www.injusticeinontario.ca

Home Page

Website last updated on November 15, 2024,

Police and lawyer complaints covered up in Ontario, Canada

My name is Robert Burgiss, My website shows that the courts in Ontario, Canada are swamped and that police are under pressure not add to it so they cover up crimes instead of filing charges. It also shows that investigators from the Law society of Ontario are swamped so they cover up complaints against Lawyers. And that the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) and the Special Investigations unit (SIU) cover up complaints against police and that they have been for years. It also explains how covering up complaints against Lawyers, or police officers and the complaints that the Ontario Ombudsman’s office receives is obstruction of justice. And it explains that the Attorney General of Ontario can investigate the OIPRD even though they are independent from the government. It explains how police discretion works, How the RCMP act & the police services act in Ontario say that police officers have to do criminal investigations & lay criminal charges, how the OIPRD does not deal with criminal complaints against police, how it is obstruction of justice for your Member of provincial parliament (MPP) to refuses to help you with a problem with Ontario government agencies. How in a defamation case the courts presume that the defamatory statement that the defendant made about the plaintiff is false. And that the defendant has to proof at the trial that the defamatory statement is true. How in a wrongful Dismissal case the courts presume that the employer did not have cause to fire the employee. And that the employer has to proof at the trail that they did have cause to fire the employee. And that politicians are not willing to do anything about the cover-ups because they are afraid of the police. It also shows that the news media will not do news stories about the cover-ups and that they will not let me advertise my website on their TV channels and in their news papers.

I have written to lots of Government agencies about this but they all give me the run around. So I need as many people as possible to read my whole website and then write to the Government agencies that are giving me the run around like the RCMP Public Complaints Commissioner, the Ontario ombudsman’s office and Chiefs of police in Ontario and complain. And write to the news media and complain about them not letting me advertise my website on their tv channels and in their news papers.

Email rburgiss@injusticeinontario.ca

Please do not email me for legal advice. I am not an attorney

If you have facebook or other social media please go on it and talk about this website. Hopefully if enough people see my website and complain to the government about the corruption the government will do something about it.

1. In 1992 I was hired by Magna International as a press operator at their Milton Ontario plant called Karmax Heavy Stamping. There was a lot of favoritism at Karmax and if you knew someone in management you get the easy jobs. At Karmax there are automatic presses for the easy jobs and there are manual presses for the hard jobs. Some employees who are known to Joe Monroe the head of press shop 2 are on the automatic presses a lot more than other employees. But on the other two shifts, everyone gets a turn on the automatic presses. So I complained about it and they shut down the entry line to have a meeting about it. After the meeting, things changed but it only lasted for a couple of weeks. So I stood up to management. In June of 1994, my boss Geoff Stanley called me into his office and told me that Rhonda Finn had filed a harassment complaint against me. I told him that it was not harassment. We were seeing each other at work and we had a fight. Mr. Stanley then said I will talk to her about it. And that was the last I heard of that complaint. Mr. Stanley did not tell me the details of the harassment complaint. In August 1994 I was called into Mr. Stanley’s office again and told that Miss. Finn has filed a sexual harassment complaint against me. Mr. Stanley again did not tell me the details of the complaint and Rhonda was not there. Because of the complaints management told me that she had filed against me I stopped talking to her. In November 1994, it had been two years that I had been working there. So I had a job performance review meeting with Mr. Stanley and he said that there was a problem with my production that it was down. In the past two years, I was never told about problems with my production. And he did not mention which machine my production was down on. He also said that my attendance was a problem. At Karmax you get 3 personal days of paid holidays a year and you can earn 2-hour sick credits each month that you are not late or absent without pay. I had two days left. So he is wrong. And he mentions the problems with Rhonda. He then gave me a fail on my performance review and I did not get my pay increase. I then called the Magna hotline to complain about not getting my pay increase and the sexual harassment complaints. The Magna hotline is a phone number that you can call if you feel that management is not treating you fairly. On November 23, 1994, I again was called into Mr. Stanley’s office and told that Rhonda had filed another sexual harassment complaint against me. Again he did not tell me the details of the complaint and Rhonda was not there. On December 05, 1994, I again was called into my boss’s office and told that Rhonda had filed another sexual harassment complaint. Again he did not tell me the details of the complaint. and Rhonda was not there. He then said that I was getting a written warning and a one-day suspension. I refused to sign the written warning. I then went straight to Jim Stratton’s office. He is the head of human resources at Karmax. He said that the suspension would be served at a later date pending the outcome of the Magna hotline investigation. Then on December 08, 1994, I was suspended until further notice. They did not say that there was another complaint. Then over that weekend the Magna hotline called and said to meet them at the McDonald’s down the street from the plant on Monday. Then Karmax called and said to come in for a meeting on Monday at 10:00 a.m. At the meeting with the Magna hotline, they said that they did an investigation and that you are sexually harassing Rhonda. Again they did not tell me the details of the complaint or show me a written complaint against me signed by anyone. I then went to the meeting at Karmax and there Jim Stratton said. She has filed another complaint. Which makes no sense because I was not even at work. I then asked for a meeting with management and Rhonda but Jim Stratton said no. I was then given my termination letter signed by Klaus Niemeyer the plant manager. “In the letter, it says

“Please be advised that I have reviewed your employment situation with Joe Munro and the Human Resources Department. As a result of this review, please be advised that Karmax Heavy Stamping is terminating your employment effective immediately. In consideration of the two years and three months of employment with our company and the season, I have asked the payroll department to prepare your final pay cheque including 4 weeks’ pay in lieu of notice. The reason for our decision is that our own investigation and that of the Magna hotline has indicated that you have been harassing a female employee despite her efforts to convince you that your behavior was completely unwelcome.”

Rhonda never told me that. And I then left. I then filed for unemployment insurance benefits on the form for UI it asked for the reason I left your job. I put down I was fired for sexually harassing a female employee. I then got a letter from UI saying that I was not getting UI benefits because they believed that I did lose my job because I was sexually harassing a female employee. So I then filed an appeal of that decision and there was a hearing. UI asked Magna for copies of any evidence that they had in regard to the sexual harassment complaints. Magna sent them documents. But there were no written complaints against me signed by Rhonda or anyone or any transcripts from any investigation and nothing from Rhonda in writing. Nobody from Magna or Rhonda showed up for the hearing it was just me and the three referees. The appeal was denied. This makes no sense because there is nothing from Rhonda saying anything about the complaints she had filed. It was just Magna management people saying that Rhonda had filed these complaints. She did not say anything to me about the complaints that she had filed. The reason for UI’s decision is that UI was under pressure to save money back then and not give it away. On January 25, 1995, my lawyer Victoria M. E. McIntosh of SULLIVAN, FESTERYGA, sent a letter to Klaus Niemeyer the plant Manager in the letter dated January 25, 1995, said,

“Please be advised that I have been retained by Mr. Robert Burgiss, a former press operator with your company, to investigate his dismissal from your employ on Tuesday, December 13, 1994. Mr. Burgiss has advised that his dismissal was accompanied by a “severance package” of four weeks’ pay (being the equivalent of entitlement of any employee for dismissal without cause under the Employment Standards Act); notwithstanding the letter of termination provided by you to Mr. Burgiss which states that his termination followed the investigation of complaints of harassment. It is my understanding that any effective harassment policy would contemplate a full investigation and report disclosed to the person against whom the allegations have been made. Kindly provide me a complete copy of all investigative statements and reports concerning the allegations of Rhonda Finn and any other employees of Karmax Heavy Stamping concerning the unwelcome behavior of Mr. Burgiss which led to his dismissal. Harassment is defined as engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is ongoing and may include verbal threats, abuse, offensive sexual flirtations (not merely complaints or flirtations comments), or sexist jokes that cause embarrassment. The accepted procedure of reporting harassment requires a written complaint specific as to the date and time etc. The person against whom the allegations are made then has the right to be advised of the allegations so that he may respond to them. An investigation would ensue.

Magna then sent a letter to my Lawyer dated February 22, 1995, from R. Andrew Staniusz in the letter it says.

“Please be advised that your client was terminated for sexual harassment of a co-worker. The employer was first notified of the harassment on June 27, 1994, and attempted to have your client cease and desist. The form of his harassment comprised systematic and continuing dissemination of untruths concerning a supposed relationship between your client and this co-worker. Your client was counseled in July 1994, and to the best of Karmax’s knowledge, he ceased his conduct. This course of conduct recommenced in or about November 1994. This conduct greatly distressed the co-worker who was subject to these untruths; your client was counseled about his conduct on several occasions. Your client refused to cease and desist from his conduct. In response to this Karmax met with your client and suspended him for his actions. The actual serving of this suspension was postponed while your client’s concerns dealing with a job posting issue were dealt with.”

This makes no sense why would they postpone my suspension for a job posting issue? The job posting issue could be dealt with after I came back.

In their letter, they do not say anything about a written complaint from anyone or transcripts from any investigation. In a letter to me from Miss. McIntosh dated March 07, 1995, said

“Counsel advised that your termination resulted from harassment in the form of “systematic and continuous dissemination of untruths concerning a supposed relationship between [you] and [a] co-worker.” Karmax corporate counsel indicated that you were suspended while the company dealt with a job posting issue,” This is not true what they said. Was the actual serving of this suspension was postponed while your client’s concerns dealing with a job posting issue were dealt with? My lawyer goes on to say. The company states clearly that it had just cause to terminate you. The “severance pay” that you received should not be interpreted as an admission of an absence of cause. “The harassment policy defines actionable conduct (that may lead to termination on the basis of harassment) as conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome” She left out the word vexatious. Miss. McIntosh then sent a letter back to Magna on March 23, 1995, saying.

“I have had an opportunity to review the contents of this correspondence with my client and have received instructions with respect to same. I have been instructed to request that you provide me with copies of all written transcripts from the hotline investigation in which Rhonda Finn was involved, and from which a formal complaint arose. Mr. Burgiss has instructed me to request that the transcript from this investigation be signed by Ms. Finn as evidence of her complaint. Furthermore, I have instructions to request copies of any written statements received by you being complaints of any nature against Mr. Burgiss that would justify termination on the basis of sexual harassment”. Magna did not respond back.

I had my lawyer send a letter to Rhonda Finn, Dated May 18, 1995, My Lawyer did not want Rhonda to reply because my lawyer wanted off the case. So she sent Rhonda a threatening letter. In the letter, she said

“We have commenced an investigation with your employer as to statements made to the hotline in the investigation process at the end of last year. Your employer has been asked to provide me with the statements that you made in the investigation, and I would ask that you consider providing me with that information yourself, either in writing or telephoning me at your convenience. Please consider this to be a formal request for your co-operation in this investigation, failing which we will be required to take further legal action to resolve this matter.”

I did not see this letter before Ms. McIntosh sent it. And at the time I did not know to not trust my Lawyer so when she told me that Rhonda did not reply I did not know why. I only saw the letter after my Lawyer quit my case. The letter is a threatening letter and not one I wanted to be sent to Rhonda.

When I lost the appeal at the UI hearing my Lawyer said, In latter of June 14, 1995, “The reasons for their decisions are based on the fact that Rhonda went to the employer with complaints, you did not deny this”. There is no evidence of Rhonda filing complaints against me just management of Magna saying she did. If she really did file complaints against me there would be written complaints with her signature on them. My lawyer then goes on to say.

“In my opinion, you would be throwing good money away to invest in legal fees to fight this decision. I recommend that you turn your efforts to finding new employment. If you intend to sue for wrongful dismissal in small claims court, be aware that Karmax paid you four weeks’ pay in lieu of notice which exceeds the requirements of the Employment Standards Act. It appears that I am unable to assist you further and I am therefore closing this file”.

If Magna is making up the complaints then I can sue for defamation and wrongful dismissal. In this case, Deildal v. Tod Mountain Development Ltd the plaintiff got $16,000:00 for defamation and $50,000:00 for general damages. The reason that my lawyer wants off my case is that she is afraid of hard work. After I got the bill from my lawyer I filed papers at the courthouse to have her bill assessed. The assessment officer then looks at the bill and the work she did to see if my Lawyer did good work for the money. At the hearing the assessment officer had me and Ms. McIntosh talk about the work she did. Because if you go on the record and you lose you will have to pay the lawyer for the time she was on the record. After talking about the work she did Ms. McIntosh gave me back $250 dollars.

I then had a paralegal file for an appeal of the UI referee’s decision. To an umpire. At the umpire hearing, the umpire said “If you do not have the woman here to testify on your behalf you are going to lose. And I lost.

After Ms. McIntosh quit my case I filed a complaint against her with the Law Society of Upper Canada. I explained to them that Miss. McIntosh lied to me. And that a Lawyer cannot quit your case for the reasons she did. In the rules of professional conduct published by the Law Society of Upper Canada, it says

Rule 8 1. “Although the client has the right to terminate the lawyer-client relationship at will, the lawyer does not enjoy the same freedom of action. Having accepted professional employment the lawyer should complete the task as ably as possible unless there is justifiable cause for terminating the relationship. 2. in all situations the lawyer who withdraws from employment should do all that can reasonably be done to facilitate the orderly transfer of the matter to the successor lawyer. MANDATORY WITHDRAWAL 3. In some circumstances, the lawyer will be under a positive duty to withdraw. The obvious case is following the discharge by the client. Other examples are (a) if the lawyer is instructed by the client to do something inconsistent with the lawyer’s duty to the court and, following explanation, the client persists in such instructions; (b) if the client is guilty of dishonorable conduct in the proceedings or is taking a position solely to harass or maliciously injure another, (c) if it becomes clear that the lawyer’s continued employment will lead to a breach of these Rules such as, for example, a breach of the Rule relating to conflict of interest (Rule 5); or (d) if the lawyer is not competent to handle the matter, In these situations there is a duty to inform the client that the lawyer must withdraw. 4. Situations where a lawyer would be entitled to withdraw, although not under a positive duty to do so, will as a rule only arise where there has been a serious loss of confidence between the lawyer and the client. Such a loss of confidence goes to the very basis of the relationship. Thus, the lawyer who is deceived by the client will have justifiable cause for withdrawal. Again the refusal of the client to accept and act upon the lawyer’s advice on a significant point might indicate such a loss of confidence. However, the lawyer should not use the threat of withdrawal as a device to force a hasty decision by the client on a difficult question.

In a letter from Trisha S. Danyluk from the law society Information Services Complaints of August 07, 1998, she said.

“I have reviewed the materials you have forwarded to our office and do not believe that we can assist you with this matter in the manner in which you may have hoped. The circumstances you have described would indicate that you may require a second legal opinion on the merits of your case. I have found no evidence from your comments or the materials you provided that would prompt an investigation into the ethics of your lawyer. While you may have disagreed with the advice you received from Ms. McIntosh, or do not believe that she protected your interests to the best of her ability; these are not the types of issues that fall within our jurisdiction to investigate.

In a letter to Ms. Danyluk on August 14, 1998, I said.

If lying to a client is not professional misconduct please explain what is professional misconduct.

In a letter to me from Katherine Kowal Staff Lawyer dated October 22, 1998, she said.

While it is regrettable that you had such a difference of opinion about the interpretation of your case, there is no evidence before me that Ms. Macintoshlied to you, as you have suggested. We therefore I will not be investigating this matter.

In a letter to Ms. Kowal of December 09, 1998, from me, I say.

“For you to determine whether or not Ms. McIntosh has lied to me you must know the legal definition of misconduct and sexual harassment. In Ms. Macintosh’s letter dated March 07, 1995, she said the company stated clearly that it had just cause to terminate you. Nothing in Karmax associate corporate counsel’s letter of February 22, 1995, fits into the legal definition of misconduct or sexual harassment. So when Ms. McIntosh said the company states clearly that it had just cause to terminate you she is lying. In Ms. McIntosh’s letter to Klaus Niemeyer dated January 25, 1995, “Ms. Macintosh defined harassment as engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known as unwelcome. It must be ongoing and may include verbal threats, abuse, offensive sexual flirtations (not merely complaints or flirtatious comments), or sexist jokes which cause embarrassment.” Again nothing in Karmax associate corporate counsel’s letter of February 22, 1995, fits into the definition that Ms. McIntosh said in her letter of January 25, 1995. So when Ms. McIntosh said the company states clearly that it had just cause to terminate you. She is lying. Ms. Kowal if you see anything in Karmax associate corporate counsel’s letter of February 22, 1995, that fits into any of these definitions please show me where you see them. If you do not see them then Ms. McIntosh must be lying to me.

In a letter to me from Katherine A. Kowal, she said.

I have reviewed the materials in the file in light of your continuing concerns about Ms. Macintosh’s conduct. In particular, you say that she “lied” when she told you that you were terminated from your employment “for cause”. In particular, you say that your conduct did not fit the legal definition of misconduct or sexual harassment and you cannot understand why Ms. Macintosh gave you the advice that she did. In particular, you refer me to the letter of R. Andrew Staniusz dated February 22, 1995. After carefully considering the materials, I must confirm my earlier opinion and that of Ms. Danyluk that the concerns you raise fall outside of our jurisdiction. There is no evidence before me that would call into question Ms. McIntosh’s professional conduct. While you may question her professional judgment and in particular it seems you disagree with the legal position she has taken regarding your dismissal, these are not matters which the Law Society may investigate. Based on the information provided to Ms. McIntosh by your former employer, and based on her legal knowledge, she apparently formed the opinion that you had been dismissed “for cause” on the basis that you had harassed a co-worker. Whether or not she properly interpreted the legal definition of sexual harassment is not a question that this office may determine. If you believe your lawyer was negligent in representing you. Or that she made an error in judgment, then you may wish to pursue an action against her in the regular court system for professional negligence. Only a court of law may determine matters of professional negligence. I regret but I must advise you that the law society will not be taking any further action.

I then sent a letter to Ms. Kowal on February 03, 1999. In it, I said.

In your letter of January 14, 1999, you said. Based on the information provided to Ms. McIntosh by your former employer, and based on her legal knowledge, she apparently formed the opinion that you had been dismissed for cause. Ms. Kowal, how can you determine whether or not Ms. McIntosh formed her opinion based on her legal knowledge or whether she is lying to me if you have not sent her a letter asking for an explanation as to why she said what she said?

In a letter to me from Ms. Kowals Staff Lawyer of April 21, 1999. She said.

“Unless you have clear, convincing, and independent evidence that would call into question Ms. McIntosh’s motives in giving you the advice which she did, the law society would not be prepared to pursue an investigation. At this point, as there is no evidence before me that would suggest that Ms. McIntosh intentionally gave you bad advice, I will not be pursuing this matter further.”

So then I wrote to the Treasurer of the law society. The Treasurer is the highest person in the law society.

In a letter to me from Scott Kerr, he said.

“I have been asked to respond on the Treasurer’s behalf. A review of our records indicates that we previously reviewed the issues you raised with respect to Ms. McIntosh and informed you of our position that no action by the society is warranted. As the information you recently provided has all been previously considered, we do not intend to take any further action. Any future correspondence received from you with respect to this matter will be reviewed and placed in our file but no further response from us will be forthcoming”.

The reason that the law society covers up complaints against lawyers is that they have cut back on investigators and the ones that are left are swamped. Section 139(2) of the criminal code of Canada says Every person who intentionally attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice is guilty of (a) an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or (b) an offense punishable on summary conviction . Complaints against Lawyers are done through the Law Society Act. So if someone tries to cover up a complaint against a lawyer they are obstructing the Law Society Act. And obstructing a government act is Obstructing justice. It is also obstruction of justice for a Lawyer to lie to the client saying that they have no case. lawsociety@lso.ca Toll-free: 1-800-668-7380

Update of December 06, 2020

2. I then found a second Lawyer David M. Bartkiw. I gave him one hundred dollars. Mr. Bartkiw then got me to sign a blank piece of paper which I got back from him two weeks later. He sent a letter to UI. Then he started to drag his feet with the case. I then figured out that he knew there was big money in this case. So he is dragging his feet with the case until he can get me to agree to give him a big percentage of the money. So I then fired him. He gave me back the one hundred dollars. lawsociety@lso.ca Toll-free: 1-800-668-7380

3. I then got a third Lawyer Denise M. J. Giroux. She said that I had no case so I asked her to put that in writing she charged me 80 dollars for that. In the writing dated March 06, 1996. she said.

