serve are important components of a human rights organizational change strategy – they must be implemented by the Government. However, on their own, they cannot eliminate systemic discrimination and should not be the Government’s sole response.

Training

OHRC recommendations 20 and 21

Ensure that police services, boards, the OIPRD, OCPC and SIU have the resources, skills, competencies, and training to effectively address discrimination, fulfill their governance role and ensure accountability for human rights.

Require regular, detailed and ongoing human rights-focused training, developed in consultation with affected groups, on racial profiling, mental health, de-escalation, and unconscious bias for new recruits, current officers, investigators and supervisors. Police officers should be required to take human rights training at least every three years.

The Toronto Police Service and the HRTO^[114]have highlighted the need for racial profiling training.^[115] Racial profiling training should, among other things:

Involve local racialized and marginalized communities in design, delivery and evaluation, including identifying relevant racial profiling scenarios
Explain that racial profiling violates the Code, Charter and Police Services Act with references to relevant case law, communicate that racial profiling is unacceptable and will result in disciplinary penalties, up to and including dismissal
Incorporate role-play and scenario-driven learning modules to improve “street-level application and articulation,”^[116]including scenarios dealing with suspect selection, detention, searches, arrests, immigration enforcement, use of force and conflict de-escalation
Be integrated into other training where it is particularly relevant.

Minds that Matter and several previous Coroner’s inquests speak about the need for police to develop capacity to provide services to persons with mental health issues.^[117]

Human rights and mental health concepts that should be integrated^[118] into training include:

How persons with mental health disabilities may behave in ways that seem unusual and may not respond to police officer instructions in a predictable way, which may not justify increasing use of force
De-escalation and communication strategies to effectively serve persons with mental health disabilities, including appropriate language, tone and gestures. Training in these areas may reduce the incidence of physical force^[119]
Bias and stereotyping about mental health and race. Training on bias and stereotyping may better equip officers to distinguish “real” threats based on objective evidence or criteria from assumptions about dangerousness based on bias and stereotypes.^[120]

Human rights in employment

OHRC recommendation 19:

Adopt all measures necessary to ensure that police services and police services boards reflect Code-protected groups and the community they serve. Report on activities, outcomes (census data), and progress publicly.

To better reflect the needs of communities that police services and boards serve, both need to reflect the communities they serve. Indeed, section 1 of the Police Services Act articulates principles for providing police services, which include “the need to ensure that police forces are representative of the communities they serve,”^[121]

The OHRC’s guide Human rights and policing: Creating and sustaining organizational change^[122]outlines recommended actions that will improve human rights in policing services. Recommendations specifically related to employment include:^[123]

Complete a staff census, to know the makeup of their staff based on Code grounds and to understand how reflective they are of their community. See the OHRC’s publication – “Count me in!: Collecting human rights-based data”^[124], for more information and best practices
Work to recruit members of under-represented groups to become more reflective of the community at all levels of the service
Include human rights considerations in exit surveys, to help identify human rights concerns affecting employees
Create affinity groups, to facilitate employees from targeted groups supporting each other and help the service retain such employees
Develop a human rights and accommodation policy that would govern both employment and provision of police services.

Subsections 47(1) and 47(3) of the Act provide that if an employee of a police service becomes “mentally or physically disabled” and as a result is incapable of performing the essential duties of the position, the police services board (or OPP Commissioner, in the case of the OPP) shall accommodate his or her needs in accordance with the Human Rights Code.^[125]

However, the duty to accommodate under the Code is not reflected with respect to the hiring of new police officers. Instead, section 43(1) states that “no person shall be appointed as a police officer unless he or she […] (c) is physically and mentally able to perform the duties of the position, having regard to his or her own safety and the safety of members of the public.”^[126]

The duty to accommodate disability under the Code does not distinguish between people with a disability who are being considered for employment and people who develop a disability while employed. Both are equally entitled to accommodation of their disability. However, subsection 43(1)(c) does not require the police service to accommodate a prospective officer’s disability short of undue hardship. As a result, subsection 43(1)(c) is inconsistent with the Code and should be amended accordingly.

Governance and accountability

In your opinion, are there any aspects of the police oversight process that could be enhanced? Please elaborate on your response.

OHRC recommendations 11 and 16:

Require independent, arms-length and public monitoring of police services and police services boards regarding systemic discrimination through, for example, periodic audits; inspections of policies, procedures, training, databases and records; and public reporting.

Expressly provide police disciplinary tribunals with the jurisdiction to allow intervention by a non-party as a “friend of the court” in officer misconduct hearings.

We understand that the Ministry of the Attorney General will begin its own consultation on police oversight and will be reviewing the roles of the OIPRD, OCPC and SIU. Given the mandate of the Ministry of the Attorney General, the OHRC will make submissions on how to improve accountability for human rights through changes to police oversight as part of this process.^[127]

However, broadly speaking, at the highest level, accountability for human rights must be strengthened. Independent monitoring of police services and police services boards regarding systemic discrimination is necessary.

Without commenting on the roles of oversight agencies, to give effect to the public interest dimension of the police complaints system^[128]and the importance of safeguarding the rights protected by the Code,^[129]community and advocacy groups should have the ability to provide, among other things, a public interest perspective on discrimination, where relevant, to officer misconduct hearings.

How can we make police services boards more responsive and effective to the needs of the communities they serve?

OHRC recommendation 17:

Require police services boards to address systemic discrimination by directing chiefs of police with respect to policy or practices informed by policy governing the carrying out of duties and responsibilities of the police.

Subsection 31(1) of the Police Services Act confers on each police services board the broad responsibility “for the provision of adequate and effective police services in the municipality.” To meet this responsibility, the Police Services Act grants the board the authority to, among other things:^[130]

Generally determine, after consultation with the chief of police, objectives and priorities with respect to police services in the municipality
Establish policies for the effective management of the police force
Direct the chief of police and monitor his or her performance.

Subsection 31(4) states that the “board shall not direct the chief of police with respect to operational decisions or with respect to the day-to-day operation of the police.”^[131]

The Chairs of the Big 12 Police Services Boards, which represent the boards of the 12 largest municipal police services, have asked the Ministry for clarification on the responsibilities of police services boards and their relationship with the duties of a Chief of Police.^[132] The OHRC agrees. Specifically, clarification must be provided so that police services boards are required to address systemic discrimination by directing chiefs of police with respect to policy or practices informed by policy governing the carrying out of duties and responsibilities of the police.

Despite relevant case law,^[133] the interpretation of the distinction between policy and operations by police services has frustrated accountability for human rights. It stopped the implementation of the Toronto Police Services Board’s April 2014 Policy on Community Contacts, which limited Contacts to when officers are: investigating a specific offence or a series of offences; preventing a specific offence; and ensuring that the individual is not at risk.^[134] It also stopped the implementation of Peel Police Services Board’s recommendation to suspend the practice of street checks.^[135]

Appendix A

Criteria for when an officer may approach an individual in a non-arrest scenario, and criteria for what may not form a basis for an officer approach

A police officer may not approach an individual in a non-arrest scenario except for legitimate non-arbitrary, non-discriminatory policing activities as set out in clause 2 below (Clause 2).

A police officer may only approach an individual in a non-arrest scenario if:

The approach is solely for the purpose of investigating a specific criminal offence or series of specific criminal offences currently being investigated by the officer, and the officer has reasonable suspicion that the individual is implicated in the criminal activity under investigation and/or the officer has reasonable belief that the individual is connected to the offence as a victim and/or witness; or,

The approach is solely for the purpose of preventing a specific type of offence from occurring, and the officer has reasonable suspicion that the individual is implicated in the criminal activity under investigation and/or the officer has reasonable belief that the individual is connected to the offence as a victim and/or witness;

The officer believes that the approach is necessary to prevent an imminent risk or harm to the individual or another identified person;

The officer is aware that the approach is necessary because the individual is under a statutory obligation to provide a license or identification, such as when an individual is operating a motor vehicle;

The officer is aware that the approach is necessary to enforce a provincial statute or municipal by-law;

The officer is securing a potential crime scene, taking part in a security detail or acting in an emergency and approaches an individual in a restricted area or who is seeking to enter a restricted area to determine whether the individual should have access to the area and under what conditions; or

The officer is engaging in an informal or casual interaction.

The following are not a basis for an officer approach and shall not satisfy Clause 2:

An unspecified future offence or criminal investigation, or a “general investigation”;

Profiling or stereotyping based on race, gender identity, gender expression, sexuality, mental health, socioeconomic status, and/or other prohibited grounds of discrimination under the Charter or the Human Rights Code;

A person’s exercise of his or her right to remain silent, right to object to being approached, or right to walk away;

A “hunch” or unsupported suspicion or belief, whether based on intuition gained by experience or otherwise;

Mere presence in a particular neighbourhood, high-crime neighbourhood or “hot spot”;

A suspect, victim or witness description that lacks sufficient detail other than race;

Meeting a quota or performance target; and,

Interactions directed solely at establishing an overall police presence in the community.

For greater certainty:

An approach in the absence of reasonable suspicion or reasonable belief as set out in 2(a) or 2(b), for the purpose of eventually acquiring such reasonable suspicion or belief, shall not satisfy 2(a) or 2(b).

Prolonging any interaction with the intent of acquiring personal information or reasonable suspicion or belief as set out in 2(a) or 2(b) shall not satisfy 2(a) or 2(b).

Framework for rights notification

Whenever an officer approaches an individual pursuant to 2(a) or 2(b) (see above), the individual must be:

Told why they have been detained;
Told immediately that they have the right to a lawyer;
Told about Legal Aid and their right to free legal advice;
Allowed to speak to a lawyer, in private, as soon as possible, if they ask to do so;
Told they do not have to answer questions and that anything they say can be used as evidence; and
If under 18 years of age, told they have the right to contact a parent or guardian and to have that parent or guardian present while a statement is being made.

Whenever an officer approaches an individual pursuant to 2(c) (see above), the officer shall forthwith advise the person that they are under no obligation to answer questions or provide identification and that they are free to go.

^[1]Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 29.

^[2]Ontario Human Rights Commission, Paying the Price: The human cost of racial profiling (2003), online: Ontario Human Rights Commission www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/attachments/Paying_the_price%3A_The_human_cost_of_racial_profiling.pdf [Paying the price].

^[3]Ontario Human Rights Commission, Policy and guidelines on racism and racial discrimination (2005), online: Ontario Human Rights Commission www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/attachments/Policy_and_guidelines_on_racism_and_racial_discrimination.pdf [Policy on racism].

^[4]Ontario Human Rights Commission, Count me In! Collecting human rights-based data (2009), online: Ontario Human Rights Commission www.ohrc.on.ca/en/count-me-collecting-human-rights-based-data [Count me in].

^[5] Ontario Human Rights Commission, Human rights and policing: Creating and sustaining organizational change (2011), online: Ontario Human Rights Commission www.ohrc.on.ca/en/human-rights-and-policing-creating-and-sustaining-organizational-change [Human rights and policing].

^[6] Ontario Human Rights Commission, Minds that Matter: Report on the consultation on human rights, mental health and addictions (2012) online: Ontario Human Rights Commission www.ohrc.on.ca/en/minds-matter-report-consultation-human-rights-mental-health-and-addictions [Minds that Matter].

^[7] Ontario Human Rights Commission, Policy on preventing discrimination based on mental health disabilities and addictions (2014) online: Ontario Human Rights Commission www.ohrc.on.ca/en/policy-preventing-discrimination-based-mental-health-disabilities-and-addictions [Mental health policy].

^[8]Ontario Human Rights Commission, Submission of the Ontario Human Rights Commission to the Office of the Independent Police Review Director’s Systemic Review of Ontario Provincial Police Practices for DNA Sampling (2014), online: Ontario Human Rights Commission

www.ohrc.on.ca/en/ohrc-submission-office-independent-police-review-director%E2%80%99s-systemic-review-opp-practices-dna [DNA Sampling Submission].