In my opinion, you may have a cause of action based on the argument that the employer’s act of termination was too severe a response considering the seriousness of the harassment alleged. On the other hand, the employer’s action was consistent with its policy and it seems you were adequately warned (verbally) prior to their implementing the full letter of the policy. (the policy states that where sexual harassment is found to exist, the employee will be provided with a written warning, and if the behavior does not end, the employee will be terminated). If you were to succeed in proving a claim for wrongful dismissal, the potential damages arising from such a claim are not, in my opinion, high enough to warrant legal action, particularly due to the short term of your employment with Magna. The four weeks’ pay in lieu of notice that was paid to you is in the normal range for someone with your length of employment and responsibilities. As a result, I would not recommend you take further action.

I then filed paperwork with the courthouse to have her bill assessed. At the assessment hearing, the assessment officer John Canning asked me how big the company that I worked for was. I told him that it was pretty big. He then said that a company of that size would not done the thing you are saying they did. So the lawyer is right and you lose. But he did not make me pay the Lawyer for her time. Again if Magna is lying about the sexual harassment complaints then I can sue for defamation as well as wrongful dismissal. In this case, Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, 1995 CanLII 59 (SCC), [1995] 2 SCR 1130 the person got aggravated damages of $500,000,00 and $800,000,00 in punitive damages. lawsociety@lso.ca Toll-free: 1-800-668-7380

Update of December 14, 2020

4. I then found a fourth Lawyer Paul S. Richarz he typed up a statement of claim and filed it with the court. The defends were Magna International, Karmax Heavy Stamping, and Geoff Stanley. The statement of claim asked for General damages for defamation in the amount of $100,000,00; General damages for wrongful dismissal in the amount of $100,000,00; Special damages in the amount of $50,000,00; Aggravated exemplary and punitive damages in the amount of $100,000,00; and 12 months severance pre-judgment and post-judgment interest pursuant to the provisions of the courts of justice act, as amended; His cost of the action on a solicitor-and-client basis, together with applicable goods and services tax thereon in accordance with The excise tax act, R.S.C. 1985, c.E.-15. As amended; and such further and other relief as to this Honorable Court may seem just. On Oct 28, 1998, I sent a letter to Mr. Richarz in the letter I said

On July 16, 1998, I sent you a letter you have not responded to my letter. On Sep 01, 1998, I began to call you. I have called you about 10 times you have not returned my phone calls. I want a response to my July 16, letter and a full update on my case. If I do not receive this information within one week I will find another attorney to take my case.

I then sent him a letter on November 16, 1998, saying.

I am writing to inform you that your services are no longer required. Please send me any final billing and my file so my new Attorney can start with my case.

He did not send me my file. So I filed a complaint with the Law Society of Upper Canada in the complaint I told them that he would not send me my file so I could not get a new Lawyer because the new Lawyer wanted to see the file first. The Law Society then told him to send me my file. On March 31, 1999, the Law Society sent me a letter from Jan Walker it says.

While I acknowledge that you continue to be unhappy with the manner in which Mr. Richarz acted, I must confirm this file is now closed. However, please be advised that the Society maintains a record of all complaints received. This record is subject to periodic review in order to determine whether inactive files disclose a possible pattern of substandard service or unprofessional conduct by a lawyer. Accordingly, the Society may reactivate previously investigated files if it appears that they form part of such a pattern.

I then sent a letter to Jan Walker of the Law Society dated June 02, 1999, it said. In your letter of March 31, 1999, you said.

“This record is subject to periodic review in order to determine whether files disclose a possible pattern of substandard service or unprofessional conduct by a lawyer.” The professional conduct handbook, says the lawyer’s conduct should reflect credit on the legal profession, inspire the confidence, respect, and trust of clients and the community, and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Rule 2 of the professional conduct handbook has a list of examples of unsatisfactory professional practice Example A failure to keep the client reasonably informed.

Example B failure to answer reasonable requests from the client for information.

Example C unexplained failure to respond to the client’s telephone calls.

Mr. Richarz has done all of these examples and I have not received an explanation or apology from him.

On Feb 06, 1997, Mr. Richarz filed a statement of claim on March 26, 1997; the defendant’s counsel sent Mr. Richarz a letter asking for further information about the statement of claim. It took Mr. Richarz 5 months to respond to the defendant’s counsel’s letter of March 26, 1997, In Mr. Richarz’s letter of August 19, 1997, to the defendant’s counsel he said he would be in touch with the amended claim. It then took Mr. Richarz 7 months to send the defendant’s counsel a copy of the amended statement of claim and his letter of March 12, 1998, The defendant’s counsel. Then sent Mr. Richarz a letter of April 17, 1998, saying that they will consent to the amendments, Once the amended statement of claim has been filed with the court, we will provide you with our amended statement of defense in due course. On January 05, 1999, I got my file from Mr. Richarz he still had not filed the amended statement of claim. These delays in my case and the other complaints I have against Mr. Richarz do show a pattern of substandard service and unprofessional conduct by a lawyer. She did not respond back.

I then sent a letter to the head of the complaints department telling them what Jan Walker had said about there having to be a pattern of substandard service or unprofessional conduct. They did not respond back.

I then sent a letter to the Treasurer of the law society dated Jan 27, 2000, the treasurer is the top person at the law society in the letter I talked about Jan Walker saying things about there having to be a pattern of substandard service or unprofessional conduct. In a letter from Richard Tinsley of March 02, 2000, He said. This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated January 27, 2000, to the Treasurer. Your letter has been referred to me for a response. I have reviewed your file and note that Ms. Walker had advised you on August 10, 1999, that a copy of your letter had been forwarded to Mr. Richarz for his response Mr. Richarz responded to the law society by letter dated September 29, 1999, I have requested Ms. Walker provide you with Mr. Richarz response. Once you have reviewed Mr. Richarz’s letter, Ms. Walker would welcome your additional comments. If at the conclusion of Ms. Walker’s investigation, you disagree with her findings, you may request that the file be reviewed by a Complaints Review Commissioner. Complaint review Commissioners are lay Benchers who are appointed by the Ontario Government. After reviewing the file and meeting with you, the Commissioner may decide that Ms. Walker’s decision is appropriate, at which time the file would be closed. The Commissioner, however, may decide to send the file for further investigation, after which a decision would be made to close the file or to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Members. I then sent a letter to the treasurer of the Law Society dated March 22, 2000, saying In my letter of Jan 27, 2000, RE: letter from Richard Tinsley of March 02, 2000, I complain about Ms. Walker lying to me. However, Mr. Tinsley has not addressed this issue. In a letter from Richard Tinsley dated April 03, 2000, He said.

This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated March 22, 2000, to the Treasurer who has asked me to reply. Your letter of March 22, 2000, states that Ms. Walker has not returned your telephone calls. Your letter of November 12, 1999, and December 02, 1999. By way of explanation, the complaints department, which originally had carriage of this matter, was dismantled in June 1999; your file was then transferred to another department, the Resolution and Compliance. It appears that the delays caused as a result of our restructuring were not explained to you. I apologize for our oversight. Since you have made serious allegations against Ms. Walker, your file has been transferred to Louis Bourgon, Resolution and Compliance Officer. I then got a letter from Louis Bourgon dated August 31, 2000, saying. “I have now had an opportunity to review your letters to the Society and Mr. Richarz’s response to your complaint including his letter dated August 11, 2000, which I enclose for reference. I believe that I am now in a position to report my findings to you. Your complaint, as I understand it, can be summarized as follows:

1. Mr. Richarz did not respond to several of your written communications.

2. Mr. Richarz retained your file after you terminated him.

3. Your file was missing several letters:

Mr. Richarz’s letter of November 18, 1996, to opposing Counsel II Mr. Richarz’s letter of March 12, 1998, to opposing Counsel III Mr. Richarz’s response to opposing counsel’s letter of March 26, 1997, 4. Mr. Richarz intentionally delayed in moving your matter forward. In your complaint to the Society, you state that Mr. Richarz did not respond to your letters of July 16, 1998. October 28, 1998, and November 16, 1998. As you can see from Mr. Richarz’s response, the member states that for the greater part of your solicitor-client relationship both you and he chose to communicate by telephone. Mr. Richarz says that over time your relationship deteriorated and for a variety of reasons he had difficulty in reaching you by telephone and in leaving messages on your answering machine. Your point that Mr. Richarz could have responded in writing to the letters you sent him is well taken. Therefore, it is my intention to caution the member on this issue to ensure he does not repeat such behavior in the future. Having said that, Mr. Richarz alleges that you left him threatening messages on his answering machine and that overall he felt intimidated by your demeanor. In my view, this could explain the breakdown in communication between you and your lawyer.

2. Mr. Richarz retained your file after you terminated him. My review of your file indicates that Jan Walker assisted you in having your file returned to you on January 12, 1999.

3. Your file was missing several letters;

In Mr. Richarz’s letter of November 18, 1996, to opposing counsel II Mr. Richarz’s letter of March 12, 1998, to opposing counsel III Mr. Richarz’s response to opposing counsel’s letter of March 26, 1997. My review of your file indicates that Mr. Richarz provided you with the above-noted correspondence on March 15, 1999, 4. Mr. Richarz intentionally delayed in moving your matter forward. In your complaint, you state that Mr. Richarz intentionally delayed in moving your matter forward. You complain that it took approximately five months for your lawyer to respond to opposing counsel’s letter of March 26, 1997, requesting additional particulars about your statement of Claim. In addition, you are displeased that it took your lawyer seven months to send opposing counsel a draft copy of your amended statement of Claim for their consent. Finally, upon retrieving your file from Mr. Richarz in January 1999, you were upset to learn that he had not filed your amended statement of Claim. In his response to the society, Mr. Richarz denies having intentionally delayed the handling of your file. The member states that part of the reason your matter did not move forward more quickly was due to the legal work required to determine whether an amendment to your claim was necessary.The member also cites the communication problems which I have referred to earlier in my letter. In addition, the member maintains that your case involved very serious allegations that would be difficult to prove given the available facts. Therefore, your lawyer requested that you provide him with a substantial retainer which you were unable or unwilling to do. Accordingly, your lawyer informed you that he would cease work on your file without a further retainer. There was nothing improper in Mr. Richarz’s request for a substantial retainer if, in his professional opinion, he believes that you had a difficult case to prove but that, notwithstanding this, you were instructing him to move forward with litigation. It is common practice for lawyers to request large retainers from clients when they believe that a case will be problematic. Conclusion While it is unfortunate that you were displeased with Mr. Richarz’s behavior during his handling of your matter. I do not believe that the circumstances described are sufficient to warrant formal disciplinary action. Mr. Richarz’s failure to respond to your letters has been duly noted. Please be advised that the Law Society keeps a record of all complaints received against its members. Your complaint will form part of Mr. Richarz’s record. That being said, in order for the law society to consider disciplinary proceedings in a case like this, we would require several complaints. In the event of such an occurrence, this matter may be re-opened. At this time, however, I must advise you that your file is closed. If you disagree with my decision to close this file, you have the right to attend before a Complaints Review Commissioner at the Law Society to discuss the opinion set out in this letter. I then sent a letter to Louis Bourgon dated March 16, 2001, saying.

In a letter from the defendant’s counsel Mr. R. Andrew Stanuisz of March 26, 1997, says please be advised that Karmax Heavy Stamping is not a legal entity. Why was Mr. Richarz not asked why he did not know that Karmax was not a legal entity when he did the statement of claim the first time and why he believes that Karmax was a legal entity in the beginning when it is clear that Karmax is not a legal entity because it does not have INC on the end of it. In my letters, I complain about Mr. Richarz intentionally delaying my case. In Mr. Richarz’s letters of September 29, 1999, and August 11, 2000, he says part of the delay was caused by the necessary legal work required to ascertain whether or not an amendment to the claim was necessary. What legal work was required to ascertain whether or not an amendment to the claim was necessary that took so long? All Mr. Richarz had to do was find out if Karmax was a legal entity. In a letter from Mr. Cado of January 27, 2000, he said Mr. Bourgon would write to the member and request he provides the dates that he attempted to contact you to discuss your matter particularly, the amendment to the statement of claim, request for additional retainers, and to respond to your letters dated July 16, 1998, October 28, 1998, November 16, 1998, and January 14, 1999. Mr. Bourgon will advise you upon receipt of a response. In Mr. Richarz’s letter of August 11, 2000, he does not give these dates. In the termination letter of December 12, 1994, it says the reason for our decision is that our own investigation and that of the Magna Hotline has indicated that you have been harassing a female employee. But in the amended statement of claim, Mr. Richarz took Magna International INC out as a defendant. I then sent a letter to the Treasurer of the law society saying.

I am writing to you to have my complaints against Victoria McIntosh (file 000895) and Shawn Richarz (file 98-3865) reviewed by laybenchers of the Law Society because I do not agree with the decision to close the files. I then got a letter from Audrey D. Cado’s team Leader Complaints Resolution dated December 27, 2001, saying.

Only your complaint against Paul Shawn Richarz, being file 98-3865, will be forwarded to the Complaints Review Commissioner, Your complaint against Victoria McIntosh, being file 000895, will not be reviewed as the law Society was advised you on numerous occasions that the law society has no reason to investigate the conduct or ethics of Ms. McIntosh.By letter dated November 13, 2000, Mr. Kerr, Manager of Advisory and Compliance Services, advised you that all the information you previously provided had been considered and the Law Society did not intend to take any further action. He further advised that any future correspondence received from you would be reviewed and placed in the file, and no further response would be forthcoming from the Law Society. Therefore, your request to have file 00-0895 reviewed by the Complaints Review Commissioner cannot be complied with. I then got a letter from Abdul A. Chahdar Complaints Review Commissioner dated June 14, 2002, Saying.

I have now completed my review of your Complaint to the Law Society concerning Paul Shawn Richarz. After reading over the material and hearing what you had to say. I have come to the conclusion that the evidence does not support a charge of professional misconduct on the part of the solicitor in question. I then filed to have an assessment done on Mr. Richarz’s bill. In the bill, it says that I owe him $1,801. At the assessment hearing, the assessment officer had me and Mr. Richarz talk about his bill. And then he said that he would give me $50:00 dollars. I then said make it $100;00 dollars. Because it costs $50:00 dollars to file for the assessment hearing. So he let the $1,801 slide and gave me $100;00 dollars. The reason he did this is that he did not want to go on the record and try to answer my questions about his work and the questions the Law Society did not ask him. If he could not answer my questions then I could have gone to the police and have him charged with obstruction of justice. The reason that my Lawyer was delaying my case is that he is waiting untill he can get me to agree to give him a big percentage. lawsociety@lso.ca Toll-free: 1-800-668-7380

Update of December 19, 2020

5. In May 1998 I got into a fight at the gym that I go to. After the fight, I went to the police the police gave me the phone number for the Justice of the Peace. I told the JP that when I was in the change room this guy that I used to rent a room from came in and said. Hi Bob and I ignored him. He then says what you can’t even say hi. I then told him to fuck off. I said you are just a big liar anyway. He said to me if you go around telling people I’m a liar I’m going to beat the shit out of you. I then stood up and started pushing him back, onto the bench. He said Bob take it easy. I back off then. And then when he stood up again he started arguing and I said to him. “Are you threatening me” and then he said “Bob” take it easy” there are kids coming downstairs” So we walked away from each other and when I was bending over putting stuff in my gym bag he started hitting me on top of my head and I grabbed his legs, pushed him down to the ground. He put me in a headlock. I got out of that and I just up and walked away. Backed off from him. The justice of the peace Ms. J Jukes said you made the first contact with him. Unfortunately, Mr. Burgiss that is the dilemma that you made the first physical contact and so technically you commit the first assault. I then said but is pushing him assault. Ms. Jukes said yes it is. I then said even though he’s in my face saying I’ll beat the shit out of you” Ms. Jukes then said I mean if I brush up against you because we’re both trying to step out the door at the same time, that’s different, that’s an unintentional contact. But if in a dispute or in anger we make contact with someone. if we even raise our hand and don’t actually make contact – if we raise our hand as though we’re going to, it is an assault. I can’t put this before the courts because of that. The assault is initiated by you. I then said I was putting stuff in my gym bag. I was not a threat to him. So he has no right to assault me. Ms. Jukes then said but it’s one ongoing event, isn’t it? But this stays on file and there’s a court record that never goes away. Section 34 of the criminal code of Canada says34 (1) A person is not guilty of an offense if (a) they believe on reasonable grounds that force is being used against themor another person or that a threat of force is being made against themor another person; (b) the act that constitutes the offense is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves or the other person from that use or threat of force, and (c) the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances. (2) In determining whether the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances, the court shall consider the relevant circumstances of the person, the other parties, and the act, including, but not limited to, the following factors: (a) the nature of the force or threat; (b) the extent to which the use of force was imminent and whether there were other means available to respond to the potential use of force; I then said. So when he says to me,” You go around telling people I’m a liar I’m going to beat the shit out of you” is that threatening. Ms. Jukes then said I can’t say. I can’t tell you that. I have to deal with what I have in front of me and that’s this, just this, unfortunately, can’t go anywhere. The criminal code of Canada section 264.1(1) Every one commits an offense who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat (a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person; (b) to burn, destroy or damage real or personal property; or (c) to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person. I then ordered transcripts of the hearing with Ms. Jukes Justice of the Peace. I then went to the police to see about having Ms. Jukes charged with obstruction of justice. The officer I talked to (badge # 373) read the transcripts and said the justice of the peace was right because the assault would be hard to prove. I then interrupted him and said that’s not the reason that she would not put it through to the court. The officer then pointed his finger at me and told me to shut up. After arguing with the officer for several minutes, he told me to go to the officer who took the original charge and ask their Supervisor about it. The officer also told me to get out of the police station. The criminal code of Canada section 139(2) Every person who intentionally attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice. Ms. Jukes clearly tried to obstruct justice. Even if the assault is hard to prove. I then filed a complaint against the officer with the Ontario Civilian Commission on police services (OCCOPS) they sent my complaint to the Hamilton police professional standards branch. I then got a letter from Michael Campbell Staff sergeant Professional tandards Branch dated March 24, 1999, In his letter, he said

Pursuant to section 59(3) of the police services act, I will take no further action on your complaint because it is insufficient on its face. For your information, a conduct investigation must show with clear and convincing evidence that an officer breached a standard of professional conduct as contained in the Code of Conduct of the police services act. In reading your complaint I cannot determine what happened with enough detail to identify misconduct. Further, I would advise you that while a justice of the peace is obliged by law to accept your information, there is no provision in the law that requires that the justice of the peace issue process in any matter. This is not true like the police a JP must issue process if there is enough evidence for the charges. If the JP does not have to issue process and does not have to explain her decision then what would stop the JP from taking a bribe to not issue process? In this case R. v. Beaudry, the supreme court of Canada said.

A police officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that an offense has been committed, or that a more thorough investigation might produce evidence that could form the basis of a criminal charge, may exercise his or her discretion to decide not to engage the judicial process. But this discretion is not absolute. The exercise of the discretion must be justified subjectively, that is, the discretion must have been exercised honestly and transparently, and on the basis of valid and reasonable grounds; it must also be justified on the basis of objective factors. In determining whether a decision resulting from an exercise of police discretion is proper, it is therefore important to consider the material circumstances in which the discretion was exercised. The justification offered must be proportionate to the seriousness of the conduct and it must be clear that the discretion was exercised in the public interest. Mr. Campbell went on to say I am prepared to re-examine this decision if you are able to provide enough details to provide a complete story of the events. I then sent him a letter dated April 11, 1999, saying

My complaint is against the officer at the front desk. I have included copies of the transcripts of the interview with the JP with this letter. The officer at the desk said that the JP was right because it would be hard to prove it. Even if this is true what the JP did is still obstruction of justice. I then got a letter from Mr. Campbell dated May 25, 1999, saying.

Notwithstanding the responses which you gave to the questions raised in my letter of the 24 of March 1999, I still cannot find any evidence of misconduct. I have reviewed the evidence of the transcript which you submitted and I must agree with the officer’s opinion. In my view, your interpretation of the law in these circumstances is flawed. I then appealed his decision to OCCOPS. They then sent me a letter dated October 07, 1999, from Demetrios Skillaris, saying.

The panel is satisfied the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services decision is appropriate considering the findings in its investigation. The decision of the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services is to confirm the decision of the Hamilton police. I then sent a letter to OCCOPS asking for an explanation as to the decision of OCCOPS. But I never got one. I then sent a letter to Mr. Campbell asking how my interpretation of the law in these circumstances is flawed. He then sent me a letter saying Recently, you have sent me a letter requesting an explanation for one of my past decisions. Within a few days of receipt of your letter. I received notice that you had filed a public complaint against me. I will therefore not be responding to your letter or any telephone messages. I note that you allege that I am lying or incompetent so I would question what purpose could be served in asking me for advice or an opinion. Section 139 (2) of the criminal code of Canada says Every person who intentionally attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice is guilty of (a) an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or (b) an offense punishable on summary conviction. Complaints against police are done through the police services act so if someone tries to cover up a complaint against a police officer they are obstructing the police services act. And obstructing a Government act is Obstructing justice. I then filed a complaint against Michael Campbell for covering up my complaint. I then got a letter from Inspector Ken Leendertse dated November 08, 1999, saying.