^[9] Ontario Human Rights Commission, Submission of the Ontario Human Rights Commission to the Independent Review of the Use of Lethal Force by the Toronto Police Service (2014), online: Ontario Human Rights Commission www.ohrc.on.ca/en/submission-ontario-human-rights-commission-independent-review-use-lethal-force-toronto-police.

^[10]Ontario Human Rights Commission, Submission of the OHRC to the Ombudsman’s Investigation into the direction provided to police by the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services for de-escalating conflict situations (2014), online: Ontario Human Rights Commission http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/submission-ohrc-ombudsman%E2%80%99s-investigation-direction-provided-police-ministry-community-safety-and.

^[11]Ontario Human Rights Commission, Submission of the OHRC to the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services on street checks (2015), online: Ontario Human Rights Commission www.ohrc.on.ca/en/ohrc-submission-ministry-community-safety-and-correctional-services-street-checks-0 [Street Checks Submission].

^[12] Snow v. Honda of Canada Manufacturing, 2007 HRTO 45 (CanLII) at para. 19 [Snow].

^[13]Human Rights Code, supra note 1, s. 1.

^[14]Paying the Price, supra note 2 at 6; Policy on racism, supra note 3 at 19; Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center), 2015 SCC 39 at para. 33 [Bombardier].

^[15]Human Rights Code, supra note 1, s. 47(2); Snow, supra note 12 at paras. 19 and 20.

^[16]Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, s.1.

^[17] Honourable John W. Morden, Independent Civilian Review into Matters Relating to the G20 Summit (Toronto, 2012) at 49 [Morden Report], online: Toronto Police Services Board www.tpsb.ca/g20/ICRG20Mordenreport.pdf [Morden Report].

^[18]Shaw v. Phipps, 2010 ONSC 3884 at para. 91; Shaw v. Phipps, 2012 ONCA 155 at para. 42.

^[19]Police Services Act, supra note 16, s. 80; Schedule, O.Reg. 268/10, ss.2(1)(a)(i), (ii).

^[20]www.ontario.ca/page/strategy-safer-ontario-public-discussion-paper.

^[21]www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/police_serv/about.html.

^[22]Ontario, Report of the Ipperwash Inquiry, vol. 2 (Toronto: Queen's Printer, 2007) at 275 and 276, online Ontario www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/ipperwash/report/vol_2/index.html [Ipperwash Inquiry Report]; Jonathan Rudin, Aboriginal Peoples and the Criminal Justice System (Toronto: Ipperwash Inquiry, 2005) at 1 and 33, online: Ministry of the Attorney General www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/ipperwash/policy_part/research/pdf/Rudin.pdf [Rudin Paper Commissioned by Ipperwash]; Scot Wortley & Akwasi Owusu-Bempah, “Crime and Justice: The Experiences of Black Canadians” in Barbara Perry, ed., Diversity, Crime and Justice in Canada (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011) 127; Scot Wortley & Akwasi Owusu-Bempah, “The usual suspects: police stop and search practices in Canada” (2011) 21:4 Policing and Society 395; Christopher O’Connor, “Citizen attitudes toward the police in Canada” (2008) 31:4 Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 578; Liqun Cao, “Aboriginal People and Confidence in the Police” (2014) 56:5 Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 499; Jihong Zhao et al., “Anti-gang Initiatives as Racialized Policy” in Darnell Hawkins et al., eds., Crime Control and Social Justice: The Delicate Balance (Westport: Greenwood Press, 2003); Scot Wortley & Akwasi Owusu-Bempah, “The usual suspects: police stop and search practices in Canada” (2011) 21:4 Policing and Society 395; Shaun Gabbidon et al., “Race, Gender, and the Perception of Recently Experiencing Unfair Treatment by the Police: Exploratory Results from an All-Black Sample” (2011) 36:1 Criminal Justice Review 5; Minds that Matter, supra note 6 at 100-102; Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, Feathers of Hope: Justice and Juries — A First Nations Youth Action Plan for Justice at 40-53, online: Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth http://provincialadvocate.on.ca/documents/en/JJ_En.pdf [Feathers of Hope]; Report of the inquiry concerning Canada of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women under article 8 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination against Women, CEDAWOR, 2015, UN Doc. 15-05083 at para. 142. [CEDAW Report]; Ontario Native Women’s Association, Environmental Scan & Consultation Report (2012) at 13, online: Ontario Native Women’s Association www.onwa.ca/upload/documents/onwa-environmental-scan-.pdf [ONWA Environmental Scan].

^[23]Chris Gibson et al., The Impact of Traffic Stops on Calling the Police for Help” (2010) 21(2) Criminal Justice Policy Review 139; Lee Ann Slocum et al., “Neighbourhood Structural Characteristics, Individual-Level Attitudes, and Youths’ Crime Reporting Intentions” (2010) 48(4) Criminology 1063; Tom Tyler and Jeffrey Fagan, “Legitimacy and Cooperation: Why do People Help the Police Fight Crime in Their Communities” 6 Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 231.

^[24] Jaime Brown and Jason Newberry, An Evaluation of the Connectivity Situation Tables in Waterloo Region. Evaluation report submitted to Waterloo Region Connectivity Partnership (Guelph, 2015) [Brown and Newberry].

^[25] The OHRC has not, to date, been involved in or consulted about situation tables, but draws on publicly available reports about them for the purposes of this submission.

^[26]The dignity and worth of every person is a core principle of the Code. See Human Rights Code, supra note 1, Preamble.

^[27]The description of the operation of situation tables is taken primarily from Brown and Newberry, supra note 24 and Chad Nilson, Risk-Driven Collaborative Intervention: A Preliminary Impact Assessment of Community Mobilization Prince Albert’s Hub Model (Saskatoon, 2014), Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science and Justice Studies – University of Saskatchewan at 9 and 10.

^[28] Brown and Newberry, supra note 24 at 16 at 23.

^[29]Ibid, at 78-83 and Appendix A.

^[30]A prohibited ground needs only to be a factor in the adverse impact experienced by a person for the adverse impact to constitute a prima facie case of discrimination. It does not need to be the only reason for the decision. See: R.B. v. Keewatin-Patricia District School Board, 2013 HRTO 1436 (CanLII) at para. 204.