I will not take further action on your complaint because it is insufficient on its face. For your information, a conduct investigation must show with clear and convincing evidence that an officer breached a standard of professional conduct as contained in the Code of Conduct of the police service act. In reading your complaint I cannot determine what S/Sgt. Campbell did wrong with sufficient detail to make such a determination. I am prepared to re-examine this decision if you are able to provide enough details to provide a complete story of the officer’s actions which constitute misconduct in your view. For example. I) What evidence is there that S/Sgt. Campbell is lying? (As opposed to making his best judgment and acting in good faith) I then sent a letter to Mr. Leendertse Dated November 23, 1999, Saying

In the transcripts Ms. Jukes said. That you made the first physical contact and so technically you commit the first assault. The law says that I have a legal right to use a reasonable amount of force to defend myself. Under the circumstances pushing Mr. Kennedy away when he is in my face threatening to beat the shit out of me is using a reasonable amount of force. When Mr. Kennedy began to hit me I was bending over putting stuff in my gym bag. I was not threatening him. He was in no immediate danger from me. So he has no legal justification for assaulting me. Ms. Jukes said. But if in a dispute or in anger we make contact with someone, if we even raise our hand and don’t actually make contact if we raise our hand as though we’re going to, it is an assault. If this is true when Mr. Kennedy is in my face threatening to beat the shit out of me this is assault. When I asked Ms. Jukes if what Mr. Kennedy said to me is threatening she said I can’t say. If Ms. Jukes knows enough about the law to say what is or is not assault then she knows enough about the law to say if what Mr. Kennedy said to me is threatening. The officer at the central police station read the transcripts and said that the JP was right because it would be hard to prove it. Even if it is hard to prove the assault charge what Ms. Jukes did is still obstruction of justice because the criminal code says that any attempt to obstruct justice is a crime. It does not say that a person has to successfully obstruct justice for it to be a crime. When the officer at the central station said that the JP was right because it would be hard to prove it. He was lying or is incompetent. Either one of these things is misconduct. When Mr. Campbell said, I must agree with the officer’s opinion. In my view, your interpretation of the law in these circumstances is flawed. He is lying or is incompetent either one of these things is misconduct. I then got a letter from Mr. Leendertse dated Feb 22, 2000.

I am unsure what your allegations are. The reason is that you have sent our police service numerous letters all involving allegations that our officers are lying or are incompetent. Several of these issues have already been classified and found to be frivolous. I personally have sent you several letters concerning your complaints. In one matter you complained about the JP Madam Jukes and wanted the matter investigated as an obstruction of justice because she refused to take your complaint. If this is your complaint, then your matter is best dealt with by the senior justice of the peace. The fact that the officer refused to take a report because a JP disagreed with you is not an obstruction of justice. To clarify what your issues are, I will not be responding to issues that I have already dealt with. If you feel that matters of Nov 9 and 24 are still outstanding, I would ask you to re-specify these issues in a new letter being specific of what your complaint is and what evidence you have to support it. Your opinion that an officer is lying or incompetent is only your opinion unless substantiated with facts. If these issues are new and have not been previously addressed. I ask you to resubmit them. Unfortunately, some of the many letters you have sent this police service do not classify a complaint, rather an opinion or editorial. If you have something legitimately complain about, please write it down. I then sent a letter to Mr. Leendertse dated March 08, 2000, saying.

If my interpretation of the law is flawed then please explain now my interpretation is flawed. I then got a letter from William Stewart saying It is not the purpose of the public complaint process to provide you with instruction on the law, or legal advice. I then appealed the decision of Ken Leendertse to the OCCOPS in a letter from Sheila Cuthbertson of OCCOPS Be advised that the police services act provides that a request for a review must be received by the Commission within 30 days of the complainant having received the decision from the police service. I note that the date on the decision letter addressed to you by inspector Leendertse is Nov 08, 1999. Unless proof to the contrary is provided, the police services act deems you to have received that letter by Nov 13, 1999. Accordingly, your request for a review is, on its face, late. The Commission has no jurisdiction with which to conduct a review when the initiating request is late. Accordingly, unless you are able to provide proof that you received the decision letter from the Hamilton police later than Nov 13, 1999, the Commission will not be able to accede to your request. I then sent a letter to her saying I believe that I received Mr. Leendertse’s letter on about the 15, of Nov 1999, In your letter of January 17, 2000, you said. Unless proof to the contrary is provided, the police services act deems you to have received that letter by Nov 13, 1999. Nov 13, 1999, is a Saturday, and Canada Post does not deliver on a Saturdays so your Nov 13, 1999, date should be Nov 15, 1999, which is the date of my letter of appeal. So my letter of appeal is not late. I also called Canada Post they said that the letter could have taken a week to arrive. So again my letter of appeal is not late. I then got a letter from Sheila Cuthbertson dated Feb 24, 2000. Saying.

I am in receipt of your letter dated Feb 10, 2000, wherein you submit that your request for review dated Dec 15, 1999, is not late. I have taken your correspondence to the Commission which has determined that your request for review is time-barred. Notwithstanding the fact that you state, you received the decision letter of Inspector K. Leendertse on Nov 15, 1999; your request for review did not reach the Commission offices until Dec 17, 1999. As I stated in my last correspondence, the Commission has no jurisdiction with which to extend the 30-day period, and accordingly, we cannot process your request for review. I then filed a complaint against Inspector Kenneth Leendertse with the OCCOPS I also sent the same complaint letter to the chief of Hamilton police I then got a letter from Bill Stewart Executive Officer for the Chief of Police dated May 26, 2000. he said.

I acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 25, 2000, which I find to be vexatious, non-specific, and without merit.In reviewing the numerous letters that you have sent this police service, it is evident that you are perpetuating your original complaint by claiming misconduct by any officer with whom you have contact. You have made allegations of lying and incompetence by officers including S/Sgt. Campbell and Inspector Leendertse, simply because they do not agree with your opinion. As outlined in my letter of April 10, 2000, your allegations have been previously investigated or responded to by our service. The police service will not be taking any further action on any future correspondence respecting this issue. I then received a letter from Sheila Cuthbertson dated May 15, 2000. Saying.

I am in receipt of your correspondence wherein you make a complaint about the actions of inspector K. Leendertse of the Hamilton-Wentworth police service who responded to a complaint you had made about the actions of Staff Sergeant M. Campbell, also of the Hamilton police. I have taken your complaint before the Commission which has determined that it will not forward your complaint to the service. Nor will it direct Hamilton Wentworth Regional police to investigate. Be advised that the Commission will not accept complaints about public complaint decision makers merely because the complainant disagrees with that decision maker’s decision. I then appealed Mr. Leendertse’s decision to the OCCOPS. They did not respond back. I then filed a complaint against Bill Stewart and sent the same letter to the chief of Hamilton police. But did not hear back from them. info@hamiltonpolice.on.ca Reception: (905) 546-4772

Update of December 26, 2020

6. In March or the beginning of April 1999 I went to the mountain police station to see about having charges filed against a Justice of the peace. There was a girl at the front desk who was talking to the officer about a history of problems with her neighbor and that recently somebody threw something at her house from a car that looked like a car that a friend of the neighbor has. The officer wrote up a report about this then the girl asked the officer what happens now the officer said you have no suspects so we will just file the complaint. I then went home and filed a complaint against the officer in my complaint letter dated August 03, 1999, it says My complaint is that I feel that the officer is wrong for just filling the complaint and that the neighbor should have been questioned to see what kind of cars their friends drive. I then got a letter from Michael Campbell Staff Sergeant professional standards branch of August 11, 1999, saying. For your information, a public complaint must normally meet specific requirements contained within the police services act. I find that you are not directly affected by the circumstances contained within your complaint. Pursuant to section 59 (4) of the police services act therefore I will not take further action on your complaint. I would hasten to add that my classification in these matters is a judgment made solely on the basis of your allegation. My classification is not meant to be a determination as to the likelihood of the officer having committed the misconduct. I would be prepared to re-examine this decision in the event that you have any further evidence or submissions to make in this regard. I then sent a letter to Mr. Campbell dated August 27, 1999, saying. My letter of August 03, 1999, shows that the officer is lying. Because of this, I do not now trust police officers. This is a direct effect of the conduct of the officer on that day. What the officer did on that day is possible obstruction of justice. Why is the Chief of police not launching a criminal investigation into this matter? It is clear that the officer did not do a proper investigation into the complaint from the girl. Why is the chief of police not assigning a new officer to the case so a proper investigation can be done? I then got a letter from Mr. Campbell dated Sep 09, 1999, saying.

The classification letter dated 11, of August, is not meant to advise you of what actions has been taken or will be taken with respect to the actions of the officer involved in this incident. Nor is this letter intended to defend the officer in question or indicate that either the Chief of police or myself is in agreement with the manner in which this citizen was provided services. Such a decision is made after an investigation of the circumstances. The letter was meant to make a determination as to your status as a public complainant in this matter. In the event that you had been granted the status of a public complaint then a series of legal rights and obligations would have flowed from this decision. It is my determination that I could not grant you the status of a public complainant because you were not directly involved in this incident. Your letter of the 27, of August, did not provide any evidence to the contrary on the issue of your direct involvement.

I then sent a letter back to Mr. Campbell dated Sep 24, 1999, saying.

In my letter of August 27, 1999, I asked you two questions. But in your letter of Sep 09, 1999, you did not answer my questions. I see no reason why you cannot answer my questions. In your letter of Sep 09, 1999, you said. Nor is this letter intended to defend the officer in question or indicate the either the Chief of Police or myself is in agreement with the manner in which this citizen was provided services. Such a decision is made after an investigation of the circumstances. Does this mean that an investigation is being done into the circumstances or that there is no investigation being done? If not why not? In your letter of Sep 09, 1999, you also said. It was my determination that I could not grant you the status of a public complainant because you were not directly involved in this incident. Your letter of 27, of August, did not provide any evidence to the contrary on the issue of your direct involvement. Mr. Campbell the police services act does not say that a person has to be directly involved in an incident to file a public complaint. It says that a person has to be directly affected by the incident to file a public complaint. Even if my complaint does not fit into the definition of a public complaint this does not stop the Chief of Police from launching a criminal investigation against the officer for obstruction of justice. Nor does it stop the Chief of police from assigning a new officer to the case so a proper investigation can be done into the girl’s complaint. I then got a letter from Mr. Campbell dated Nov 08, 1999, saying.

I acknowledge receipt of your letter of Sep 24, 1999, I understand that you have contacted my office and requested my response to this letter. I will not be responding to the letter of 24, of Sep. I forwarded a copy of your letter to the Ontario Civilian Commission of police services, as it possibly relates to their review 99-COM-0315. I then sent a letter to Mr. Campbell dated Jan 27, 2000, saying I am writing to ask for an explanation of your decisions in your letter of Aug 11, 1999, and Sep 09, 1999. He did not reply.

I then filed an appeal with the OCCOPS dated Sep 13, 1999, saying.

My letter of Aug 03, 1999, clearly shows that the officer is lying. Because of this, I do not trust police officers. This is a direct effect of the conduct of the officer on that day. I then got a letter from Christine Zabielski of OCCOPS dated Dec 06, 1999, saying. The panel is satisfied that the decision reached in this case is appropriate. The Commission has confirmed the decision of the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional police service in this matter and, therefore, we are closing our file. I then sent a letter to the commission dated Feb 08, 2000, saying.

I am writing to ask for an explanation of the decision of the commission in the letter of Dec 06, 1999. Because the decision makes no sense to me. They did not respond back. I then filed a complaint against Mr. Campbell dated Jan 27, 2000, saying.

My name is Robert Burgiss on August 03, 1999; I filed a complaint with the OCCOPS. I then received a letter from Mr. Campbell of August 11, 1999, in his letter he said.

I find that you are not directly affected by the circumstances contained within your complaint. Pursuant to section 59 (4) of the police services act. Therefore I will not take further action on your complaint. He also said. I would be prepared to re-examine this decision in the event that you have any further evidence or submissions to make in this regard. I then sent him a letter on August 27, 1999, this letter clearly shows that I was directly affected by the conduct of the officer. It also shows that the officer has possibly obstructed justice and that there should be a new officer assigned to the case so a proper investigation can be done. But Mr. Campbell is ignoring these facts. In Mr. Campbell’s letter of Sept 09, 1999, he said.

It was my determination that I could not grant you the status of a public complaint because you were not directly involved in this incident. Your letter of the 27 of August did not provide any evidence to the contrary on the issue of your direct involvement. The police services act does not say that a person has to be directly involved in an incident to file a public complaint. It says that a person has to be directly affected by the incident to file a public complaint. Again my letter of August 27, 1999, clearly shows that I was directly affected by the conduct of the officer. But in Mr. Campbell’s letter of Sept 09, 1999, he again is ignoring these facts. In my letter of August 27, 1999, I said.

What the officer did on that day is possible obstruction of justice. Why is the Chief of police not launching a criminal investigation into this matter? In Mr. Campbell’s letter of Sept 09, 1999, he said. The classification letter dated the 11 of August is not meant to advise you of what action has been taken or will be taken with respect to the actions of the officer involved in this incident. Nor is this letter intended to defend the officer in question or indicate that either the Chief of Police or myself is in agreement with the manner in which this citizen was provided service. Such a decision is made after an investigation of the circumstances. In my letter of Sep 24, 1999, I said.

In my letter of August 27, 1999, I asked you two questions. But in your letter of Sep 09, 1999, you did not answer my questions. I see no reason why you cannot answer my questions. In Mr. Campbell’s letter of Nov 08, 1999, he said.

I will not be responding to your letter of the 24 of Sep. I forwarded a copy of your letter to the OCCOPS, as it possibly relates to their review. Again Mr. Campbell has not answered my questions. Even if my complaint does not fit into the definition of a public complaint this does not stop Mr. Campbell or the Chief of Police from launching a criminal investigation into this matter to see if what the officer did is obstruction of justice. The facts in this letter clearly show that Mr. Campbell is lying to me or is incompetent. Either one of these things is misconduct.

I then received a letter from Inspector Kenneth Leendertse dated Feb 08, 2000, saying.

You were advised by Staff Sergeant Campbell that your complaint did not fall within the perimeters of a public complaint under the police services act. You disagreed with this classification and appealed the decision to OCCOPS. On Dec 06, 1999, OCCOPS wrote back to you supporting the decision of Staff Sergeant Mike Campbell and the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional police that you do not have the status of a public complaint because you are not directly affected. In this letter you will note that it says; Please be advised that under part v of the police services acts. 72(12) the commission’s decision is final and binding and there is no appeal therefrom. I believe that because the decision concerning this public complaint was substantiated in favor of the Hamilton police that now you feel that Staff Sergeant Campbell is either lying or is incompetent. Staff Sergeant Campbell was correct in his classification of your complaint that it was frivolous and that you were not directly affected, this is a classification as directed in law to limit frivolous and vexatious complaints from clogging up the complaints process. As you may well know, there are many individuals that would like to complain about anything just to be heard while the complaint is not within the scope of the public complaint system. This type of frivolous complaining does nothing more than creating a grandstand for these members of the public who wish to be heard but have nothing to say. They also like to create backlogs, jam the complaints system, and to voice any and every concern they have, even if it is not related to policing or matters concerning themselves. Although members of the public have the right to complain or expect accountability for an officer’s actions. I find the frivolous and vexatious complaining about matters very wasteful and not responsible conduct for members of the public. This type of behavior takes away from others who have genuine concerns and complaints against the police. Your actions have gone to lessen the effectiveness of the police complaints system. Pursuant to section 59(3) of the police services act. I will not take further action on your complaint because it is insufficient on its face. I find that I must classify your complaint as frivolous because it does not contain enough evidence. Please do not be alarmed by this classification as it is a term provided for in law governing complaints against the police. It is not meant to imply that I am not concerned about your complaint; it does mean that I do not have enough information to sustain an allegation of misconduct. For your information, a conduct complaint must show with clear and convincing evidence that an officer breached a standard of professional conduct as contained in the code of conduct of the police services act, In reading your complaint I cannot determine what the police did wrong with sufficient detail to make such a determination. I also find that your comments against Staff Sergeant Campbell are slanderous in the fact that you claim he is lying. I am appalled that you believe you have a right to make slanderous and vexatious comments concerning a member of our police service just because they disagree with your interpretation of the law. I do not believe that Staff Sergeant Campbell is incompetent or lying and I do not support your request for an investigation into this matter or the conduct of Staff Sergeant Campbell. I will caution you to make sure your comments or concerns are directed at the conduct of an officer rather than your opinion which may be libel. I then wrote back to Mr. Leendertse dated Feb 15, 2000, saying.

My letter of Aug 03, 1999, clearly shows that the officer did not do a proper investigation into the girl’s complaint. So Mr. Campbell should have had a new officer investigate the girl’s complaint. Even if my complaint does not fit into the definition of a public complaint this does not stop Mr. Campbell from having a new officer investigate the girl’s complaint Mr. Campbell has not had a new officer investigate the girl’s complaint. Clearly, this is misconduct by Mr. Campbell. In my letter of Aug 03, 1999, also shows that what the officer did is possible obstruction of justice. So again Mr. Campbell should have had a criminal investigation launched into the matter. Even if my complaint does not fit into the definition of a public complaint this does not stop Mr. Campbell from launching a criminal investigation into the matter. Mr. Campbell has not launched a criminal investigation into the matter. Clearly, this is a misconduct by Mr. Campbell. I then received a letter from Ken Leendertse dated Feb 16, 2000, On numerous occasions, when incidents are reported to the front desk, if there is a suspect or additional evidence is required or investigation is needed, the matter is forward to the beat officers for follow up, These investigations are monitored and concluded once every lead is completed or a charge is laid. There are checks and balances in this entire system to ensure that no unsolved matter is addressed. Staff Sergeant Mike Campbell is in charge of the professional standards branch and looks at all public complaints that fall within the framework of the provincial legislation. As far as your complaint against Staff Sergeant Campbell, I have already rendered my decision in the letter dated Feb 08, 2000, and I will no longer entertain any more complaints from you concerning the same. This matter is now concluded. I then sent a letter to Mr. Leendertse dated March 07, 2000, saying. In your letter of Feb 16, 2000, you said.

Once the front desk staff takes the report, it is sent to the patrol supervisor for clearance or follow-up. The divisional staff sergeant also checks the flow of these reports and ensures proper investigation and follow-up. If this is true then when the officer said to the girl you have no suspects so we will just file the complaint he is lying or is incompetent. If he is lying this is obstruction of justice. To determine if he was lying or not lying there should be a criminal investigation. In your letter you also said. Staff Sergeant Mike Campbell is in charge of the professional standards branch and looks at all public complaints that fall within the framework of the provincial legislation. This does not stop him from bringing this matter to the attention of someone who can launch a criminal investigation. In your letter you also said. Unfortunately, you may not possess all the relevant information and under the freedom of information (dealing with your first complaint), you are not entitled to any of this information. I do not believe that the Freedom of Information Act or the Privacy Act stops you from telling me if a charge has been laid in the case and if the neighbor was questioned about what happened. If you do believe that the Freedom of Information Act or the Privacy Act does stop you from giving me this information then please tell me what part of these acts stops you from giving me this information. If these acts do not stop you from telling me if a charge has been laid in this case and if the neighbor has been questioned about what happened then please give me this information. In your letter you also said. Having said this, let me assure you that I have all the confidence in both staff Sergeant Mike Campbell and the organizational system that has been put in place to ensure that our citizens get the best quality service and response from the police that is appropriate. There is no doubt in my mind that the person that you reported was given the appropriate investigation and response. I do not believe that this case was given the appropriate investigation and response and I would ask that you look into the case to see if it was given the appropriate investigation and response instead of assuming that it was. I then appealed the decision of Ken Leendertse dated Feb 14, 2000, The OCCOPS said The panel is satisfied that the decision reached, in this case, is appropriate. The Commission has already dealt with your concerns related to this matter in its decision dated Dec 06, 1999. The OCCOPS further confirms the decision of the Hamilton Regional police service dated Feb 08, 2000. I then filed a complaint against Mr. Leendertse dated July 17, 2000. I then got a letter from Sheila Cuthbertson of OCCOPS dated July 19, 2000, saying.

I have taken your complaint before the Commission which has determined that it will not forward your complaint to the service, nor will it direct Hamilton Wentworth police to investigate. Be advised that the Commission will not accept complaints about public complaint decision makes merely because the complainant disagrees with that decision maker’s decision. info@hamiltonpolice.on.ca Reception: (905) 546-4772

Update of December 31, 2020

7. On March 26, 1999, I went down to the courthouse to file the amended statement of claim from my case against Magna to take out the defendants Karmax Heavy Stamping and Geoff Stanley from the statement of Claim at the courthouse the staff told me that I needed consent from the defendants and a Judge’s order which costs 75 dollars. I then told them that all I need is consent from the defendants again the court staff told me that I needed a Judge’s order. I refused to get a Judge’s order. So I went back home and wrote to the Manager of court operations. In a letter from the manager Cathy Hiuser dated April 07, 1999, he said.

When amending pleadings, specifically when adding, deleting, or substituting a party to the action, the amendment may be done by either (a) with leave of the court (by order) or (b) by the filling with the court consent of all parties including the added deleted or substituted part(s)

I then went down to the courthouse with the letter and showed it to the court staff again they said that I needed a Judge’s order.

I then sent a letter to the manager of court operations dated June 08, 1999, I then got a letter from Brian Horrocks saying.

It is unfortunate that the previous responses, written as well as verbal, face-to-face conversations at our public counters and over our phones, have not explained to your satisfaction the reasons why your documentation does not conform to the rules of civil procedure. Regrettably, there is nothing further that we can add. I then went to the Hamilton police on July 13, 1999, to see about having the court staff charged with obstruction of Justice I talked to Detective Brian Leng badge # 861. I gave him copies of the letters to and from the courthouse and he called Mr. Brian Horrocks and left a message on August 23, 1999, I called Mr. Leng about the case but he did not return my call. On Sept 08, 1999, I sent a fax to him but I still did not hear from him On Oct 26, 1999, I sent him another fax but still did not hear from him. So I then filed a complaint against him on January 03, 2000, I then got a letter from Michael Campbell of the Hamilton Professional Standards branch dated March 07, 2000, saying.

While not wishing to presuppose the issue of your complaint, I have attempted to classify your letter as either a matter of poor service or police misconduct. I have been unable to do so effectively. I have had some difficulty with the following reasons. In the event that I choose to classify your letter as a case of police misconduct. I would then be investigating the actions of Sgt Leng. Regrettably Sgt. Leng has retired from the police service, and therefore I have no jurisdiction to investigate him or to demand that he respond to my inquiries in this matter. The next alternative would be to classify your complaint as a matter of service but I would note that I require more information in order to have a clear allegation of poor service from the police. I will therefore ask some questions in order to better understand what you are seeking and in order to proceed in the appropriate manner. 1) Are you seeking to file a public complaint against the police? Do you seek a conduct complaint or a service complaint? 2) What did Sgt Leng say to you on the date and time of each meeting or telephone call? 3) For example did Sgt. Leng say that he believes an offense had been committed or did he believe that no offense had been committed, or was he non-committal? 4) Please tell the entire story in writing concerning the allegations that you wish to make against the court operations staff. While this may appear to be incidental to the actions of the police. It is important to get a full understanding of what was reported to Sgt. Leng in order to make a determination that he provided poor service or good service. 5) If I have not already been provided with all letters to and from the court operations staff, please provide me with this documentation for the same reasons as in 4 above. I would note that when making an allegation against anyone. It is important to ensure that you are factually correct and that you have told the entire story without leaving out any important details. I would therefore ask you to be cautious, but detailed in providing the narrative of the events. As you are aware, it may be necessary for you to testify under oath concerning these incidents. It is therefore vitally important that you make a full, fair, and complete disclosure of the facts. 6) In all cases of criminal allegations. It is important to demonstrate that there was a criminal intention to commit wrongdoing on the part of the specific person in question. Please provide me with the details of any evidence that supports the allegation that they have intended to commit a crime. (NOTE: again. Please be specific and identify the individual person in question) I believe that you may have dealt with more than one person on a variety of occasions. I would also note that it is not permissible in criminal law to charge the staff of the court operations with the obstruction of justice as a group. People can be charged jointly (named individually) but it requires specific evidence that implicates each of the named persons in the intention to commit a criminal act. 7) Please advise me of the current status of the preparedness of the staff at court operations to accept your documents for filling. 8) Do you allege that the staff at court operations have committed the offense of obstructing justice? If so, please name them specifically and advise me what they have specifically done wrong. (This is effectively a repeat of the questions in 6 above) However, I would like it on the record that you are making this allegation and against whom specifically, your comment that about a problem with the staff obstructing justice is somewhat less precise than the outright allegation. While not wishing to offend or disagree with you. I would note that it is not the job of the court operations to make the decision of the Judges in civil court I am wondering if it was their intention to assist you in filing your documents in the proper manner. I am not an expert on civil law, but it would seem to me that if they accepted inadequate documentation, then in the long run you would have been disappointed and frustrated in the civil matter. (E.g. you may have run the risk of the judge throwing out the case). I believe that the police will have to address this issue in some way. (Disprove it as a defense in order to prove a criminal case of obstructing justice. 9) What submissions can you make or evidence can you offer concerning the possible excuse from the court operations staff that they were trying to help you in filing the documents? I believe that it is premature on my part to decide with finality that your complaint has no value, or that I cannot assist you. I will therefore await your written answers to the questions, and then make the decision that I feel is the most responsible, and accountable. Until that time. I believe that I must classify your complaint as lacking sufficient information to make a complete allegation. Please do not be offended by my classification as it is not intended to upset or annoy you or to make any judgments concerning the fundamental value of your complaint. I then sent a letter to Mr. Campbell dated April 05, 2000, saying.

Sgt Leng retired in Dec of 1999. I called him on Aug 23, 1999, about the case and I sent him a fax on Sept 08, 1999, and on Oct 26, 1999, but I did not hear from him. If he did not do a proper investigation into this case then this is possible obstruction of justice. In your letter of March 07, 2000, you do not address this issue. Why not? There is sufficient evidence in my letter for obstruction of justice. But in your letter of March 07, 2000, you do not address this issue. Why not? The letters that I gave to Detective Leng have sufficient evidence in them to launch a criminal investigation against the court staff. B since detective Leng retired no one has worked on this case. This is clearly a service complaint. Again your letter of March 07, 2000, does not address this issue. Why not? I then got a letter from Mr. Campbell dated April 09, 2000, saying. I will not be answering the questions contained in your letter of the 05 of April. I have asked you to identify the issue of your complaint against Sgt Leng and your intentions. I would recommend that you provide a detailed witness statement to explain all of your direct evidence in the matter. I have attempted to assist you in this regard by asking questions that would tend to prompt such a statement. I believe that I have been candid in explaining what is happening and why I am asking the questions. I therefore don’t believe that you should interpret any of my questions as being tricky. I then filed an appeal of his decision to the OCCOPS. The appeal was denied. I then filed a complaint against Mr. Campbell but did not receive a response back. info@hamiltonpolice.on.ca Reception: (905) 546-4772

Update of January 03, 2021

8. On Jan 13, 2000, I filed a complaint against Officer Hunt saying.

On July 15, 2000, I went to the mountain police station in Hamilton to file a charge of threatening death. At the station, I was told that an officer at the desk could not take a report about it and that an officer has to come in from outside the station to take a report about it. After waiting about 30 minutes they told me that it could be another 30 minutes to an hour before an officer could come in from outside because they are busy and that the officer at the front desk could take the report and someone will call me and re-interview me. About one month later. I went back to the station because no one had called. I was told that Officer Hunt badge # 100 had been put on the case. I was told to call the station on Friday but I was too busy to call. In Nov 1999, I still had not heard from Officer Hunt so I went to the station and made arrangements with Officer Hunt to meet with her the next day. When I meet with her the next day I told her what happened that night she called me and said that she spoke to a witness she told her that the witness said that the suspect said guys like him deserve to get the shit beaten out of them. Officer Hunt then said that is not threatening because the suspect was not talking about you. This is still threatening because he said guys like him. When he said this he was talking about me. Officer Hunt then said that the officer who took the original report did an investigation and may have talked to the suspect. She said she will leave him an email. I still have not heard from the officer who took the original report. His badge # is 492 nor have I heard from Officer Hunt. I then got a letter from Michael Campbell Hamilton police professional standards branch dated Feb 08, 2000, Saying.

I am uncertain what you are seeking in this matter, and I would ask the following questions to better understand what the issues are 1) Do you seek to have the person who made the alleged threats charged? 2) Do you seek to file a conduct complaint against a specific officer? If so then please advise me which officer and for what reason. Please provide me with additional details to fill in the actions of the officer that constitute misconduct in your view. 3) Do you seek an update on the investigation of your case? I then sent Mr. Campbell a letter dated Feb 21, 2000, saying.

Complaint. After four months I had not been re-interviewed so I had to go to the police station to find out what was going on with the case. Complaint Officer Hunt said guys like him deserve to get the shit beaten out of them was not threatening because the suspect was not talking about me. But when the suspect said guys like him he was talking about me. So it is threatening. Complaint I still have not had an update on my case from Officer Hunt or the Officer who took the original report. I then got a letter from Mr. Campbell dated Feb 24, 2000, saying.

The investigation into your threatening complaint is still ongoing. The investigation has not been concluded yet. The police service has been unable to identify the person who is alleged to have committed the offense of threatening. The police service has attempted to arrange for the suspect to call the police by leaving a business card of the investigating officer. We have been advised that the suspect did receive the card and he has chosen not to contact the police. As a result of your discussion with Officer Hunt on the 02 of Nov, the license numbers that you provided have been checked and there was no one identified who matched the first name of the suspect as provided by you. Further action will have to be taken in order to determine the identity of the suspect if possible. If you believe that you would be able to identify the suspect by viewing photographs, then I would suggest that this may be the next appropriate step. As you know, Officer WELSH is currently assigned this investigation. I will therefore ask Officer WELSH to consider what he believes to be the next appropriate step. He should then contact you to inform you of his decision. Classification of your complaint ISSUE Officer Hunt said guys like him deserve to get the shit beaten out of them was not threatening because the suspect was not talking about me. But when the suspect said guys like him he was talking about me. So it was threatening. I believe that this is an irrelevant issue at this time because the police service has been unable to identify the suspect in this matter. Officer Hunt was likely discussing this case with you in an open and positive manner so that you would be aware of her concerns respecting the inherent difficulties of prosecuting this case. The issue of whether or not an offense has been committed will become relevant only when a suspect has been identified. If at that time, the Officer in charge of the investigation (P.C.D. WELSH concludes that there is insufficient or inconclusive evidence of a threat, and then he will provide you with an occurrence number and ensure that you are informed of your opinion to lay a charge before a justice of the peace. The opinion of the justice of the peace will determine whether or not there will be process issued in this matter. Should the police lay the charge then I presume that you will be content with that decision. I am not of the view that it would be productive to argue the merits of the evidence (E.G. has an offense been committed) until such time as all of the evidence has been gathered. If the suspect is identified and interviewed then he may provide some incriminating evidence. My own view is that this could be very important evidence to the case. Further, it is unproductive to debate the comments of an Officer who is not currently in charge of the investigation. Debating your opinion about the law in response to an officer’s comments is a trivial and irrelevant matter. The point being made here is not that the law is irrelevant but rather that debating our opinion concerning the law is irrelevant. What will ultimately count is the opinion of the appropriate authorities once all of the evidence has been collected (E.G. the justice of the peace or a judge) ISSUE After four months I have not been re-interviewed so I had to go to the police station to find out what was going on with the case. Despite what you understood from the reception desk Officer, there is nothing that specifically requires the Officer assigned this case to re-interview you within a specific time period. Your initial complaint was recorded by the first Officer. In actuality, repetitive statements from the complainant (yourself) can work to the disadvantage of the prosecution. In the event that Officer WELSH believes that he must re-interview you, then it will be his decision when or if that should occur. I have checked the reports and I am certain that the Officer in charge of the case (D. WELSH) did in fact work on this investigation. But I have been advised that he had some time off during the interim. He is the Officer assigned to the case. I believe that it can be extremely inefficient to assign cases back and forth between the Officers. The more Officers involved in the investigation the more witnesses that will be required in court thereby leaving greater opportunities for the defense lawyers to cross-examine for contradictory testimony. In addition, there is a far greater potential for communication failure. In the long run, you would be better served by having one Officer tasked with the investigation. ISSUE I still have not had an update on my case from Officer Hunt or the Officer who took the original report. Officer WELSH is assigned this investigation and therefore Officer Hunt actually did more than was expected of her. I have checked the reports, and I can state that Office WELSH was advised that you received an update from Officer Hunt in Nov of 1999, Unfortunately, you did not receive an update since that time. I would note that Officer WELSH was left in the position of waiting for the suspect to call him back, and he had no specific timeline of when to expect the call. Further, during this time Officer WELSH had very little new information to report to you. This situation was not helped by the fact that Officer WELSH had some time off. I don’t believe that it is appropriate to punish Officer WELSH for the fact that he had time off. (Such matters are beyond the individual’s control when due to sickness, and in cases of normal benefits such as holidays they are a matter of contract) I would also note that my understanding of the events is slightly different than your own. Officer HUNT states that she suggested that either Officer WELSH can call you, or you may contact him. I, therefore, am uncertain if your understanding of the conversation was different, or if in the alternative you merely elected not to call and chose to wait. I am not certain that this necessarily has a large impact on the merits of your complaint against the police service, however, I do wish to suggest that I believe that you would have received more timely updates from the Officer if you had left a phone message or two for him. While the police are clearly the agency tasked with this investigation we do need your help and assistance. In reading all of the material that was available to me in this matter, I do not understand why the police were not provided with the list of license plate numbers (from the parking lot) until Nov. Perhaps there is a simple explanation for this, and I would suggest that you may choose to inform Officer WELSH by phone or by letter as to how this occurred. Having said all of this. I would hasten to add that I am not unsympathetic to your complaint. I have attempted to understand the frustrations that you experienced from your point of view, and I would advise you that I do have some empathy for what you appear to have experienced. I am of the belief that you are entitled to an update on the final conclusion of your case and that the police service should advise you when that juncture has been reached. At that time, you may consider your opinions in this matter. In effect, I believe that considering all of the circumstances your public complaint about the handling of this case is premature at this time. I would be prepared to re-examine the issue at the conclusion of the investigation. In balancing the facts of this case. I am of the view that this is a situation where the law concerning public complaints does not actually provide you with a remedy. The service issue of your complaint is premature due to the fact that the police have been unable to identify the suspect and they are still working on the investigation. The potential conduct issues are inappropriate for a variety of reasons; the apparent miscommunications are not a misconduct as defined in the police services act. And your disagreement with the opinions expressed by the Officer about the law are trivial and irrelevant. I then sent a letter to Mr. Campbell dated March 17, 2000, saying.

In your letter you said. The investigation into your threatening complaint is still ongoing. The investigation has not been concluded yet. The police service has been unable to identify the person who is alleged to have committed the offense of threatening. The police service has attempted to arrange for the suspect to call the police by leaving a business card of the investigating officer. We have been advised that the suspect did receive the card and he has chosen not to contact the police. I would note that Officer WELSH was left in the position of waiting for the suspect to call him back, and he had no specific timeline of when to expect the call. Further, during this time Officer WELSH had very little new information to report to you.

The threatening happened at a bar Officer Welsh should have gone to the bar and asked the bartenders if they knew the name of the suspect and asked the customers if they knew the name of the suspect as well as leaving a business card of the investigating officer. It has been six months since the threatening happened this is plenty of time for Officer Welsh to do these things. This clearly shows that Officer Welsh is dragging his feet with this investigation or is incompetent. Either one of these things is a misconduct. In your letter you also said. This situation was not helped by the fact that Officer WELSH had some time off. I don’t believe that it is appropriate to punish Officer WELSH for the fact that he had time off. (Such matters are beyond the individual’s control when due to sickness, and in cases of normal benefits such as holidays they are a matter of contract) If Officer Welsh had so much time off in the past six months that he could not do a proper investigation then a new Officer should have been put on the case. This clearly shows that they are dragging their feet with this investigation or are incompetent and either one of these things is a misconduct. In my letter of Jan 13, 2000, I said.

I was told that the Officer at the desk cannot take a report about this and that an Officer has to come in from outside the station to take the report. But in your letter of Feb 24, 2000, you said.

Despite what you understood from the reception desk Officer, there is nothing that specifically requires the Officer assigned this case to re-interview you within a specific time period. Your initial complaint was recorded by the first Officer. In actuality, repetitive statements from the complaint (yourself) can work to the disadvantage of the prosecution. In the event that Officer Welsh believes that he must re-interview you. Then it will be his decision when or if that should occur. When the officer at the desk told me that the Officer at the desk cannot take a report about this and that an Officer has to come in from outside the station to take the report he was lying or is incompetent and either one of these things is a misconduct. In your letter you also said. While the police are clearly the agency tasked with this investigation we do need your help and assistance. In reading all of the material that was available to me in this matter, I do not understand why the police were not provided with the list of license plate numbers (from the parking lot) until Nov. Perhaps there is a simple explanation for this, and I would suggest that you may choose to inform Officer WELSH by phone or by letter as to how this occurred. The reason that the police were not provided with the list of license plate numbers (from the parking lot) until Nov was because the Officer at the front desk told me to give them to the Officer who re-interviews me. Again when the Officer told me to give them to the Officer who re-interviewed me he was lying or is incompetent and either one of these things is a misconduct. In my letter of Jan 13, 2000, I said. About one month later I went back to the police station because no one had called me. I was told that Officer Hunt # 100 had been put on the case. But in your letter of Feb 24, 2000, you said, Officer Welsh is assigned this investigation, and therefore Officer Hunt actually did more than was expected of her. So when the Officer at the desk told me that Officer Hunt had been put on the case this was not true. So the Officer who told me this or someone else is incompetent. But in your letter of Feb 24, 2000, you do not address this issue. In your letter you also said. As a result of your discussions with Officer Hunt on the 02 of Nov, the license numbers that you provided have been checked and there was no one identified who matched the first name of the suspect as provided by you. Officer Hunt or Officer Welsh should have gone to the address of the license numbers to see if the suspect lived there. Because the suspect could have been driving his wife’s car. They should have also gone to the addresses of the license numbers to see if anyone knew the suspect because he could have been driving a friend’s car or they may know the name of the suspect. In your letter you also said.

I will deal with the issue that you have identified in your letter of the 21^st of Feb. ISSUE Officer Hunt said guys like him deserve to get the shit beaten out of them was not threatening because the suspect was not talking about me. But when the suspect said guys like him he was talking about me. So it was threatening. I believe that this is an irrelevant issue at this time because the police service has been unable to identify the suspect in this matter. Officer Hunt was likely discussing this case with you in an open and positive manner so that you would be aware of her concerns respecting the inherent difficulties of prosecuting this case. Officer Hunt did not say anything about the inherent difficulties of prosecuting this case. What she said is that she spoke to a witness and the witness said they heard the suspect say guys like him deserve to get the shit beaten out of them. Officer Hunt then said that was not threatening because the suspect was not talking about me. When Officer Hunt said that guys like him deserve to get the shit beaten out of them was not threatening because the suspect was not talking about me she was lying or is incompetent and either one of these things is a misconduct. If Officer Hunt was lying this is also obstruction of justice. It appears that you did not do a proper investigation into my complaint of January 13, 2000. I then got a letter from Mr. Campbell dated March 20, 2000, saying.

You have appealed my decision as contained in my letter of the 24 of Feb 2000. Your most recent letter amounts to submissions respecting my decision. In other words, you are explaining why you believe that I am wrong in the position that I have taken I am forwarding a copy of this letter to the OCCOPS. If this is not your intention in sending this letter, then please advise me as soon as possible.

I then sent Mr. Campbell a letter dated May 02, 2000, saying.

The same things as in the letter of March 17, 2000, At the end of each paragraph I ask him you have not addressed this issue why not? I then got a letter from him Dated June 02, 2000, saying.

I have forwarded your letter to the OCCOPS because it relates to your original letter of complaint respecting the investigation of your threatening complaint. Classification of that matter is presently under review by the OCCOPS. Please advise me if this was consistent with your intentions.

I then got a letter from OCCOPS dated July 31, 2000, saying.

We reviewed the entire contents of your file that included your initial complaint your subsequent correspondence, the investigation file provided by the Hamilton police, and the decision by Staff Sergeant Campbell. On review, the panel determined that the file should be returned to the Hamilton police for further investigation. I then got a letter from Inspector John Daniels of the Hamilton police dated Feb 28, 2001, saying.