^[31] Paying the price, supra note 2 at 6; Policy on racism, supra note 3 at 19.

^[32]Bombardier, supra note 14 at para. 33.

^[33] Nassiah v. Peel (Regional Municipality) Services Board, 2007 HRTO 14 (CanLII) at para. 112 [Nassiah].

^[34]In Nassiah, the HRTO stated:

What is new (in the last two decades) is the mounting evidence that this form of racial discrimination is not the result of isolated acts of individual “bad apples” but part of a systemic bias in many police forces. What is also new is the increasing acceptance by the Courts in Canada that racial profiling by police occurs in Canada and the willingness to scrutinize seemingly “neutral” police behaviour to assess whether it falls within the phenomenon of racial profiling.[34]

…

Overall, the social science evidence establishes that statistically, racial minorities, particularly Black persons, are subject to a higher level of suspicion by police because of race, often coupled with other factors.

Nassiah, supra note 33 at para. 134.

In Peart, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that:

The community at large and the courts, in particular, have come, some would say belatedly, to recognize that racism operates in the criminal justice system…With this recognition has come an acceptance by the courts that racial profiling occurs and is a day-to-day reality in the lives of those minorities affected by it.

Peart v. Peel Regional Police Services, 2006 CanLII 37566 at para. 94 (Ont. C.A.) [Peart]

^[35] Peart, supra note 34 at para. 93; McKay v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2011 HRTO 499 (CanLII) [McKay]; Maynard v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2012 HRTO 1220 [Maynard]; Paying the Price, supra note 2.

^[36] Peart, supra note 34 at para. 93.

^[37] In R. v. Williams, the Supreme Court acknowledged that there is widespread racism against Indigenous peoples and stated that:

Racism against aboriginals includes stereotypes that relate to credibility, worthiness and criminal propensity. As the Canadian Bar Association stated in Locking up Natives in Canada: A Report of the Committee of the Canadian Bar Association on Imprisonment and Release (1988), at p. 5:

Put at its baldest, there is an equation of being drunk, Indian and in prison. Like many stereotypes, this one has a dark underside. It reflects a view of native people as uncivilized and without a coherent social or moral order. The stereotype prevents us from seeing native people as equals.

R. v. Williams, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1128 at para. 58.

In R.D.S., the Supreme Court cited the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Parks and stated that:

Racism, and in particular, anti-black racism, is a part of our community’s psyche. A significant segment of our community holds overtly racist views. A much larger segment subconsciously operates on the basis of negative racial stereotypes.

R. v. R.D.S.., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484 at para. 46.

^[38]Ipperwash Inquiry Report, supra note 22 at 275 and 276; Rudin Paper Commissioned by Ipperwash, supra note 22 at 1 and 33; Jonathan Rudin was qualified by the HRTO as an expert on the experience of Indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system. He is the Program Director at Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto. (See McKay, supra note 35 at paras. 95-96).

^[39] McKay, supra note 35 at paras. 103 and 128.

^[40] R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32 at para. 154 [Grant].

^[41]R. v. Fountain, 2013 ONCJ 434 (CanLII) at paras. 52 and 53 [Fountain].

^[42]R. v. Laforme and Martin, 2014 ONSC 1457 at para. 173.

^[43]Nassiah, supra note 33 at para. 134; Peel Law Association v. Pieters, 2013 ONCA 396 at para. 134.

^[44]R. v. Brown, [2003] O.J. No. 1251 (C.A.) [Brown]; Johnson v. Halifax (Regional Municipality) Police Service, [2003] N.S.H.R.B.I.D. No. 2.

^[45]Nassiah, supra note 33 at paras. 124 and 166; McKay, supra note 35 at paras. 143-149 and 159.

^[46]DNA Sampling Submission, supra note 8.

^[47] McKay, supra note 35 at paras. 150-153.

^[48]Maynard, supra note 35 at paras. 177-190.

^[49] O. Reg. 58/16, ss. 1, 4 [Street checks regulation].

^[50]Ibid, ss. 1(1)(a), (2).

^[51]Street Checks Submission, supra note 11.

^[52]Street checks regulation, supra note 49, s. 1(1)(b).

^[53]Street Checks Submission, supra note 11

^[54] Street checks regulation, supra note 49, s. 6(1).

^[55] In Brown, the Ontario Court of Appeal determined that “racial profiling can be a subconscious factor impacting on the exercise of a discretionary power in a multicultural society”; Brown, supra note 44 at para. 81. Similarly, the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System found that “wherever broad discretion exists, racialization can influence decisions and produce racial inequality in outcomes.”

M. Gittens et al., Report of the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System, (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 1995) at iv, ix, and 359 [Commission on Systemic Racism Report].

^[56] Commission on Systemic Racism Report, supra note 55 at iv, ix, and 359.

^[57]In Maynard v. Toronto Police Services Board, the officer was investigating a gun-related incident involving a Black male suspect driving a black sports car, and decided to follow the man because he was a young Black man driving alone in a black BMW. The HRTO noted that the officer had no indication of the suspect’s age, and stated that the most reasonable explanation for the officer’s decision was that the claimant was a “black man, and specifically a young black man, driving a black vehicle…and as a result, he was stereotyped as a person with some probability of being involved in a gun-related incident.” The HRTO explained that it was consistent with a finding of racial profiling that all Black men driving alone in the area in a black car became possible suspects. The HRTO found that if the suspect had been a Caucasian man in the same circumstances, with no other defining characteristics, and with as little information available about the car and direction of travel, the officer would probably not have chosen to investigate the first Caucasian man he saw driving a Black car somewhere in the vicinity of the Malvern Town Centre; Maynard, supra note 35.

^[58] R. v. Suberu, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 460 at para. 2.

^[59]R. v. McKane (1987), 35 C.C.C. (3d) 481 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Playford (1987), 40 C.C.C. (3d), 142 (Ont. C.A.)

^[60] R. v. McCrimmon, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 402 at paras. 17 and 18.

^[61]R. v. White, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 417, at paras. 44-45.