I find that Constable Welsh failed to communicate appropriately with you in this matter. The Officer’s initial report from July 16, 2000, indicates that the investigation is continuing. As such, Officer Welsh should have at some point, contacted you to advise you that he had not heard from the suspect. It is my finding that you and any other complaint have a legitimate expectation to be updated on the status of an investigation. This is critical to our wish to extend courtesy and quality service to members of our community. I further find that P.C. Welsh did not contact you even after hearing from P.C. Hunt P.C. Hunt’s report indicates that she told you she would advise P.C. Welsh of the fact that you had inquired about the investigation. Again, as a matter of courtesy and quality service and our obligation to victims. P.C. Welsh should have made contact with you. It is my recommendation that Officer Welsh receive verbal counseling regarding this matter. As the Officer in charge of the case, he had the obligation to keep you informed as to the process of his investigation. Mr. Burgiss, the interaction between the police and the public we serve is of great concern to this police service. I wish to assure you that we strive to maintain professional conduct on the part of all of our Police Officers and we monitor employee behavior and performance on an ongoing basis.

I then appealed the decision of John Daniels to OCCOPS. The appeal was denied. I then filed a complaint against John Daniels. In a letter from Dr. John A. Balkwill Vice-Chair OCCOPS dated July 27, 2001, he said.

In your current correspondence, you allege that Officer Daniels, whom I assume is Inspector John Daniels, is lying or is incompetent. This is based on your letters of March 17, 2000, March 22, 2000, and May 02, 2000. Part v of the Police Services Act was drafted to provide fairness both to complaints as well as police Officers. Provisions in the act expect complaints to be brought in a timely fashion i.e. within 6 months, yet these letters were written more than a year ago. Further, on Feb 20, 2001, you were notified in writing that the Hamilton police service did not have sufficient evidence to support the laying of a charge and thus were dropping their investigation of the incident. They also advised you of your right to lay your own information before a Justice of the Peace. Given that this complaint stems from an incident that occurred on July 15, 1999, some two years ago, and the extraordinary attempts by the Hamilton police service to satisfy your concerns, the Commission has concluded it is not able to assist you any further. My complaint letter against Michael Campbell was also sent to the Hamilton police I then got a letter from Kenneth Leendertse saying. As per the OCCOPS letter dated May 15, 2000, we will no longer be investigating this complaint. info@hamiltonpolice.on.ca Reception: (905) 546-4772

Update of January 04, 2021

9. On October 09, 2001, I filed a complaint against a police officer saying. On about April 13, 2001, at about 3:30 am. I saw a car down my street with its trunk open and someone walking around it. I then called the police. A neighbor then pulled into his driveway then someone ran past the neighbor and the car and tried to close the trunk of the car as they ran past it. When the police got there the neighbor said that he saw two guys carrying a snowblower down the street and that they tried to hide it in the bushes when they saw the neighbor. The officer ran the license plate of the car and the dispatcher called the owner of the car. The owner said that her son was out with the car tonight. I asked the officer if the snowblower would be fingerprinted she said probably not. I feel that the snowblower should have been fingerprinted because the police have the license plate of the car and the fingerprints on the snowblower may match someone from the family of the owner of the car. I sent the same letter to the Chief of Hamilton police. I then got a letter from Debbie Clark Staff Sergeant Professional Standards Branch Hamilton police dated Oct 22, 2001, saying.

I find that you are not directly affected by the circumstances contained within your complaint. Pursuant to section 59(4) of the police services act, therefore I will not take further action on your complaint. I would hasten to add that my classification in these matters is a judgment made solely on the basis of your allegation. My classification is not meant to be a determination as to the likelihood of the officer having committed the misconduct.I then sent a letter to Debbie Clark saying. The officer may not have fingerprinted the snowblower because police officers are under pressure to save money. If this is true then what the officer did is possible obstruction of justice. A criminal investigation would determine this. Why has a criminal investigation not been done? I did not hear back from her. info@hamiltonpolice.on.ca Reception: (905) 546-4772

Update of January 07, 2021

10. On Nov 28, 2001, I got in a fight with my dad because he attacked me. But I got arrested. I was arrested under the Mental Health Act. The mental health act says Action by police officer 17 Where a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person is acting or has acted in a disorderly manner and has reasonable cause to believe that the person, (a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself; (b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or (c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself, and in addition, the police officer is of the opinion that the person is apparently suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in, (d) serious bodily harm to the person; (e) serious bodily harm to another person; or (f) serious physical impairment of the person, and that it would be dangerous to proceed under section16, the police officer may take the person in custody to an appropriate place for examination by a physician. At the hospital, they examined me and said there is nothing wrong with him. I was arrested by Officer Paul Johnston and Officer Kathryn Czemerynski I filed a complaint against them. Staff Sergeant Debbie Clark of the Hamilton police professional standards branch said in a letter dated January 09, 2002. Pursuant to section 59(3) of the police services act. I will not take further action on your complaint because it is insufficient on its face. I must classify your complaint as frivolous because it does not contain enough evidence. I appealed her decision to the OCCOPS saying that there has to be evidence of me wanting to hurt myself or someone else. The appeal was denied. I called the Hamilton police sometime after the appeal to talk to the Chief they put me through to Debbie Clark. In this phone call, she admitted that there was no evidence of me being a danger to myself or anyone else also that the Chief of police in Hamilton Ken Robertson knows that complaints against police are being covered up. info@hamiltonpolice.on.ca

Reception: (905) 546-4772

Update of January 17, 2021

11. On September 15, 2003, I wrote to William H. Malpass Executive Director Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police to tell him about police officers covering up crimes in Hamilton. So he could pass a message on to the other chiefs of police in Ontario so they could check to see if the same thing was going on in their police service. He did not respond. So I wrote to him again on October 10, 2003, He then sent me a letter on December 01, 2003, saying it is not necessary for our Association to correspond or discuss this matter with you any further. PHONE 416-926-0424

12. On December 29, 2003, I wrote to the Hamilton Police Services Board saying on December 15 & 16, 2003, I called the office of the new Chief of police in Hamilton Brian Mullen. About complaints, I had filed from March 1999 to January 2002, about officers lying because they are under pressure to save money. On December 16, 2003, the office of the Chief of Police called me back and said that the Chief of police says that there is nothing that he can do about it because the complaints have gone through the Ontario Civilian Commission on police services. Some of my complaints are criminal complaints and the OCCOPS does not deal with criminal complaints against police. So the Chief of police is not doing enough about it. The Board then sent me a letter dated January 19, 2004, from Bernie Morelli Chairmen of Hamilton Police Services board saying. Please be advised that we have no information whatsoever in respect of any criminal complaints that you may have against any police officer employed by the Hamilton Police Service. If you have any specific complaints, criminal or otherwise, against the Hamilton police service, please provide the board, in Writing, with the particulars. You may rest assured if any bone-fide criminal complaints will receive the appropriate attention from this service. As such the board will not take any action. info@hamiltonpolice.on.ca Reception: (905) 546-4772

13. On April 19, 2005, my dad told me to get out of the house. I told him I had nowhere to go so I am not leaving. So, he called the police. The officer asked me if I would leave the house, and I told him that I was not leaving. So he put me in the back of his car and took me to the Wellesley Center and let me go. The badge number of the officers is 188 and 959. I then filed a complaint against the officers saying that I was falsely arrested. Because to charge me with trespass they need to have both the owners of the house sign a complaint, But my mother would not sign a complaint against me. After I was let go at the Wellesley Center I walked back home. My father called the police again and I was again arrested. When I was in the back of the police car the officer was on his cell phone. I could hear him talking to someone. And he said something about taking me to St. Jose. I told him that he did not have enough to take me to St. Jose because the Mental Health Act says that someone must be delusional and a danger to themselves or someone else. But the officer took me to St. Jose anyway. St. Jose’s checked me out and said that there was not enough to hold me. I then filed a complaint against the officer who took me to St. Jose’s Saying my complaint is that I was falsely arrested again because there is no evidence of me being delusional or a danger to myself or someone else. After I left St Jose I went back home that morning April 20, 2005, my father called the police again and again I was arrested. After I was arrested the officer took the keys for my garage off of me and gave them to my father. I was then taken to the Salvation Army by the police and let go. After I went back home again. The badge number of the officers is 985 and 85. I then filed a complaint against the officers who arrested me saying I was falsely arrested because for them to charge me with trespass both the owners of the house have to sign the complaint against me. And that the police had no right to take the keys for my garage off of me and give them to my dad. After I was let go at the Salvation Army I went back home I was arrested again by the same two police officers who arrested me before (badge number 985 and 85) This time I was taken to the central police station. When I was being booked the officer who arrested me was in the washroom and when he came out of the washroom he said something about someone not being here and to let me go. The officer who arrested me then put the handcuffs on me again and took me to the Wellesley Center and let me go. I then filed a complaint against him saying That I was falsely arrested because for them to charge me with trespass both the owners of the house have to sign the complaint. After I was let go at the Wellesley Center I walked back home. I was again arrested by the same two officers (985 and 85) This time I was read my rights and taken to the central station. When we went inside the officer at the desk asked the officer who arrested me what the charge was he said unlawfully staying in a dwelling. The day after I was arrested they changed the charge to mischief. Because they knew they did not have enough to charge me with trespass. I then filed a complaint against the officers who arrested me saying. I was again falsely arrested because unlawfully in a dwelling is trespass and for them to charge me with trespassing both the owners have to sign the complaint. But my mother would not sign the complaint.I then got a letter from Jack Coruzzi of the Hamilton police dated Dec 01, 2005, saying You state that you were falsely arrested because for the police to charge you with trespassing the officers would need both owners of the house to sign the complaint. You were not charged with trespassing. The evidence of Constable Mitchell is that you were asked only once if you would turn over your father’s keys for the home and garage. You voiced your objection to the officers but complied and provided the keys. Under Section 17 of the MHA, police Officers may apprehend a person for transportation to a psychiatric facility where the following requirements are met. The officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the person is acting or has acted in a disorderly manner. Disorderly has been interpreted broadly to include behavior that appears to be to some extent irrational although not unruly and the officer has reasonable cause that the person (a) has threatened or is threatening to cause harm to himself or herself or (b) has attempted or is attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself or (c) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person o r (d) has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from self or (e)has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself and the officer is of the opinion that the person is apparently suffering from mental disorder that will likely result in(a) serious bodily harm to self or others or (b) serious physical impairment of self Serious physical impairment of self refers to lack of ability to care for oneself – example wandering outside in below freezing temperatures, residing in a facility without heat, etc and the officer is of the opinion that it would be dangerous to proceed by way of an application to a justice of the peace (under s 16) P.C. Mithell P.C. Adams P.C. Sterling P.C. Fletcher P.C. Beckford Superintendent K. Bond P.C. Rashford Superintendent J. Petz Professional standards branch. I then appealed the decision of Jack Coruzzi saying That he does not mention any evidence for the arrests under the Mental Health Act and he does not say I am wrong about the trespassing act.

I then got a letter from Farideh Irandoust dated April 24, 2006, from OCCOPS saying.

Upon review, the panel determined that the decision of Inspector Coruzzi was reasonable given the circumstances and taking all the information into consideration. The panel is aware of your concerns, however, there are not sufficient grounds or reasons to change the decision made under s 64(6) of the police services act. Therefore the commission confirms the decision of the Hamilton police service in this matter. info@hamiltonpolice.on.ca Reception: (905) 546-4772

14. On July 15, 2007, I filed a complaint against a police officer saying. On July 15, 2007, at about 12:30 am I was at the 7 eleven at 810 Main Street East in Hamilton. There was a police officer in the store the officer picked up a drink and nodded his head at the person who was running the store. As the officer went past me I said to him you have to pay for that I repeated it a couple of times. He just walked past me. I then went out to the officer’s car and asked him for his badge number. But he just looks at me and said nothing. So I looked at the car number it was 311. My complaint is that officers did not pay for the drink and police officers are not allowed to receive free gifts. There was a security camera in the store. I do not know how long it is until they tape over the tape. So the tape should be looked at. I then got a letter from Nancy Goodes-Ritchie Acting staff sergeant professional standards branch dated July 18, 2007, saying I will not take further action on your complaint, pursuant to section 59(5) of the police services act. However, we will be conducting an internal investigation and you may be contacted as a result. I then appealed that decision saying.

On July 15, 2007, I filed a complaint against a Hamilton police officer for taking a free gift. In a letter from the Goodes-Ritchie, she said that I will not take further action on your complaint, pursuant to section 59(5) of the police services act 59(5) of the police services act says the chief of police shall not deal with any complaint made by a member of the public if he or she decides that the complainant was not directly affected by the policy, service or conduct that is the subject of the complaint. I was directly affected by the conduct of the officer that I complained about because I do not trust the police now and I am getting the feeling that the Hamilton police are not to be trusted. This is a direct effect of the conduct of the officer that night. In my letter of July 15, 2007,

I complained about the officer not telling me his badge number when I asked for it. From what I understand a police officer must tell someone their badge number if they ask for it. I was clearly directly affected by this because I was the person asking for the badge number.

I then got a letter from Christine Zabieiski from the OCCOPS saying.

Upon review the panel is satisfied that the decision of the Hamilton police service is appropriate. Accordingly, the commission confirms the decision, and no further action will be taken in this matter pursuant to s 59(5) of the police services act. info@hamiltonpolice.on.ca Reception: (905) 546-4772

15. I have tried to get this in the news. I have tried CHCH news in Hamilton Ontario but they said that they will not do a story about it. Here is their Phone number (905)522-1101 X 2251 and email address tips@chch.com Please call and email them and complain. I have tried the Hamilton Spectator but they said the same thing. The Spectator would not even let me put an ad in their paper for my website. Here is their phone number 1 800 263 8386 and email address letters@thespec.com Please call and email them and complain. I have also tried CHML the Bill Kelly show but they said the same thing here is their phone number 905-645-3221 and their email address bkelly@900chml.com Please call and email them and complain. I have tried the Toronto Sun but they said the same thing here is their phone number 1-800-668-0786 and email address eservices@sunmedia.ca I have also tried the Toronto Star they said the same thing. (416) 947-2111 the Toronto star 416-869-4300 city@thestar.ca I have also tried the CBC they said the same thing Toronto 416-205-5808 tonews@cbc.ca CBC Hamilton 905-524-1985 rick.hughes@cbc.ca I even tried the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission. (CRTC) They said that there is nothing they can do about the news media not doing news stories about police complaints being covered up. I even tried The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) they said that they only do investigations about stories that the news media report on. And do not do investigations about stories that the news media does not report on. I also tried CNN, 60 minutes

16. On October 19, 2009, The Office of the independent police review director opened (OIPRD) The first complaint I filed with them was Dated 09/02/2010 I went to the Halton police service to see about having my former employer Magna International charged with criminal defamation section 300 0f the criminal code of Canada. The officer I dealt with was Ann Robertson she started an investigation. On February 08, 2010, she called me and told me that she was dropping the investigation. Saying that Magna writing the unemployment insurance about why they fired me was a privilege occasion because Magna was mandated by law to tell UI the reason they fired me. This is true but they cannot lie to UI. The OIPRD threw out my complaint saying that it was not in the public interest to investigate the complaint because the officer was right in dropping the investigation. The OIPRD said that they went on what was in my complaint which did not give reasons why the officer was wrong for dropping the investigation. But the OIPRD could have called me or emailed me if they needed more information. But they did not they just threw out my complaint. oiprd@ontario.ca Toll-free phone: 1-877-411-4773

17. The OIPRD does not deal with criminal complaints against police. The reason I know this is because there are no limitation periods on criminal charges in Canada. But there is a six-month limitation period for filing a complaint with the OIPRD. So if the OIPRD dealt with criminal complaints against police that would mean that there is a special six-month limitation period on filing a criminal complaint against a police officer. oiprd@ontario.ca Toll-free phone: 1-877-411-4773

Update of February 11, 2021

18. On December 12, 2009, I went to the Hamilton police central station to see about having charges filed against Officer Michael Campbell from the professional standards branch for obstruction of justice for covering up my complaint in paragraph 8 of this website. I talked to Officer Mike Fazari badge number 69; He refused to file the charge. He said it was not an obstruction of justice you filed the complaint and then appealed the decision with OCCOPS and the appeal was denied. He then said would I like to speak to his supervisor. I said yes. Then Officer Nancy Goodes Ritchie came down and she said that it is not an obstruction of justice. I then asked her to explain the decision of Michael Campbell from the professional standards branch. She then said. Do I want a staff sergeant to take my complaint against her? I said yes. I then filed a complaint against both the officer at the front desk badge number 69 and Nancy Goodes Ritchie. with the OIPRD. They then said in a letter of January 05, 2010, from Federico Dela Torre. The OIPRD is aware of your concerns. Unfortunately, the OIPRD does not have the authority to deal with your complaint. We cannot proceed with your complaint as the incidents in 2005 you have referred to predate October 19, 2009, the date on which the legislation that established the OIPRD was proclaimed in force. Given that the original incident predates October 19, 2009, and gave rise to a subsequent incident on December 12, 2009, you may wish to send your complaint to the attention of the Hamilton police. This does not make sense. The incidents in 2005 that I want to be investigated are criminal complaints and the OIPRD does not investigate criminal complaints against police. And there is a six-month limitation period for filing a complaint against a police officer with the OIPRD. So clearly it is the incident on December 12, 2009, that I am complaining to the OIPRD about. I then filed an internal complaint against Federico Dela Torre saying that it is the incident on December 12, 2009, that I am complaining to the OIPRD. I then got an email from Susan Dunn Lundy dated January 11, 2010, saying.

According to the police services act, OIPRD can only deal with complaints about incidents that took place on or after October 19, 2009, although you went to the Hamilton police after that date, your complaint is about an alleged obstruction of justice that took place in 2005. As a result, the OIPRD cannot deal with it. It must be dealt with under the previous police complaint system. What the OIPRD is talking about is section 98 of the police services act which says Transition 98 (1) Complaints made under the old Part V shall continue to be dealt with in accordance with the old Part V. 2007, c. 5, s. 10. Same (2) If a complaint about a policy of or service provided by a police force or the conduct of a police officer is made on or after the day the old Part V is repealed, but the event to which the complaint relates occurred before the repeal of the old Part V, the complaint shall be dealt with in accordance with the old Part V. 2007, c. 5, s. 10. Definition (3) In this section, “old Part V” means Part V of this Act, as it read immediately before its repeal by section 10 of the Independent Police Review Act, 2007. 2007, c. 5, s. 10. When it says Transition it means transiting from the old police complaints system with (OCCOPS) to the new police complaints system with (OIPRD). So when it says the old police complaints system This means it has to be dealt with by the OCCOPS. When it says but the event to which the complaint relates this means the police misconduct that you are complaining about. Not the criminal conduct that you are complaining to the police about. If it means the criminal conduct that you are complaining to the police about then the OCCOPS the old police complaints system would never go away. And the office of the OCCOPS would never close.

I then wrote to the Director of the OIPRD Gerry McNelly he said in a letter of February 26, 2010,

I have reviewed your email correspondence in this matter. Based upon my review, I agree with the responses and position you have been provided with by Ms. Dunn-Lundy, specifically that your matter predates the OIPRD proclamation date of October 19, 2009, your email sent January 26, 2010, indicates that you are making an internal complaint against Ms. Dunn-Lundy based upon my review, Ms. Dunn-Lundy conducted her duties and responsibilities in accordance with the OIPRD legislation. As such, there is no validity in your complaint against Ms. Dunn-Lundy. The fact that the OCCOPS office is now closed is evidence that I am right. info@hamiltonpolice.on.ca Reception: (905) 546-4772oiprd@ontario.ca Toll-free phone: 1-877-411-4773

Update of February 20, 2021

19. On May 27, 2003, I wrote to the RCMP saying. My name is Robert Burgiss, I have uncovered evidence that some people in the justice system are lying because they are under pressure to save money. I have filed complaints against police officers but all I get is more lies (copy of complaints and recording of phone calls with Police services board and office of the Chief of police enclosed). I have also written to the Premier, Dalton McGuinty, and Howard Hampton but they are not willing to do anything about it. I then wrote to the RCMP Commissioner G. Zaccardelli on June 13, 2003; saying.

My name is Robert Burgiss, On May 27, 2003, I sent a letter to the RCMP but I have not received a response. So I have sent a copy of the letter to you. I then wrote to the Commissioner G. Zaccardelli again on July 26, 2003, saying.

My name is Robert Burgiss, on June 13, 2003; I sent you a letter but have not received a response. I then wrote to the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP dated September 26, 2003; saying.