^[62]R. v. Mann, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59 at paras. 21 and 22.

^[63] Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1, s.146; R. v. N.T. [2012] O.J. No. 526 at para. 28 (Ont. C.J.).

^[64] Abbott v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2009 HRTO 1909 (CanLII) at para. 42; Similarly, in his partially concurring reasons in the Grant case, Justice Binnie held that visible minorities “may, because of their background and experience, feel especially unable to disregard police directions, and feel that assertion of their right to walk away will itself be taken as evasive”; Grant, supra note 40 at para. 169.

In Fountain, the Ontario Court of Justice was prepared to assume that this might be particularly true for young Black males in some of the more heavily policed areas in Toronto.

Fountain, supra note 41 at paras. 52 and 53.

^[65]Paying the Price, supra note 2 at 49; For example, in Maynard, the HRTO found that, having commenced the investigation in whole or in part because of racial bias, the events that ensued could not be disentangled from that initial act. This included Officer Baker being confrontational and aggressive and withdrawing and pointing his firearm at Mr. Maynard.

Maynard, supra note 35.

^[66] Urban Alliance on Race Relations, “Saving Lives: Alternatives to the Use of Lethal Force by Police” (2002) at 17, online: Urban Alliance on Race Relations

http://urbanalliance.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/savinglivesreport.pdf

^[67] Sinclair v. London (City), 2008 HRTO 48 (CanLII) at paras. 16 and 17.

^[68] Radek v. Henderson Development (Canada) Ltd., 2005 BCHRT 302 (CanLII) at para. 132.

^[69]Dr. Scot Wortley found:

For example, between 1978 and 2000, we were able to identify—through media coverage—34 separate shootings in which Ontario citizens were either killed or severely injured by the police. Nineteen of these cases (56%) involved Black victims, 10 (29%) involved Whites, and 5 (16%) involved people from other racial backgrounds. Additional analysis reveals that 13 of the 23 people (57%) who were shot and killed by the police during this time period were Black. Although overall numbers are low, the fact that Black citizens represent over half of those killed or injured by the police is disturbing —particularly when you consider the fact that they make up only 4 percent of Ontario's total population. It is extremely important to note that any examination of the use of force issue must consider the crucial intersection of race and mental health status.

Scot Wortley, “Hidden Intersections: Research on Race, Crime, and Criminal Justice in Canada” (2003) 35(3) Canadian Ethnic Studies Journal 99.

Dr. Wortley collected information on each SIU investigation that was completed between January 1, 2000 and June 6, 2006, analyzed the data, and presented his findings in a study that was conducted on behalf of the African Canadian Legal Clinic for the Ipperwash Inquiry. The SIU is a civilian law enforcement agency that conducts independent investigations into circumstances surrounding serious injury or death to civilians involving police in Ontario. According to Dr. Wortley, the results suggested that both Aboriginal Peoples and African Canadians were “highly over-represented” in SIU investigations. While Aboriginal Peoples made up only 1.7% of the provincial population, they represented 7.1% of all civilians involved in SIU investigations. Similarly, while African Canadians made up only 3.6% of the Ontario population, they represented 12.0%.

Dr. Wortley also noted that while there was very little data on the use of force and race in Canada, data from the United States revealed that people who are racialized, particularly Black males, were over-represented in police use of force statistics. There is considerable debate about the reasons for this over-representation of civilians involved in SIU investigations.

Scot Wortley, “Police use of Force in Ontario: An Examination of Data from the Special

Investigations Unit, Final Report” (2006) Research project conducted on behalf of the African

Canadian Legal Clinic for submission to the Ipperwash Inquiry at 37 at 6-12 and 37, online: Government of Ontario

www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/inquiries/ipperwash/policy_part/projec...

ClinicIpperwashProject_SIUStudybyScotWortley.pdf.

^[70]No One is Illegal, Police Services: Safe Access for All Legal Arguments for a Complete “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy (2008), online: No One is Illegal http://toronto.nooneisillegal.org/node/567.

^[71] No One is Illegal, Often Asking, Always Telling: The Toronto Police Service and the Sanctuary City Policy (2015), online: No One is Illegal

www.toronto.nooneisillegal.org/ImmigrationsDirtyWork [Often Asking, Always Telling].

^[72]Ibid; The Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) call centre procedures explain that a call should be filed as a "status check" when “law enforcement officers [...] call to verify the immigration status of a subject because they have a suspicion a subject may not have legal status in Canada and therefore may be of interest to CBSA” or when they call “to confirm the status of a subject they have in custody.” When officers notice that an immigration warrant has been uploaded to CPIC, they may call the CBSA to verify that the information is valid. This is classified as a “warrant inquiry” or “database verification.”

^[73] Ibid, at 22-36;

^[74] Ibid, at 44:

Between November 4, 2014 and October 16, 2015, the Peel Regional Police Service made 1,031 calls to the CBSA. Status checks were the reason for 738 calls, or 72% of the calls. Warrant inquiries and database verifications were the reason for 14% of the calls.
Between November 4, 2014 and October 16, 2015, the York Regional Police made 568 calls to the CBSA. Status checks were the reason for 399 calls, or 70% of the calls. Warrant inquiries and database verifications were the reason for 15% of the calls.

^[75]Ibid, at 27-30; Complaint to the Ombudsman of Ontario of No One is Illegal re: Unlawful, unreasonable & discriminatory actions of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), Ministry of Transportation (MTO), & Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) in conducting federal immigration enforcement (September 22, 2014), online: No One is Illegal http://toronto.nooneisillegal.org/node/886; Even if stereotypes are not at play in officer decisions about immigration status checks (i.e. they are undertaken in a facially neutral way), the practice may have an adverse impact based on citizenship that contravenes the Code. For example, routinely conducting immigration status checks on victims or witnesses of crime or people under investigation would have a disparate impact on non-citizens who are undocumented or have precarious status – they would face an increased risk of detention and deportation after reporting crime or being investigated for offences unrelated to their immigration status. It is a currently an open question whether the ground of citizenship in the Code is not limited to distinctions between citizens and non-citizens and includes distinctions between non-citizens with legal status in Canada and those without legal status (Toussaint v. Ontario (Health and Long-Term Care, 2011 HRTO 760 (CanLII)).