To whom it may concern. My name is Robert Burgiss, on May 27, 2003; I wrote to the RCMP about the Hamilton police service but I did not hear from them. On June 13, 2003; and July 26, 2003; I wrote to the Commissioner of the RCMP G. Zaccardelli about the same thing (copies of letters enclosed. But I still have not received a response. I then got a letter from the Glenn Hansen from the Commission for public complaints against the RCMP. Dated October 29, 2003; saying.

This will acknowledge receipt of the documents you sent to this office and to advise you that I was unable to identify specific issues related to the conduct of an RCMP member. I am, therefore, writing to clarify for you the mandate of the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP. This Commission was established by Parliament to oversee the public policing activities of the RCMP. Part 7 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act (RCMP Act) describes the mandate of this Commission. Its mandate is to review “the conduct, in performance of any duty or function under the {RCMP} act, of any member [of the RCMP]” Taken as a whole, the concerns outlined in your letter do not appear to qualify as conduct of the RCMP in the performance of a duty or function under the act and, therefore, do not fall within this Commission’s mandate. As a result, this Commission has no role to play in resolving the issue you have raised in your letter. According, we will be unable to process your concerns as a public complaint under part 7 of the RCMP act. I then wrote back to him on November 06, 2003; saying. My letters to RCMP Commissioner G. Zaccardelli show some possible criminal activity by some Hamilton Police Officers. The RCMP investigates that kind of thing but Commissioner Zaccardelli has not responded to my letters. I then wrote to him again on December 12, 2003; saying. Dear Mr. Hansen on November 06, 2003; I sent letter about your letter of October 29, 2003; But I have not received a response. (copy of November 06, 2003; letter enclosed). I then got a letter from Loraine Blommaert Enquiries and complaints analyst from the Commission for Public complaints against the RCMP dated December 29, 2003; saying.

As indicated in our previous correspondence, our Commission does not have the mandate to address the issues you have raised in the large package of correspondence, which you provided to us with a covering letter dated September 26, 2003; RCMP Sergeant M. V. Shaver, Manager Public Complaint Unit, Professional Standards, and External Review has agreed to examine your material. For your convenience, I have forwarded your correspondence to him on this day. I then got a letter from L. Morel, Acting Director Professional Standards and External Review Dated January 20, 2004; saying. Your correspondence, addressed to the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), requesting his intervention in a matter involving yourself and the Hamilton Police Service refers. The Police Services Act, in effect in the province of Ontario, gives the RCMP no mandate to become involved in the matter you describe. In view of the similar responses you have received from the Hamilton Police Service, the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, and the Ministry of the Attorney General, I can only repeat the suggestion that, if you wish to pursue this matter, you seek legal advice. Notwithstanding, in order to comply with our own departmental policy, I will carbon copy this correspondence to the Chief of Hamilton Police Service. I then wrote to L. Morel Acting Director Professional Standards and External Review RCMP saying.

In your letter of January 20, 2004; you said the police services act in effect in the province of Ontario, gives the RCMP no mandate to become involved in the matter you describe. The RCMP just finished an investigation into some Toronto police officers. So if what you are saying in your letter of January 20, 2004 is true then please explain how the RCMP investigated the Toronto police. Where in the police services act does it say the RCMP have no mandate to become involved in the matter that I describe? I then got a letter from L. Morel, Dated February 03, 2004; saying. The Ontario police services act does not prevent the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) from becoming involved in the matter you describe. Nor does it prescribe an RCMP intervention. Therefore, given the circumstances, in the absence of a request from the Chief of the Hamilton police or the Ministry of the Attorney General for Ontario, the RCMP will not intervene. I can only repeat the suggestion that, if you wish to pursue this matter, you seek legal advice. Our file with respect to this matter will now be closed. I then wrote back to him Dated February 14, 2004; saying.

In your letter of February 03, 2004; you said in the absence of a request from the Chief of the Hamilton Police Service or the Attorney General for Ontario, the RCMP will not intervene. Where does it say that the RCMP needs a request from the Chief of the Hamilton police service or the Ministry of the Attorney General for Ontario to investigate the Hamilton Police? He did not respond back. Section 18 of the RCMP Act says. Duties 18 It is the duty of members who are peace officers, subject to the orders of the Commissioner, (a) to perform all duties that are assigned to peace officers in relation to the preservation of the peace, the prevention of crime, and of offences against the laws of Canada and the laws in force in any province in which they may be employed, So clearly he is lying. On August 02, 2011, I wrote to the RCMP again and asked them to do an investigation into the Hamilton police and the OIPRD for obstruction of justice. They refused. The officer that I was on the phone with did not cite any rule or case law that says that the RCMP cannot do the investigations they are just not going to do the investigations. So I filed a complaint against the officer with the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. The complaint was covered up. So on January 03, 2012, I filed a lawsuit against the RCMP for misfeasance in public office file # 12-32291. After I filed the case the RCMP lawyer Michael Sims filed a motion to have the lawsuit thrown out of court. Making the argument that it is not the job of the police to do investigations. In the defendant’s book of authorities (case law book), there was this case from the Supreme Court of Canada. R v. Beaudry in the case it says.

A police officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that an offense has been committed, or that a more thorough investigation might produce evidence that could form the basis of a criminal charge, may exercise his or her discretion to decide not to engage the judicial process.But this discretion is not absolute. The exercise of the discretion must be justified subjectively, that is, the discretion must have been exercised honestly and transparently, and on the basis of valid and reasonable grounds; it must also be justified on the basis of objective factors. In determining whether a decision resulting from an exercise of police discretion is proper, it is therefore important to consider the material circumstances in which the discretion was exercised. The justification offered must be proportionate to the seriousness of the conduct and it must be clear that the discretion was exercised in the public interest. It goes on to say There is no question that police officers have a duty to enforce the law and investigate crimes. This Supreme Court case was talked about at the motion hearing, So the Judge cannot say that he did not know about the Supreme Court case law. Judge Donald J. Gordon granted the motion and threw the case out of court and ordered me to pay the costs of the RCMP for the motion. A Judge can ignore case law even Supreme Court of Canada case law. If they believe the case law to be wrong. But the Judge must explain in his reasons for the Judgment why he believes the case law is wrong. But Judge Donald J. Gordon does not explain how the Supreme Court case law is wrong.

I then appealed that decision to the Ontario Court of Appeals File #c55897 The Judges were Macpherson, Cronk, and Lauwers. The appeal was denied. So the Ontario Court of Appeals ignored Supreme Court case law and did not explain why they believed the Supreme Court case law was wrong.

I then asked the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal to them. It was denied. I then wrote to the RCMP, again and again, they refused to do the investigations. So again I filed a lawsuit against them file # 13-44199 making this argument. Section 18 of the RCMP Act says. It is the duty of members who are peace officers, subject to the orders of the commissioner. (a) to perform all duties that are assigned to peace officers in relation to the preservation of the peace, the prevention of crime and offense against the laws of Canada and the laws in force in any province in which they are employed, and the apprehension of criminals and offenders and others who may be lawfully taken into custody.

So in order to preserve the peace, the RCMP must arrest people who are breaching the peace. In order to arrest people who are breaching the peace, they must first do an investigation to determine if there is enough evidence for the arrest. In order to prevent crimes, the RCMP must arrest people who are breaking the law. In order to arrest people who are breaking the law, they must first do an investigation to determine if there is enough evidence for the arrest. The Lawyer for the RCMP Michael Sims again filed a motion to have the case thrown out of court. Judge Carpenter Gunn granted the motion and the case was thrown out of court and she ordered me to pay the costs of the RCMP for the motion. I then appealed that decision file # c58442 to the Ontario Court of appeal. Because I did not pay the costs of the RCMP for the motion hearing. Mr. Sims asked for a hearing at the court of appeal to have the costs for the RCMP for fighting the appeal to be paid in advance to the court or the appeal will be stopped. In the rules for this kind of hearing it says that the lawyer for the RCMP must show that the appeal is baseless. I argued that he did not even come close to doing that. The Judge then ordered me to pay in advance the costs for the RCMP for fighting the appeal. Or the appeal will not go forward. I did not have the money to do that. So the appeal was stopped. Please call the RCMP in Ontario 519-640-7267 and complain. If they get enough complaints they will do an investigation.

20. On August 27, 2015, my landlord had some of her staff steal stuff out of my apartment. I called the police. The police said it is not a police matter. So I then filed a complaint with the OIPRD. They said in a letter of September 14, 2015, from Federico Dela Torre your complaint against the officer is better dealt with by the landlord-tenant board. oiprd@ontario.ca General Inquiries: 1-877-411-4773

Updated of February 25, 2021

21. On May 15, 2019, May 17, 2019, May 21, 2019, June 04, 2019, and June 05, 2019, I emailed the Chief of Police in Toronto Chief Saunders asking him to investigate the OIPRD for obstruction of justice. Because the OIPRD offices are in Toronto. He did not launch an investigation. So on June 06, 2019, I filed a complaint against him with the OIPRD. The OIPRD said in a letter from Minam Saksznaider Deputy Director dated September 13, 2019, You indicate in your complaint that you have emailed Chief Saunders five times between May 15 and June 05, 2019, requesting that he launch a criminal investigation into the OIPRD director for covering up a complaint against the police, which you believe to be obstruction of justice. Your complaint is that Chief Saunders has done nothing about this. It appears from your complaint that you have concerns regarding the director’s decision to screen out your previous OIPRD complaints. These screening decisions were an exercise of the director’s discretion and were based exclusively on considerations outlined in the police services act. If you are dissatisfied with the reasonableness of the decisions, or if you believe that the director considered improper factors in reaching her conclusions, the appropriate forum in which to review these decisions is by way of an application for judicial review in the Superior Court of Justice. The Director’s screening decisions, which were made within an administrative context; do not constitute an obstruction of justice because there is no judicial process that has been obstructed. As the Director has committed no criminal offense by screening out your complaints, there is no offense for Chief Saunders to investigate. Therefore, his failure to investigate your concerns about obstruction of justice could not lead to a finding that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he has committed misconduct. For these reasons, your complaint will not proceed to an investigation and your file is now closed. The criminal code of Canada section 139 (2) does not say anything about an obstruction of justice having to be in a judicial proceeding for it to be an obstruction of justice. Toronto Police Headquarters Contact Information Phone416-808-2222 oiprd@ontario.ca Toll-free phone: 1-877-411-4773

22. On June 08, 2019, I called the Hamilton police to file a criminal complaint against my boss Geoff Stanley for lying under oath which is perjury. The badge number of the police officer is 1325 and the other police officer’s name is Pigeon They refused to take my complaint over the phone. There is no rule that says that the police cannot take a report of perjury over the phone. So on June 19, 2019, I filed a complaint against them. The OIPRD said in a letter dated September 13, 2019, from Risha Mistry, you called the police to report a serious criminal offense. It appears that the police did not wish to take the report over the phone,which is within their discretion. There is no indication that you were denied from providing your complaint in person to the police service. As such given the details as described in your complaint, the Director has decided that it would not be in the public interest to investigate your complaint. info@hamiltonpolice.on.ca Reception: (905) 546-4772 oiprd@ontario.ca Toll-free phone: 1-877-411-4773

Update of March 06, 2021

23. There is a memorandum of under standing between the Attorney General of Ontario and the OIPRD. Section 5c says. The Director is accountable to the Attorney General for the performance of the OIPRD in fulfilling its mandate and for carrying out the roles and responsibilities assigned to the Director by the PSA, Management principles, all Directives, and this MOU. In 2016, I wrote to the Attorney General of Ontario asking him to investigate the OIPRD Director for covering up complaints against police. His office said that section 5c of the MOU does not apply because the OIPRD are independent of the government. I then wrote back to them saying In the MOU it says SCHEDULE 1 COMMUNICTIONS PROTOCOL II PRINCIPLES: The OIPRD exercises its legislated functions independent of the government, the Ministry, and the Attorney General, subject only to the precisions, limitations, and conditions set out in the PSA, other legislation governing the OIPRD. and this MOU. It says and this MOU so the MOU does apply. But they still say that they cannot investigate the OIPRD. So I then filed a complaint with the Ontario Ombudsman’s office they said that the AG is right and that 5c of the MOU does not mean that the AG can investigate the OIPRD. I then wrote to my Member of Provincial Parliament MPP Andrea Horwath NDP Hamilton center her office said that there is nothing they can do. So I filed a complaint against the staff member with Andrea’s office. I then called them and the guy that I complained about told me that they are not going to tell me the results of my complaint. Thinking that Andrea can say that she did not make the decision to not help me because her staff did not pass the message on to her. I looked up her address and sent her a registered letter. Which she signed for.

And responded to it by saying I recommend you seek legal advice via a lawyer or contact the law society referral services for assistance. So she cannot say she did not know. If you Google responsibilities of MPPs in Ontario Canada you will find a Government website that says MPPs in Their Constituencies
When not at the Legislature, MPPs have a number of responsibilities in their home ridings such as meeting with constituents to listen to their concerns, helping to resolve matters related to provincial government services, and attending community events such as school openings or local fundraisers. This was in the letter I sent to her. It says that your MPP must help you with problems with Ontario Government services. So if your MPP refuses to help you without a legitimate reason then they have obstructed justice. If Andrea is your MPP call her and complain 905-544-9644 and email her ahorwath-co@ndp.on.ca If she is not your MPP you can call your own MPP. I also filed complaint against the Chief of Police in Hamilton. But the police services board refused to deal with my complaint. I also wrote to Lloyd Ferguson at the time he was Chair of the Hamilton police services board about the Chief of Hamilton Police doing nothing when I wrote to him about my MPP Andrea Horwath obstructing justice. Mr. Ferguson said that the Chief of police cannot order a criminal investigation. Which is clearly not true. Please call and email the Attorney General of Ontario Tel 416 326 2220 Toll free 1 800 518 7901 attorneygeneral@ontario.ca and complain. If they get enough complaints they will do an investigation into the OIPRD. attorneygeneral@ontario.ca Telephone toll free: 1-800-518-7901

Update of March 11, 2021

24. I then figured out the personal email address of the Ombudsman Paul Dube. Which is pdube@ombudsman.on.ca Here is the Ombudsman’s contact information Toll-free (Ontario only): 1-800-263-1830 Email: info@ombudsman.on.ca I emailed him from 2019 09, 30, to 2019 10, 15, he did not respond back. I then sent emails and called Jagmeet Singh’s office when he was the NDP Attorney General critic in Ontario part one part two. He is now the federal NDP leader he did not respond back. I needed to get a message to the Attorney General of Ontario about the OIPRD covering up complaints against police. But the staff at the AG office will not pass the message on because they say that the AG cannot investigate the OIPRD because they are independent of the government. I also wrote to the Premier of Ontario Doug Ford he said that he cannot talk about the OIPRD because they are independent from the government. So he cannot pass on my message to the AG. So on April 09 2019 I went to the Ontario Legislature and interrupted it when the Attorney General Caroline Mulroney was sitting in the Legislature yelling out. That the Attorney General needs to do something about the OIPRD Director covering up complaints against police and Andrea Horwath has obstructed justice injusticeinontario.ca It is at the 24:52 mark in the video. About a month later I emailed the premier Doug Ford telling him what I did and that Caroline Mulroney the AG has not launched an investigation into the OIPRD Director so you need to fire her. He then fired her as AG. Then Doug Downey became AG. I then figured out the personal work email address of Doug Downey the new AG it is Doug.Downey@ontario.ca I emailed him from 2020 03, 31, to 2020 12, 09, He did not launch an investigation. So I wrote to the Premier again asking him to fire the new AG but he did not. Not sure why not. Please write to the AG and complain that he needs to investigate the OIPRD. Attorney General contact information Toll-free: 1-800-518-7901 attorneygeneral@ontario.ca Here is the premiers email address premier@ontario.ca Please write to the Premier and complain that he needs to fire the new AG. I also tried to get Matthew Green Hamilton city Councilor at the time who is now a member of parliament (MP) in Hamilton to help. I also tried to get Randy Hillier when he was Attorney General Critic. When Lloyd Ferguson was chair of the Hamilton police services board I put in a deputation request to speak to the board. In the request it talks about complaints against police being covered up. But Mr. Ferguson when reading the request he just kept saying that the complaints that were covered up all were appealed and the appeals a were all denied. So he was making it look like the complaints were not covered up. So the deputation requested was denied. So I then put in another deputation request and asked Tarry Whitehead city of Hamilton Councilor and at the time a member of the Hamilton police services board to read the request out loud. So that the people watching the police services meeting would know that the complaints were covered up. He refused to do it. Please call and write to the Ontario Ombudsman Toll-free (inside Ontario only): 1-800-263-1830 Outside Ontario 416-586-3300 email info@ombudsman.on.ca And complain. If they get enough complaints they will do an investigation into the Attorney General’s office.

Update of March 21, 2021

25. On June 27, 2019, I filed a complaint against a Scott Moore Sergeant Badge number 574 of the Hamilton police saying.

On February 25 I sent an email asking for an update on a criminal complaint against my MPP Andrea Horwath for obstructing justice. An officer of the Hamilton police replied that we do not have a history of a complaint of obstruction of justice against your MPP. I then sent him a copy of a phone call I had with 1 of the Hamilton police. He then replied that you have to go to a police station to file a report of obstruction of justice. I then got a reply from the OIPRD dated September 13, 2019, from Risha Mistry saying. Your complaint does not indicate that Sergeant Moore engaged in police misconduct as he informed you that you had to attend a police station to submit your complaint about your MPP for obstruction of justice. Also, while it appears you may have had a phone conversation with another officer about the same matter previously, the police have the discretion to determine whether or not the information provided to them requires action and /or if it should be documented in the form of a report. Given the details as described in your complaint, the Director has decided that it would not be in the public interest to investigate your complaint. info@hamiltonpolice.on.ca Reception: (905) 546-4772 oiprd@ontario.ca Toll-free phone: 1-877-411-477

26. On July 18, 2019, I filed a complaint against the Chief of Police in Hamilton Chief Eric Girt saying.

On February 19, 2019, to April 11, 2019, I emailed the Chief of police in Hamilton, Ontario asking him to launch a criminal investigation into my MPP for obstruction of justice. Because she will not help me with a problem with the Attorney General’s office. The Chief has not launched an investigation. I then got a letter from Sylvana Capogreco from the OIPRD dated September 30, 2019, saying.

While we appreciate you have matters that you wish to report, the Chief, in his role, would not be involved in directly taking reports or conducting investigations. Your concerns about criminal conduct being committed should be reported directly to officers who can investigate them, and not by email to the Chief, As such, given the circumstances as described in your complaints and considering the Chief’s role, I have decided not to proceed with an investigation into your complaint against Chief Girt. info@hamiltonpolice.on.ca Reception: (905) 546-4772 oiprd@ontario.ca Toll-free phone: 1-877-411-477

27. On July 29, 2019, I filed a complaint against the Chief of Police in Hamilton, Ontario saying.

On July 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 18, 2019, I emailed the Chief of police in Hamilton about some of his officers obstructing justice. But he has done nothing about this. I then got a letter from Sylvana Capogreco from the OIPRD dated September 30, 2019, saying.

While we appreciate you have matters that you wish to report, the Chief, in his role, would not be involved in directly taking reports or conducting investigations. Your concerns about criminal conduct being committed should be reported directly to officers who can investigate them, and not by email to the Chief, As such, given the circumstances as described in your complaints and considering the Chief’s role, I have decided not to proceed with an investigation into your complaint against Chief Girt. info@hamiltonpolice.on.ca Reception: (905) 546-4772 oiprd@ontario.ca Toll-free phone: 1-877-411-477

Update of April 03, 2021

28. I filed a complaint against the two officers who arrested me at city hall Officer Oosteroff and Officer Clavel saying.

On June 13, 2019, I was arrested at City Hall in Hamilton, Ontario. I was arrested for trespass because I interrupted the police services board meeting. By yelling out Chief why are you covering up my criminal complaint against Andrea Horwath for obstructing justice? When I did this the Mayor of Hamilton Fred Eisenberger was there because he is the Chair of the police services board. When I was told to leave I refused to leave and was sitting in a chair the chair was bolted to the floor. The two officers that arrested me pulled me backwards and to my left. So my ribs were pushed up against the armrest of the chair which gave me bruised ribs. So I believe that they should have not pulled me that way. After they put the handcuffs on me I refused to walk and the one officer (the one whose badge number is not 502) lifted my right arm up all most to the point that I was walking on my tippy toes which caused the handcuffs to dig into my wrists and leave a bruise on both my wrists. As the officer was writing out the ticket (badge number 502) I said is this going to take as long as the meeting takes. The officer then said are you going back into the meeting? I said yes. The officer then said he was going to write out a third ticket for breach of the peace. And then he said that he can hold me until the meeting is over. There is no law that says that they can hold me until the meeting is over. So this is a case of kidnapping. My complaint is against the two officers who arrested me for breach of the peace and all the officers at the meeting when I yelled out Chief why are you covering up my criminal complaint against Andrea Horwath for obstruction of justice? Because they all are police officers and none of them launched a criminal investigation into the actions of the Chief. And my complaint is against the officers at the central station who knew that I was being held unlawfully. And the officer at the central station who was in on the false imprisonment of me. (the officer be hide the desk) The one officer at the central station said something about the reason that they were holding me. He said this to make it sound like they had a good reason to hold me. The badge number of the officer who wrote the ticket out was 502. I then got a letter from Risha Mistry dated Oct 22, 2019, from the OIPRD saying.

The OIPRD has assigned the investigation of your complaint to the Hamilton police service. The Chief of the Hamilton police service will be provided with a copy of your complaint, and a redacted copy will also be given to the respondent officers. I then got a letter from the Hamilton police saying that the officers did nothing wrong. I then appealed that decision to the OIPRD. In the letter from Stephen Leach dated May 04, 2020, the OIPRD Director. He said that the officers did nothing wrong. In my complaint I said that the officer on my right lifted my right arm up higher than my left arm while I was handcuffed which left red marks on my wrist. In this video you can see that the officer on my right has his hand up to my neck and his arm between my wrist and my back which caused my right arm to be higher than my left arm. In the letter from the OIPRD it says.

The Chiefs findings is that there was red markings on my left ribs, red markings on both wrists as well as an indentation on my left wrist. The officer on my right having has hand up to my neck and his arm between my back and my arm is what caused the red marks on my wrists and the indentation on my left wrist. In the letter from the OIPRD it says The complainant then expressed that he intended on returning to the meeting, at which point he was arrested for breach of the peace and transported to central station. On this website it says that breach of the peace is an “act or actions which result in actual or threatened harm to someone” which is not what I threatened to do. I threatened to interrupt the police services board meeting. A copy of the video was sent to the Hamilton police professional standards branch so they could do their investigation but for some reason, a copy was not sent to me until after I filed the appeal. I do not have a copy of the video from inside the police services board meeting. When I get it I will post it. info@hamiltonpolice.on.ca Reception: (905) 546-4772 oiprd@ontario.ca Toll-free phone: 1-877-411-477

Update of April 18, 2021

29. When I was kidnapped in paragraph 28 the two officers took me to central station and searched me. When they searched me Officer Brian Clavel badge number 378 sexually assaulted me. In this website it says The offence of sexual assault captures an extremely wide range of behavior. Any psychical application of force that is not consensual, and is done in circumstances of a sexual nature, can constitute a sexual assault. On this website it says To determine if an assault is sexual in nature, the court looks at the part of the body being touched, the nature of the contact, any words or gestures including threats accompanying the conduct, and the accused’s intent or purpose, including the presence or absence of sexual gratifications. Sexual assault does not, however, require sexuality or sexual gratification. The accused’s intent is only one factor to consider in deciding whether the overall conduct has a sexual context. Its importance depends on the circumstances. Touching someone’s genitals while they are falsely arrested must be a touch of a sexual nature. In this website, it says What must the prosecutor prove in a sexual assault case? A sexual assault is established by the proof of three elements: (I) intentional touching, (II) the sexual nature of the contact, and (III) the absence of consent. At the 6-minute and 40-second mark of this video, the officer’s right hand touches my genitals while I am falsely arrested which is sexual assault. Because the touch just has to be of a sexual nature. After I went home I called the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) in Ontario Canada they did an investigation. They did not say that the touch was not intentional because the Officer knew where his hands are, they said that the touch was a fleeting touch so it is not sexual assault. In this case R. v. Arbuthnot, 2008 the Judge said that fleeting touches are still sexual assault. I then figured out the SIU Director’s personal work email address which is Joseph.Martino@ontario.ca and sent him emails explaining that his staff are covering up my complaint. The SIU then called me and told me to stop emailing the Director. I then filed a complaint against the SIU with the Ontario Ombudsman’s office. This is what the Ombudsman’s act says about what the Ombudsman’s office does Function of Ombudsman 14 (1) The function of the Ombudsman is to investigate any decision or recommendation made or any act done or omitted in the course of the administration of a public sector body and affecting any person or body of persons in his, or her or its personal capacity. R.S.O 1990 c. 0.6, s. 14 (1); 2014, c. 13 Sched/ 9, s. 6 (1). The Ombudsman’s staff said that the SIU deciding whether or not to file charges against a police officer is a legal question so they cannot investigate them. I then sent emails to the Ontario Ombudsman’s personal work email address which is Paul.Dude@ontario.ca He did not respond back. Please contact the Ombudsman’s office and complain. 1-800-263-1830 Email: info@ombudsman.on.ca The Ombudsman’s act section 4. 2 says Suspension if Assembly not in session (2) If the Assembly is not in session, the Board of Internal Economy may on unanimous agreement suspend the Ombudsman for cause. 2018, c. 17, Sched. 28, s. 2 (1). The members of the internal economy at the time was John Vanthof New Democratic Party of Ontario and Sylvia Jones Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario Mr. Vanthof did not respond to my emails and Jones said. The Ombudsman’s office has reviewed your complaint and issued a decision. I cannot overrule their decision and will not be pursuing disciplinary measures with the Ombudsman. I then wrote to the Premier of Ontario asking him to ask for a vote in the Ontario Legislature when it sits again to remove the Ombudsman from office. He did not respond back. I then wrote to my MPP Andrea Horwath asking her to ask the Ontario Legislature to remove the Ontario ombudsman from office. She did not respond back. I believe she is using the pandemic as a reason to not respond. I then called CHCH News and asked them if they would do a news story about the SIU covering up my complaint. They said no. info@hamiltonpolice.on.ca Reception: (905) 546-4772 siu.inquiries@ontario.ca Toll-free phone: 1-800-787-8529

Update of April 25, 2021

30. On September 22, 2019, I filed a complaint against a Hamilton police officer saying.

I went to the Hamilton police to see about having someone charged with perjury. I had transcripts from the trial. The officer said that there was not enough evidence because the person who lied corrected their memory a couple of minutes later. But the person who lied was not correcting their memory they were reading an answer from the question and answer from discovery from the trial. So the person did lie under oath. The person also had the motive to lie. Because the last sexual harassment complaint against me was filed on November 23, and I was not fired until December 12, of that year. So the person who was testifying has to come up with another sexual harassment complaint in order to justify me being fired on December 12, Here is the link to the Supreme Court case about police discretion. Here is what the Supreme Court says about police discretion. A police officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that an offense has been committed, or that a more thorough investigation might produce evidence that could form the basis of a criminal charge, may exercise his or her discretion to decide not to engage the judicial process. But this discretion is not absolute. The exercise of the discretion must be justified subjectively, that is, the discretion must have been exercised honestly and transparently, and on the basis of valid and reasonable grounds, it must also be justified on the basis of objective factors. In determining whether a decision resulting from an exercise of police discretion is proper, it is therefore important to consider the material circumstances in which the discretion was exercised. The justification offered must be proportionate to the seriousness of the conduct and it must be clear that the discretion was exercised in the public interest. I then got a letter from Risha Mistry of the OIPRD Dated January 13, 2020, saying.

Please be advised, Police officers have the discretion to determine whether to lay charges. In order to charge an individual with perjury, evidence demonstrating that the person deliberately lied would need to be provided. It would also be necessary to prove the lie independently of the individual’s testimony. In this matter, the officer reviewed the transcripts you provided and felt that the witness did not deliberately lie because they corrected their answer a few minutes later. Witnesses are permitted to change their answers if they realize that they may have made a mistake, which is what appears to have occurred as per the transcripts of the trial. Further, there is also no information or basis on which to believe that the officer committed misconduct by not laying perjury charges as he reviewed and considered the information you provided. As such, the Director has decided not to proceed with an investigation into your complaint as it is frivolous. The OIPRD are saying that the person corrected their memory. This not true he was reading from a sheet of paper. info@hamiltonpolice.on.ca Reception: (905) 546-4772 oiprd@ontario.ca Toll-free phone: 1-877-411-477

Update of April 26, 2021

31. On September 28, 2019, I filed a complaint against the Chief of Police in Toronto Chief Saunders saying.

On September 15, 16, 17, and 20, 2019 I emailed the Chief of Police in Toronto with a copy of a complaint that was covered up by the OIPRD Director. Which is obstruction of justice. But the Chief has done nothing. Here is whatsection 139 (2) of the criminal code of Canada says Everyone who willfully attempts in any manner other than the manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years. Here is what theSupreme Court of Canada says about police discretion. A police officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed, or that a more thorough investigation might produce evidence that could form the basis of a criminal charge, may exercise his or her discretion to decide not to engage the judicial process. But this discretion is not absolute. The exercise of the discretion must be justified subjectively, that is, the discretion must have been exercised honestly and transparently, and on the basis of valid and reasonable grounds; it must also be justified on the basis of objective factors. In determining whether a decision resulting from an exercise of police discretion is proper, it is therefore important to consider the material circumstances in which the discretion was exercised. The justification offered must be proportionate to the seriousness of the conduct and it must be clear that the discretion was exercised in the public interest. I then got a letter from Mirian Saksznajder of the OIPRD dated December 13, 2019, saying. The issue within your complaint has been raised in a previous OIPRD complaint that you submitted to our office, Our office previously advised you that the screening decisions for the OIPRD complaints were an exercise of the Director’s discretion and were based exclusively on considerations outlined in the police services act. If you are dissatisfied with the reasonableness of the decision, or if you believe that the Director considered improper factors in reaching her conclusions, the appropriate forum in which to review these decisions is by way of an application for judicial review in the Superior Court of Justice. Further, as you were advised previously, the Director’s screening decisions, which are made within an administrative context, do not constitute an obstruction of justice because there is no judicial process that has been obstructed. As the Director has committed no criminal offense by screening out your complaints, there was no offense for Chief Sanders to have investigated. Therefore, his failure to investigate your concerns about your allegation of obstruction of justice could not lead to a finding that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he has committed misconduct. Your complaint does not provide any new information that provided in your previous complaint to an investigation. Accordingly, your file is now closed. A redacted copy of your complaint and my decision not to proceed has been forwarded to the Chair of the Toronto Police Services Board and Chief Saunders, for their records and information.

There is nothing in section 139 (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada that says that the obstruction of justice has to be done in a judicial proceeding. Toronto Police Headquarters Contact Information Phone 416-808-2222 oiprd@ontario.ca Toll-free phone: 1-877-411-477

Update of April 27, 2021

32. On October 04, 2019, I filed a complaint against a Peel Police officer saying.

On September 06, 10, 16, 17, and 18 2019 I emailed a Peel Police officer asking if he has read the transcripts that I sent him. But he does not respond back. I then got a letter from Risha Mistry from the OIPRD dated January 13, 2020, saying.

You do not provide the name of the officer to whom you sent the emails to within your complaint. Further, you do not provide any information as to why you sent transcripts to the officer, what they related to, or why it would be important for the officer to have read and responded to the transcripts. On the face of your complaint, it lacks sufficient details that would warrant sending it for investigation. For these reasons, the Director has decided to screen out your complaint as it is frivolous and lacking in substance. A copy of your complaint as well as our decision not to proceed has been forwarded to the Chief of Peel Regional Police for his record. If the OIPRD needed more information about my complaint they could have sent me an email asking for it. oiprd@ontario.ca Toll-free phone: 1-877-411-477

33. On January 31, 2021, I filed a complaint against a Hamilton police officer saying.

On December 01, 2000, I filed a lawsuit against Geoff Stanley, Klaus Niemeyer, Jim Stratton, and Joe Munro for defamation the case was filed in Hamilton Ontario. I was already suiting their employer for defamation in a court in Hamilton Ontario. For the way they terminated my employment and the things they said to unemployment insurance. The lawsuits were for defamation in the form of a libel that happened in January 1995, On May 29, 2001, the defendant’s Lawyer Mr. Harbridge (who was also the lawyer for the company the employer) filed three motions to have the lawsuits against the individuals thrown out of court. The reasons for the motions were 1. The action is statue barred because the limitation period for libel is 3 months. 2. There was acase already existing against the company the employer for defamation. 3. There has already been an action against Geoff Stanley for the same thing which was dropped. The motions were baseless and the Judge at the motions hearing denied the motions. Here are the reasons that they were baseless. The limitation period of three months is if you are suing a newspaper or broadcaster for libel. The limitation period for suing for libel for defendants that are not a newspaper or broadcaster is six years. see elaws_statutes_90l15_ev001 which says.

Limitations Act R.S.O. 1990, Chapter L.15 PERSONAL ACTIONS Limitation of time for commencing particular actions (g) an action for trespass to goods or land, simple contract or debt grounded upon any lending or contract without specialty, debt for arrears of rent, detinue, replevin or upon the case other than for slander, (there are two forms of defamation slender and libel so words other than for slender is libel) within six years after the cause of action arose, And the defendants are not a newspaper or a broadcaster. At the motion hearing I had a law book all about limitation periods in the law book it says.

In Ontario and Newfoundland, an action upon the case for words (slander) must be brought within two years after the words are spoken, Actions upon the case other than for slander (libel) must be brought within six years. I read out loud what the law book says and then the Judge asked me to hand the law book up to him and he read it out loud. And then Mr. Harbridge the lawyer for the defendants said this is what I have in my notes. In Ontario and Newfoundland, an action upon the case for words (slander) must be brought within two years after the words are spoken, Actions upon the case other than for slander (libel) must be brought within six years. So the defendant’s lawyer knew all along that the limitation period was six years. And the case against the company the employer was filed three years after the publication of the written words that were sent to UI. So if the defendant’s lawyer Mr. Harbridge really thought that the limitation period was three months for libel he would have filed a motion to have the main case against the employer thrown out. 2. Mr. Harbridge did not cite any rule or case law in his book of authorities (case law book) that says you cannot sue two people for the same thing even if they both did it. 3. The old case against Geoff Stanley was dropped before he was served with the statement of claim. And the lawyer for the defendants Mr. Harbridge did not cite any rule or case law in his book of authorities (case law book) that says you cannot sue the same person twice for the same thing if the limitations period has not expired and you did not serve them with the statement of claim from the first case. At the time that the motion was filed May 29, 2001, the main case against the employer had been going on for four years and we had already done discovery. So the lawyer for the defendant Mr. Harbridge knew at that point in time that there was enough evidence for the cases against the individuals. So he knew that there was justice there to be obstructed. I won all of the lawsuits so there was justice there to be obstructed.Section 139 (2) of the criminal code of Canada says.

Everyone who willfully attempts in any manner other than the manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years. The defendant’s lawyer lied to the court and lying to the court to have a lawsuit thrown out is attempting to obstruct justice. Because lying is wrong. In this case, DANIEL RAY DOWNEY V HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN the accused was convicted of obstructing justice for using a fabricated document in the court of appeal to appeal his conviction. On August 26, 2020, I went to the Hamilton police to see about having the defendant’s lawyer and or the defendants investigated for obstruction of justice. I went to the central police station in Hamilton at about 2:00 pm and the officer came outside of the station to talk to me because of the virus. He was not wearing his badge or his name tag. So I asked him to put his badge and name tag on he said if he goes back inside the station again he will be dealing with the people inside the station and it could be a while before he comes back outside. So I asked him what his badge number is and he said 137. I then told him that I wanted an investigation into an obstruction of justice. I then told him what the lawyer for the defendants did he said that he has never heard of police investigating that kind of thing. I then said to him the police investigate crimes and obstructing justice is a crime. He then said he is not going to take a report about it and he just walked away and went back inside the station.I believe that the reason he would not take a report on it was because the courts are swamped and the police are under pressure to not add to it. He is about 6 feet tall and a black man. I believe that the security cameras will show us talking outside the station. The officer should have taken a report on it. In this caseJane Doe v. Metropolitan Toronto Commissioners of Police (1998 The court said Section 57 of the Police Act, R.S.O. 1980, c. 381, reads as follows: 57. The members of police forces appointed under Part II except assistants and civilian employees, are charged with the duty of preserving the peace, preventing robberies and other crimes and offenses, including offenses against the by-laws of the municipality and apprehending offenders, and commencing proceedings before the proper tribunal, and prosecuting and aiding in the prosecuting of offenders, and have generally all of the powers and privileges and are liable to all the duties and responsibilities that belong to constables. (Emphasis added) This section imposes certain duties upon the police. They include (1) preserving the peace; (2) preventing crimes; and (3) apprehending offenders. The police are charged with the duty of preserving law and order within our society, including the protection of the public from those who would commit or have committed crimes. In this case, the Supreme Court of Canada said at paragraph 35 There is no question that police officers have a duty to enforce the law and investigate crimes. Alain Beaudry Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent ‑ and ‑Attorney General of Canada and Canadian Professional Police Association Interveners The court also said in the case. A police officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed, or that a more thorough investigation might produce evidence that could form the basis of a criminal charge, may exercise his or her discretion to decide not to engage the judicial process. But this discretion is not absolute. The exercise of the discretion must be justified subjectively, that is, the discretion must have been exercised honestly and transparently, and on the basis of valid and reasonable grounds; it must also be justified on the basis of objective factors. In determining whether a decision resulting from an exercise of police discretion is proper, it is therefore important to consider the material circumstances in which the discretion was exercised. The justification offered must be proportionate to the seriousness of the conduct and it must be clear that the discretion was exercised in the public interest. It says in the public interest. The officer, in this case, did not say anything about it being in the public interest for him to not take a report on the case. Section 42 (1) of the police services act says Duties of Police Officer 42 (1) The duties of a police officer include, (a) preserving the peace; (b) preventing crimes and other offenses, and providing assistance and encouragement to other persons in their prevention; (c) assisting victims of crime; (d) apprehending criminals and other offenders and others who may lawfully be taken into custody; (e) laying charges and participating in prosecutions; (f) executing warrants that are to be executed by police officers and performing related duties; (g) performing the lawful duties that the chief of police assigns; (h) in the case of a municipal police force and in the case of an agreement under section 10 (agreement for provision of police services by O.P.P.), enforcing municipal by-laws; (i) completing the prescribed training. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, s. 42 (1); 1997, c. 8, s. 28. It says (b) “preventing crimes and other offences” In order to prevent crimes the police must arrest people who commit crimes. When there is enough evidence for the arrest. This will deter people from committing other crimes.So it will prevent crimes. (1) Any chief of police or other police officer commits misconduct if he or she engages in, (vi) fails to report a matter that it is his or her duty to report, (vii) fails to report anything that he or she knows concerning a criminal or other charge or fails to disclose any evidence that he or she, or any person within his or her knowledge, can give for or against any prisoner or defendant, (viii) omits to make any necessary entry in a record, Section 81 (2) of the police services act says Withholding services (2) No member of a police force shall withhold his or her services. 2007, c. 5, s. 10. Offence (3) A person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of an offense and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or to both. 2007, c. 5, s. 10. I have the motion record and exhibits and the case law books from the motion hearing. I then got a letter from Andrea from the OIPRD dated March 02, 2021, saying.

The OIPRD has reviewed your complaint and the concerns you have raised. However, based upon the information you have provided in your complaint, it appears the officer you spoke with determined in your conversation that no report was required. While we appreciate that the manner in which officer responded to your concerns did not provide you with the results you felt were appropriate, police officers, in their role, are provided with an inherent discretion that allows them to determine when and if a report should be taken regarding an incident. The police are not obligated to investigate all matters that are reported, especially if there are reservations about what is being reported. Further, taking into account the nature of the concerns raised and the passage of time, given that the incident originated approximately 20 years ago, the actions as described in your complaint would not be unreasonable such that investigation would be warranted. In the circumstance, the Director has decided it is not in the public interest to send your complaint for investigation. A copy of your complaint as well as our decision not to proceed has been forwarded to the Chief of the Hamilton police services for his record. There is enough evidence for charges because I have all the documentation from the motion hearing and I told the OIPRD this in my complaint. And I emailed them copies of the documentation. info@hamiltonpolice.on.ca Reception: (905) 546-4772 oiprd@ontario.ca Toll-free phone: 1-877-411-477

34. In 2020 I emailed Fred Eisenberger Mayor City of Hamilton, Nrinder Nann Councilor Ward 3 City of Hamilton my city Councilor, and John Tory Mayor City of Toronto. And asked them all to contact the Attorney General of Ontario and ask for them to do an investigation into the OIPRD for covering up complaints against the police. Fred Eisenberger’s office said I have shared your correspondence with the Mayor and their Advisors for review. Nrinder Nann’s office said Please feel free to share the information you have with me. John Tory’s office said Our office does not have jurisdiction over the Attorney General of Ontario. That falls under the Government of Ontario.