^[76] Amnesty International, “I was never so frightened in my entire life”: Excessive and dangerous police response during Mohawk land rights demonstrations on the Culbertson Tract (2011) at 5 and 6, online: Amnesty International

www.amnesty.ca/research/reports/i-was-never-so-frightened-in-my-entire-life-excessive-and-dangerous-police-response

^[77] Ibid, at 12, 31 and 32.

^[78]Ibid.

^[79] Hartford et al., “Design of an algorithm to identify persons with mental illness in a police administrative database” (2005) 28 International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 1, referenced in Terry G. Coleman and Dr. Dorothy Cotton, “Understanding Mental Illness: A Review and Recommendations for Police Education & Training in Canada” (July 2010), online: Human Services and Justice Coordinating Committee www.hsjcc.on.ca/Resource%20Library/Policing/Training%20Resources/Understanding%20Mental%20Illness%20-%20A%20Review%20and%20Recommendations%20for%20Police%20
Education%20and%20Training%20in%20Canada%20-%202010.pdf [Coleman]. The same study also found that the rate of violent offences committed by people with mental health disabilities was the same as the rate for the general population.

^[80] Beth Angell et al., “Crisis Intervention Teams and People with Mental Illness: Exploring the Factors that Influence Use of Force” (2012) 58(1) Crime and Delinquency 57 at 58 and 59, online: Sage Journals http://cad.sagepub.com/content/58/1/57.full.pdf [“Crisis Intervention Teams”]; Canadian Mental Health Association, Conducted Energy Weapons (Tasers) Policy Position (2008) at 2, online: Canadian Mental Health Association Ontario http://ontario.cmha.ca/public_policy/conducted-energy-weapons-tasers/#.UgkXaD9-SUk
[“CMHA Ontario Tasers Policy Position”]

^[81] Jardine-Douglas, Klibingaitis, Eligon (Re), Verdict of the Coroner’s Jury (February, 2014) at Recommendation #10: “With respect to situations involving EDPs in possession of an edged weapon:
a. If the EDP has failed to respond to standard initial police commands (i.e. “Stop. Police.”, “Police. Don’t Move. and/or “Drop the Weapon.”, train officers to stop shouting those commands and attempt different diffusing communication strategies […]” [Eligon Jury Recommendations].

^[82] The Honourable Frank Iacobucci for Chief William Blair of the Toronto Police Service, Police Encounters with People in Crisis (2014) at 17, 18, 153-155 and 205-209, online: Toronto Police Service www.torontopolice.on.ca/publications/files/reports/police_encounters_with_people_in_crisis_2014.pdf [Iacobucci’s Independent Review].

^[83]This was recommended by the Goudge Report, Inquest into the Deaths of Reyal Jardine-Douglas, Sylvia Klibingaitis, and Michael Eligon, and Justice Iacobucci; Council of Canadian Academies and Canadian Academy of Health Sciences, The Health Effects of Conducted Energy Weapons: The Expert Panel on the Medical and Physiological Impacts of Conducted Energy Weapons. (2013) at 48-49, online: Council of Canadian Academies www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads/eng/assessments%20and%20publications%20and%20news%20releases/cew/cew_fullreporten.pdf [“Goudge Report”]; Eligon Jury Recommendations, supra note 81 at Recommendation #2. The jury recommended that the Ministry “commission a study of CEWs to determine if there are any special risks or concerns associated with the use of this device on EDPs [Emotionally Disturbed Persons]”; Iacobucci’s Independent Review, supra note 82 at 28. Justice Iacobucci recommended that that the TPS consider conducting a pilot project to assess the potential for expanding CEW access, with standardized reporting on issues such as the medical effects of CEW use.

^[84] The Eligon jury recommended that CEW policy from the Ministry “include information about risk of harm or death proximal to CEW use, in line with manufacturer’s documentation” Eligon Jury Recommendations, supra note 81 at Recommendation #43.

^[85]The Eligon jury and Justice Iacobucci recommended that the guidelines on taser use be reviewed; Ibid, at Recommendation #29. The jury recommended that the Ministry and TPS should “study and evaluate the threshold for use of conducted energy weapons. This evaluation shall include a public consultation component”; Iacobucci’s Independent Review, supra note 82 at 30.

^[86]http://news.ontario.ca/mcscs/en/2013/08/improving-public-and-police-officer-safety.html

^[87]Toronto Police Service, Annual Report: 2011 Use of Conducted Energy Weapons (May 2012) at 57 states that: “Of the 222 incidents of CEW use, 28.8% involved subjects whom officers believed were emotionally disturbed. The figure increases to 41.9%, when incidents involving persons who are perceived to be suffering from the combined effects of emotional disturbance/mental disorder and alcohol and/or drugs are included.”

^[88]Office of the Police Complaints Commissioner, British Columbia, “Taser Technology Review and Interim Recommendations,” (September 2004), online: www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/pubdocs/bcdocs/371731/taser_tech_2004.pdf; Temitope Oriola, Nicole Neverson & Charles T. Adeyanju, “‘They should have just taken a gun and shot my son’: Taser deployment and the downtrodden in Canada” (2012) 18(1) Social Identities 65

^[89] Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, excerpt from section 17 of “Policing Standards Manual: Use of Force” (November, 2013). Note: These were the last guidelines that were publicly available online.

^[90]Crisis Intervention Teams, supra note 80 at 29 and 58; See also CMHA Ontario Tasers Policy Position., supra note 80 at 2.

^[91] Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, excerpt from section 17 of “Policing Standards Manual: Use of Force AI-012” (March 2010).

^[92]British Columbia, Braidwood Commission on Conducted Energy Use, Restoring Public Confidence: Restricting the Use of Conducted Energy Weapons in British Columbia-Phase 1 Report, (Victoria: BC Solutions, 2009) at 15-17, online: Braidwood Inquiry: www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/law-crime-and-justice/about-bc-justice-system/inquiries/braidwoodphase1report.pdf

^[93]Minds that Matter, supra note 6 at 103.

^[94]Eligon Jury Recommendations, supra note 81. See for example, Recommendation #14: “Train officer to, when feasible and consistent with officer and public safety, take into account whether a person is in crisis and all relevant information about his/her condition, and not just his/her behaviour, when encountering a person in crisis with a weapon” and Recommendation #16: “Officers must continue de-escalation attempts and refrain from firing as long as possible consistent with officer and public safety.”

^[95] Iacobucci’s Independent Review, supra note 82 at 14, 17, 18 and 20.

^[96]Ibid, at 217-239.

^[97]The Eligon jury recommended expanding MCIT hours of service; Eligon Jury Recommendations, supra note 81 at Recommendations #33, 34 and 35; Justice Iacobucci recommended that the TPS develop a pilot Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) program to provide a specialized, trained response to people in crisis 24 hours per day; Iacobucci’s Independent Review, supra note 82 at 25.

^[98] Minds that Matter, supra note 6 at 43-47; Ontario Human Rights Commission, Right at Home: Report on the consultation on human rights and rental housing in Ontario (2008), at 74-76, online: Ontario Human Rights Commission www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/attachments/Right_at_home%3A_Report_on_the_consultation_on_human_rights_and_rental_housing_in_Ontario.pdf; See also Mental Health Commission of Canada, Turning the Key: Assessing Housing and Related Supports for Persons Living with Mental Health Problems and Illness (2013) at 10, online: Mental Health Commission of Canada www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/English/node/562?terminitial=41; Pivot Legal Society v. Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association and another (No. 6), 2012 BCHRT 23 at paras. 62, 67, 68, 565, 592 and 595 (CanLII); judicial review allowed on other grounds 2015 BCSC 534 (CanLII).

^[99]Minds that Matter and jury recommendations from inquests support a human rights review of the provincial use of force model; Minds that Matter, supra note 6 at 103; see for example recommendation 12 of Jones (Re), 2012 CanLII 66783 (ON OCCO) [Jones].

^[100] The Canadian Mental Health Association has noted that the provincial use of force model does not take into account how the symptoms of some mental health disabilities, such as hallucinations or delusions, may make persons who are experiencing a mental health crisis appear uncooperative. CMHA Ontario Tasers Policy Position., supra note 80 at 2.

^[101] Count me In, supra note 4.

^[102] www.ottawapolice.ca/en/news-and-community/FAQsTSRDCP.asp

^[103]First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada), 2016 CHRT 2 (CanLII).

^[104] Hay v. OPP, 2012 HRTO 2316 (CanLII) at paras. 9-13; aff’d 2014 ONSC 2858 (CanLII) See also FAQs about the First Nations Chiefs of Police Association www.fncpa.ca/FAQs.html/. The First Nations policing arrangements include one or more of the following:

A First Nations police service controlled by a First Nations police authority operating on First Nations Territory.
A First Nations regional police service controlled by a First Nations police governing authority operating on a group of First Nations Territories.
One First Nations police service supplemented by another First Nations police service.
A First Nations police service supplemented by a municipal or regional police service or the OPP.
A First Nations Territory policed by a municipal or regional police service or the OPP.

^[105] Ipperwash Inquiry Report, supra note 22 at 265.

^[106] Kent Elson, “Another Kind of Discrimination: Inferior Policing in First Nations Communities” (2012) 33(3) For the Defence — The Criminal Lawyers’ Association Newsletter:

Police in the Mushkegowuk communities do not have the resources or facilities required to meet the demands placed on them. The communities are remote and most do not have road access. Even a small community needs several officers to provide adequate and timely responses to calls for assistance. Backup cannot be brought in on short notice from surrounding communities but coverage is still required if other officers are off-duty, transporting detainees, taking time off, or are away for training or other reasons. This threatens community safety and endangers officers who must respond to violent emergencies alone.

[…]

First Nations police services must go cap in hand for funding and have no recourse if their budgets are insufficient. The picture is much different outside of reserves. A municipal police service in Ontario can appeal to an independent commission for a hearing and a binding decision on the adequacy of its budget. In other words, a municipal police force can appeal its budget if it is not satisfied with it. This gives municipal police forces considerably more leverage during budget negotiations as compared to their First Nations counterparts.

See also Goodwin (Re), 2009 CanLII 92023 (ON OCCO); Verdict Explanation www.firstnationspolicing.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Goodwin-Wesley-Inquest-Jury-Recommendations-Coroners-Explanation.pdf; http://charlieangus.ndp.ca/10th-anniversary-of-terrible-kashechewan-fire-lessons-still-need-to-be-learned; Feathers of Hope, supra note 22 at 41-48.

^[107]Most of the Ontario cases of missing and murdered Indigenous women in the Native Women’s Association of Canada’s database were handled by the OPP (40%), followed closely by municipal police services (38%). 18% of cases were found to involve multiple jurisdictions/a joint operation—usually between a First Nations police service and the OPP. 4% of cases were handled solely by a First Nations police service. Native Women’s Association of Canada, Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women and Girls in Ontario (2010), online: Native Women’s Association of Canada www.nwac.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2010-Fact-Sheet-Ontario-MMAWG.pdf.

^[108] McKay, supra note 35 at para. 102.

^[109]ONWA Environmental Scan, supra note 22 at 13; Anita Olsen, “Is Canada Peaceful and Safe for Aboriginal Women?” 2006 25(1,2) Canadian Women Studies 33 at 35.

^[110]CEDAW Report, supra note 22 at 32-35; For example, Indigenous women, service providers, civil society actors and Indigenous leaders advised CEDAW that “police bias was still rampant, and was reflected in the use of demeaning or derogatory language towards aboriginal women and in stereotypical portrayals of aboriginal women as prostitutes, transients or runaways and of having high-risk lifestyles.” One Indigenous woman who was interviewed claimed that when she a attended a police detachment to report having been raped, the response of the police officer was that “it was impossible for her to be the victim of such an assault given that she was a prostitute – a glaring example of institutionalized stereotyping and discrimination.” CEDAW was told during interviews with Indigenous women living on reserves that they did not believe that the police could provide them with the protected they required. Family members of Indigenous women and civil society organizations informed CEDAW that police officers treated family members and other persons reported cases of violence with “indifference or hostility.”

^[111]https://news.ontario.ca/opo/en/2016/02/outcomes-priorities-for-action-to-address-violence-against-indigenous-women-and-girls.html

^[112]www.cbc.ca/news/world/body-cameras-can-they-reduce-confrontations-with-police-1.2861881

^[113]This section responds to some questions in the Education and Training and Governance and Accountability sections of the Ministry’s Discussion Paper.

^[114] Nassiah, supra note 33 at para. 209.

^[115] Toronto Police Service, The Police and Community Engagement Review (The PACER Report)
Phase II – Internal Report and Recommendations (2013) at 14 online: Toronto Police Service www.torontopolice.on.ca/publications/files/reports/2013pacerreport.pdf [PACER Report]

^[116] Ibid, at 14.

^[117]Minds that Matter, supra note 6 at 102; Vass (Re), 2006 CanLII 81574 (ON OCCO) [“Vass”]; Rotolo (Re), 2010 CanLII 99929 (ON OCCO) [“Rotolo”]; Jones, supra note 101.

^[118]Eligon Jury Recommendations, supra note 81 at Recommendations #9, 11 and 20: Recommendation #9 provides that the TPS and the Ministry should “maximize emphasis on verbal de-escalation techniques in all aspects of police training at the Ontario Police College, at the annual in-service training program provided at Toronto Police College and at the TPS Divisional Level”; Coleman, Terry G and Dr. Dorothy Cotton, “Police Interactions with Persons with a Mental Illness: Police Learning in the Environment of Contemporary Policing.” Report prepared for the Mental Health and the Law Advisory Committee, Mental Health Commission of Canada (2010), online: Mental Health Commission of Canada [“MHCC Police Learning”] www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/English/document/431/police-interactions-persons-mental-illness-police-learning-environment-contemporary-pol: The study focuses on police interactions with persons with mental health issues, and suggests that bias and stigma associated with mental health issues are present in police services. The authors recognize that while stigma does not influence the behaviour of all police officers, there is a need to integrate strategies to recognize and address stigma throughout police training; Iacobucci’s Independent Review, supra note 82 at 17-19.

^[119] Mental health policy, supra note 7 at 62; MHCC Police Learning, supra note 103 at 38, 39, 54, 61-63 and 67.

^[120] Mental health policy, supra note 7 at 27 and 28.

^[121]Police Services Act, supra note 16, s. 1

^[122] Human rights and policing, supra note 5 at 81-83

^[123] Ibid.

^[124]See Count me In!, supra note 4 for more information and best practices.

^[125] Police Services Act, supra note 16, s. 47.

^[126] Ibid, s. 43(1).

^[127] www.citynews.ca/2016/04/01/province-to-review-role-of-siu-police-oversight/

^[128] Endicott v. Independent Police Review Director, 2013 ONSC 2046 at paras. 8-9; varied on other grounds [2014] O.J. No. 2189 (C.A.); Honourable Patrick J. Lesage, Report on the Police Complaints System in Ontario (Toronto, 2005) at p. 57-58; Penner v. Niagara (Regional Police Services Board), 2013 SCC 19 at paras. 33 and 34; Wall v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director, 2014 ONCA 884 at para. 46.

^[129]Police Services Act, supra note 16, s. 1

^[130] Ibid, s. 31(1).

^[131] Ibid, s. 31(4).

^[132] The Chairs recommended that the Ministry:

Provide clarification on police services board responsibilities and its relationship with the duties of a Chief of Police
Have the clarification take into account recent reviews, OCPC decisions and judicial decisions
Provide a “standard or consistent” view on this important relationship

Letter from the Chairs of the Big 12 Police Services Boards to Minister Naqvi (May 22, 2015), available online: www.wrps.on.ca/sites/default/files/PSB/2015/PSB-June3-2015.pdf.

^[133]Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, 2003 SCC 69 at para. 66. See also Morden Report, supra note 17 at 55; Justice Morden described subsection 31(4) as prohibiting direct board interference with actual policing functions, but not preventing “a context or framework within which police operations take place from.”

^[134] www.thestar.com/news/insight/2015/05/04/was-the-toronto-police-boards-carding-policy-illegal-as-bill-blair-claimed.html

^[135] www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/09/25/peel-chief-refuses-to-suspend-carding.html

Strategy for a Safer Ontario – OHRC submission to MCSCS

Page controls

Page content

Executive summary

Background

Racial profiling

Serving vulnerable people

Policing and the Indigenous community

Accountability

Human rights organizational change

Recommendations to the Government of Ontario:

Racial profiling

Serving vulnerable individuals

Use of force and crisis intervention

Situation tables

Tasers

Policing and Indigenous communities

Accountability

Police services

Data collection

Body-worn cameras

Discipline

Police Services Boards

Human rights organizational change

Introduction

The Human Rights Code and its relationship to the Police Services Act

The Strategy for a Safer Ontario

OHRC response to discussion questions

Community safety and well-being

Serving vulnerable individuals

Racial profiling

Guiding officer discretion to stop and question people

Race and suspect, victim and witness selection

Rights notification

Racial profiling in officer use of force

OHRC recommendation 2: Racial profiling in immigration enforcement

Racial profiling in policing of Indigenous protests

Discriminatory use of force on people with mental health disabilities and/or addictions

Conducted Energy Weapons (CEWs, commonly known as tasers)

Standards, guidelines and policies

Mobile Crisis Intervention Teams

Human rights-based data collection

Traffic and pedestrian stops

Use of force

Immigration enforcement

Accountability for racial profiling, discriminatory use of force

Policing and Indigenous communities

Inequity in funding and resources for First Nations police services

Racism and sexism in police investigations of missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls

Technology

Body-worn cameras

Body-worn cameras

Human rights and organizational change[113]

Training

Human rights in employment

Governance and accountability

Appendix A

Framework for rights notification

Human rights and organizational change^[113]