35. If you are sending an email to someone and it is an email that they do not want to deal with it and you only send it one or two times they will say that they did not get it. So you must send them the original and then forward it to them for 15 business days or until you get a response whichever comes first then they will not be able to say that they did not get it.

Update of May 18, 2021

36. In June 2019 I sent an email to the Chief of Police in Hamilton Ontario saying.

Back in 2012, I sued the RCMP for refusing to do a criminal investigation and their lawyer filed a motion to have the case thrown out. He made the argument that it is not the job of police to do investigations. At the motion hearing there was Supreme Court case law that said that it is the job of Police to do investigations but Judge Carpenter Gunn granted the Motion anyway. I would like to have Judge Carpenter Gunn investigated for obstruction of justice. I have the transcripts of the hearing and the reasons for the Judgment. I then received an email from Gary Heron #824 Staff Sergeant Professional Standards dated June 26, 2019, saying.

Thank you for your inquiry. If your complaint relates to a judge’s conduct in the courtroom you can make a complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council. If you believe that a judge reached the wrong decision in your court case you may appeal to a higher court. I then emailed him dated June 26, 2019, saying.

The judge’s decision was clearly wrong and against case law so it is obstruction of justice. In the Judge’s reasons for the decision, she does not explain how the Supreme Court decision was wrong. So clearly she has obstructed justice!! I then sent an email to Frank Bergen dated June 28, 2019, saying.

Gary Heron sent me an email but he is not launching a criminal investigation. He says in his email Thank you for your inquiry. If your complaint relates to a judge’s conduct in the courtroom you can make a complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council. If you believe that a judge reached the wrong decision in your court case you may appeal to a higher court. He has looked at the evidence but is not launching a criminal investigation. Clearly, he is giving me the runaround and this is obstruction of justice. So this is a criminal complaint against Gary Heron!! I then sent the email to him 10 times he did not respond back. In May 2021 he became Chief of police in Hamilton. Please email him and complain. fbergen@hamiltonpolice.on.ca Reception: (905) 546-4772

Update of May 19, 2021

37. On April 22, 2021, I called the Toronto police to have them launch an investigation into the Ontario Ombudsman’s office for obstruction of justice for covering up my complaint with them against the SIU because the Ombudsman’s offices are in Toronto. The Communications at the Toronto police said that I should go to the Hamilton police for a crime that happened in Toronto. I then asked the person on the phone to put me through to an officer. He refused. I then asked his name but he would not tell me. I then emailed Interim Chief Jim Ramer in Toronto because the Chief can discipline the person from Communications who gave me the runaround. I emailed the Chief 15 times. With a recording of the phone call attached. The Chief did not respond back. Please email the Chief and complain. officeofthechief@torontopolice.on.ca Toronto Police Headquarters Contact Information Phone 416-808-2222

Update of May 26, 2021

38. In paragraph 23 Andrea Horwath told me to seek legal advice to find out what section 5c of the memorandum of understanding means. I contacted a lawyer and asked what does section 5c of the MOU mean. He said Sir, I have now reviewed your situation further, along with the relevant sections from the Memorandum of Understanding between the Office of the Independent Police Review Director and Attorney General (the “memo”). As I understand it, this matter arises from your termination from Magna and subsequent lawsuit. During the litigation, you caught your boss lying at discovery. You settled that lawsuit and signed a Release (as you did not want to cause problems for the other employee involved). The other employee (or her husband) subsequently passed away, after which (and around September 2019) you sought a police investigation into the perjury. Towards that end, you reported the crime to the Hamilton police and provided them with the transcript. When the police failed to investigate, you reported the same to the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD). The OIPRD likewise failed to investigate, after which you reported the matter to the Attorney General, and asked them to investigate the OIPRD, pursuant to your understanding of section 5 (c) of the MOU. Section 5 broadly lays out that the OIPRD reports to the Attorney General, who himself reports to Cabinet (i.e. similar to how a janitor reports to a supervisor who reports to the branch manager). The OIPRD’s mission is to receive, manage, and oversee all complaints about police in Ontario, in a manner that is ‘transparent, effective and fair to both the public and the police.’ While the Attorney General may be reporting to you that they “cannot” investigate the OIPRD, a more direct and accurate response would likely be that they simply will not. The Attorney General’s office (like most) has limited resources, and they cannot investigate every complaint. I ran into a similar thing last weekend when my car was broken into, and the police asked whether I had it on video, and on learning I did not, told me to simply file a report. It might have been nice if the police canvassed the neighborhood and dusted for prints, but it was not a high enough priority or cost-effective, so was not done. In closing, my interpretation of the provision is simply that it sets out the ‘chain of command’ with the AG being above the OIPRD. I see no reason why based on that alone (I have not had a chance to review any of the other documents that would potentially apply) the AG could not investigate the OIPRD, in the event it so chooses. Likewise, in the absence of other documentation to the contrary, it would appear that the AG could replace the head of the OIPRD (or at least reset the direction). Candidly, I do not believe this is likely to happen with your case, as though it is very important to you, it is not going to be a matter of general public concern (as people in court frequently lie for a plethora of reasons). While not the answer you were looking for, I am hopeful that the above addressed your question. Michael Lesage. I emailed Andrea Horwath with what my lawyer said times starting April 22, 2021, but she did not respond back. I also emailed the Attorney General of Ontario’s office starting April 22, 2021, about what the lawyer said. I emailed them 16 times they did not respond back. And where has the Ontario auditor general been all this time? horwatha-qp@ndp.on.ca

Tel. 905-544-9644

Update of June 01, 2021

39. On March 03 2021 I sent an email to Lawyer Graydon Sheppard saying asking him to file a Judicial review of the OIPRD decision in paragraph 33 saying.

Hi, I need a lawyer to do a judicial review of a decision of the OIPRD. I got the decision letter yesterday. Please see attached for the complaint and decision letter from the OIPRD, He wrote back saying.

I have reviewed the decision and do not believe that there is any prospect of success. With this in mind, our office cannot consider representing you. I then wrote back to him saying.

Hi, Why do you think that I do not have a case? The Supreme Court says that police discretion has to be done in the public interest. The OIPRD does not say how it was in the public interest for the officer to not take a report. He then wrote back saying. Given the age of the allegations, the exercise of discretion in my view was reasonable. Another lawyer may be of a different opinion. I then wrote back to him saying.

What does the age of the allegations have to do with anything? I still have all the paperwork from the motion hearing. He then wrote back saying.

You will need to address these questions to another lawyer. I then wrote back to him saying. Rule number 4 of the rules of professional conduct from the Law Society of Ontario says. [4] Right to Decline Representation – A lawyer may decline a particular representation (except when assigned as counsel by a tribunal), but that discretion should be exercised prudently, particularly if the probable result would be to make it difficult for a person to obtain legal advice or representation. Generally, a lawyer should not decline representation merely because a person seeking legal services or that person’s cause is unpopular or notorious, or because powerful interests or allegations of misconduct or malfeasance are involved, or because of the lawyer’s private opinion about the guilt of the accused. I did not hear back from him. So on March 23, 2021, I filed a complaint against him with the Law Society of Upper Canada now called the Law Society of Ontario. I then got a letter from Wisy Mak Law Clerk Complaints & Compliance Client Service Centre Dated April 1, 2021, saying. The Law Society cannot compel a lawyer or licensed paralegal to represent a client, nor can we appoint a lawyer or licensed paralegal to assist you. Lawyers and licensed paralegals are not obligated to agree to represent every client who wants to retain them and they may have no obligation to explain their reasons. As you know, the Law Society does not provide legal advice, legal opinions, or legal services to the public. If you are still unrepresented and are having difficulty finding a lawyer or licensed paralegal, you may wish to access the Law Society Referral Service by visiting www.findlegalhelp.ca or by calling 416-947-3330 (toll free 1-800-268-8326). Please be advised that although we will continue to review your correspondence in this matter, we may not respond further unless there is new information that raises an issue that can be addressed by the Law Society. As our office can take no further action at this time, we are closing our file. Then wrote back saying.

Where does it say that the law society cannot force a lawyer to take on a case? I then got a letter from him dated April 05, 2021, saying.

Thank you for your email. As you may know, we do not provide advice and we do not interpret legislation for the public. This includes the Law Society Act (Ontario) (the “Act”) (this is the Law Society’s governing legislation that provides our mandate, the Law Society’s by-laws (the “by-laws”), and both the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Paralegal Rules of Conduct (together, the “Rules”). The Act, the by-laws, and the Rules are all available on our website if you wish to review them (www.lso.ca). With respect to your question, we can only suggest that you may wish to seek independent legal advice about your inquiry. Please note that although we will continue to review your correspondence, we will not respond further unless there is new information that raises an issue that can be addressed by the Law Society. I have appealed the decision. The appeal was denied. lawsociety@lso.ca Toll-free: 1-800-668-7380

Update of June 02, 2021

40. If you are going to the police to give them evidence do not give them your originals of your documentation, photos, or video. Especially if your evidence shows that a police officer has done something wrong. Because evidence against police officers that is in the possession of the police tends to go missing. If you gave a statement to the police ask for a copy of the written statement. So it will not go missing.

Update of June 10, 2021

41. If you are suing someone you would get more money from the case if you settle the case out of court than you would get if you go to trial and get a judgment against the defendant. Because the defendant does not have the embarrassment of a conviction. If you get a lawyer to do the case and your lawyer says that instead of you paying them by the hour they will take a percentage of what you get from the case. Be wary, the lawyer may tell you that your case is not worth that much money. Say two hundred thousand dollars and then says that they will probably charge you one hundred thousand dollars. So he will take 50 percent. Then you settle the case out of court and get one million dollars. Then your lawyer will then get a half a million dollars. So if you get a lawyer who wants a percentage from the case. Ask him how much they think case law says you will get if you go to trial and get a judgment. (ask to see the case law)You must then make sure your agreement with your lawyer says that he gets 50 percent of what you get to a maximum of what he told you you would get if you go to trial and get a judgment. There are lawyers who will lie about stuff like this. I have also heard of lawyers that take a percentage having the client sign an agreement to tell the defendant to write out the cheque for the settlement amount to the lawyer’s name then the lawyer writes out a cheque to the client for their part. Some lawyers who do this do not write out a cheque for the client the lawyer spends the client’s money. So if you have a lawyer who is taking a percentage have them write out an agreement telling the defendant to write out two cheques one in the lawyer’s name for the amount the they get and one in the client’s name. If your lawyer rips you off you can file a complaint with the Law Society of Ontario. Rule 3.6 of the professional conduct rules says

Reasonable Fees and Disbursements

3.6-1 A lawyer shall not charge or accept any amount for a fee or disbursement unless it is fair and reasonable and has been disclosed in a timely fashion.

3.6-1.1 A lawyer shall not charge a client interest on an overdue account save as permitted by the Solicitors Act or as otherwise permitted by law.

Commentary

[1] What is a fair and reasonable fee will depend upon such factors as

(a) the time and effort required and spent,

(b) the difficulty of the matter and the importance of the matter to the client,

(c.1) the amount involved or the value of the subject-matter,

(d) the results obtained,

(e) fees authorized by statute or regulation,

(f) special circumstances, such as the loss of other retainers, postponement of payment, uncertainty of reward, or urgency,

(g) the likelihood, if made known to the client, that acceptance of the retainer will result in the lawyer’s inability to accept other employment,

(h) any relevant agreement between the lawyer and the client,

(i) the experience and ability of the lawyer,

(j) any estimate or range of fees given by the lawyer, and

(k) the client’s prior consent to the fee.

[2] The fiduciary relationship between lawyer and client requires full disclosure in all financial dealings between them and prohibits the acceptance by the lawyer of any hidden fees. No fee, reward, costs, commission, interest, rebate, agency or forwarding allowance, or other compensation related to professional employment may be taken by the lawyer from anyone other than the client without full disclosure to and the consent of the client or, where the lawyer’s fees are being paid by someone other than the client, such as a legal aid agency, a borrower, or a personal representative, without the consent of such agency or other person.

[3] A lawyer should provide to the client in writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing a representation, as much information regarding fees and disbursements, and interest as is reasonable and practical in the circumstances, including the basis on which fees will be determined.

[4] A lawyer should be ready to explain the basis of the fees and disbursements charged to the client. This is particularly important concerning fee charges or disbursements that the client might not reasonably be expected to anticipate. When something unusual or unforeseen occurs that may substantially affect the amount of a fee or disbursement, the lawyer should give to the client an immediate explanation. A lawyer should confirm with the client in writing the substance of all fee discussions that occur as a matter progresses, and a lawyer may revise an initial estimate of fees and disbursements.

[4.1] A lawyer should inform a client about their rights to have an account assessed under the Solicitors Act.

But the law society cannot make your lawyer pay you back. For that, you will have to file for an assessment hearing to have the lawyer’s bill assessed.

Update of June 20, 2021

42. Back in 2018 I was studying defamation law and found a thing called compelled self-publication by the plaintiff. It means that the person who was defamed has to show someone a defaming statement about themself because they are compelled to do so. And the person who defamed them the first time can be sued for the second compelled publication done by the plaintiff. Like if you fill out a job application and in the application it asks the reasons you lost your last job. I then got job applications for Canadian Tire and Subway. And in the application, it asked the reason I lost my last job. I put down that I lost my last job for sexually harassing a female employee. I then filed a lawsuit against Magna International for defamation. Their lawyer then files a motion asking for the case to be thrown out of court. At the motion hearing, Judge Carpenter Gunn said that you were only compelled to say in the job application that you were fired and not the details of the firing. She is right and she threw the case out of court. She also told me to stop filing lawsuits because the courts are swamped. I then ordered the transcripts from the motion hearing. I read the transcripts and Judge Gunn took the part where she tells me to stop filing lawsuits because the courts are swamped out of the transcripts I then filed a complaint against the Judge with the Canadian Judicial Council saying.

The courts in Ontario are swamped and the Police are under pressure not to add to it. And the police complaints system covers up complaints against police. So, I called the RCMP and asked them to investigate the Hamilton police for covering up crimes and the Ontario Civilian Commission on police services for covering up complaints against Police which is obstruction of justice The RCMP refused to do the investigations. So, in 2012 I filed a lawsuit against the RCMP because they refused to do the investigations. In the statement of claim, it says that the courts are swamped and police are under pressure not to add to it. The lawyer for the RCMP filed a motion to have the lawsuit thrown out of court. They made the argument that it is not the job of Police to do investigations. The Judge at the motion hearing was Carpenter Gunn. She agreed with the lawyer for the RCMP and threw the case out of court. In 2018 I filed a lawsuit against Magna International for defamation. Their lawyer filed a motion to have the case thrown out of court. The Judge at the motion hearing was Carpenter Gunn. She then threw the lawsuit out and said to my lawyer explain to your client that this court is more a criminal court than a civil court and to stop filing lawsuits because the courts are swamped. I ordered the transcripts from the hearing and the part about the Judge telling my lawyer to tell me to stop filing lawsuits was taken out of the transcripts. I believe that Carpenter Gunn took the part about her telling my lawyer to tell me to stop filing lawsuits because the courts are swamped out of the transcripts. I believe if you ask the court reporter to send you the originals of the transcripts the ones before the Judge can edit them it will show this. My complaint is that she should not have told me to stop filing lawsuits.

I then got a letter from Marc A. Giroux Interim Executive Director Canadian Judicial Council Dated April 15, 2021, saying.

Dear Mr. Burgiss: I am responding to your email of February 14, 2021, in which you make a complaint in respect of the Honourable K.A. Carpenter-Gunn of the Superior Court of Justice of Ontario. You allege that Justice Carpenter-Gunn stated during a hearing on January 16, 2019, to “stop filing lawsuits.” You also allege that a sentence was omitted in the transcript. The mandate of Council in matters of judicial conduct is to determine whether a recommendation should be made to the Minister of Justice, after a formal investigation, that a judge be removed from office by Parliament. The reasons for removal are set out in the Judges Act and address situations where a judge has become incapacitated or disabled from performing the duties of a judge. This can be as a result of age or infirmity, misconduct, a failure to execute the duties of the position, or being in a position incompatible with the functions of a judge. In certain cases, Council may recommend remedial measures or express concern about a judge’s conduct. Council is not a court and has no authority to review a judge’s decision and orders to determine whether the judge rendered a decision that is congruent with the law and or the evidence. Judicial decision-making and the exercise of judicial discretion are not issues of judicial conduct. It is open to a judge to comment about lawsuits that appear excessive or, for any reason, inappropriate in the context of a judicial proceeding. It is not for Council to review such comments. 2 – Whether a transcript is accurate or complete is not an issue that falls within the mandate of Council. The Council’s Review Procedures provide an early screening process of complaints that falls under my responsibility. Having reviewed your complaint, it is my view that it does not warrant consideration by Council as it does not raise any issue of conduct on the part of Madam Justice Carpenter-Gunn. Yours sincerely, Marc A. Giroux Interim Executive Director.

I then wrote back saying.

Section 139 (2) of the criminal code of Canada says Everyone who willfully attempts in any manner other than the manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years. Section 139 (2) says attempts to obstruct pervert or defeat the course of justice. So an attempt to obstruct justice is a crime. Because you cannot try to stop someone from filing a lawsuit because the courts are swamped. When Judge Carpenter Gunn told me to stop filing lawsuits because the courts are swamped she is attempting to obstruct justice. If a Judge commits a criminal act in a courtroom she is presiding over this must be a misconduct by the Judge. When she edited the transcripts that I ordered and took out the part where she tells me to stop filing lawsuits because the courts are swamp she was trying to cover up the fact that she has attempted to obstruct justice and cover up any complaints that I may file against her is a misconduct. A Judge does not have discretion to interfere in a case they are not presiding over!! They did not respond back.

Update of July 18, 2021

43. I contacted Fred Eisenberger the Mayor of Hamilton mayor@hamilton.ca John Tory Mayor of Toronto Mayor_Tory@toronto.ca and Nrinder Nann my city Councilor nrinder.nann@hamilton .ca and said I have contacted the AG they refuse to do an investigation. You could put it on your tweeter account and then there may be a public outcry about it and then they will do an investigation. You could also bring this up at city hall. They all refused to do it.

44. I have contacted black lives matter Canada info@blacklivesmatter.ca and said. Will you guys put a link to my website from yours? www.injusticeinontario.ca and will you protest the police complaints system in Ontario? They did not respond back.

Update of August 02, 2021

45. Here is the video from Council Chambers in Hamilton the time I was arrested in paragraph 28 of this website. At the 19-minute and 27-second mark in the video, the officers try to drag me over a chair and this leaves me with bruised ribs.

Update of August 21, 2021

46. In 2016 City News in Toronto, Ontario did a story about Toronto police threatening to seize the cell phone of a witness to a Toronto police arrest. City News interviewed a person from the Toronto police who said that the police cannot seize a cell phone under those circumstances. Section 346 (1) of the criminal code of Canada says Extortion 346 (1) Everyone commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done. What this means is if you threaten someone or accuse them of something that is not true to get them to do anything that you cannot legally force them to do. Or threaten someone or accuse them of something that is not true to stop them from doing something that they have a legal right to do. This is extortion. It says with intent to obtain anything. It goes on to say to do anything or cause anything to be done. I wrote to city news and asked them to do a story about the Toronto police officers committing extortion they said no. So police not committing a criminal act on the job is newsworthy but police committing a criminal act on the job is not newsworthy. CityNews on Citytv: 33 Dundas St. East
Toronto ON. M5B 1B8 (416) 599 – 2489 (CITY)

Update of September 18, 2021

47. Between July 23, 2021, and August 24, 2021, I emailed the Chief of Police in Hamilton, Ontario. saying.

My website www.injusticeinontario.ca shows that some of your officers are covering up crimes because the courts are swamped and they are under pressure to not add to it. And that your professional standards branch is covering up complaints against your officers. Both these things are obstruction of justice. It also shows that the OCCOPS and the OIPRD are lying and covering up complaints against the Police. So can you please launch a criminal investigation? He did not respond back or launch a criminal investigation. So I then emailed every city Councilor in Hamilton Ontario saying. Between July 23, 2021, and August 24, 2021, I emailed the Chief of police in Hamilton, Ontario. saying.

My website www.injusticeinontario.ca shows that some of your officers are covering up crimes because the courts are swamped and they are under pressure to not add to it. And that your professional standards branch is covering up complaints against your officers. Both these things are obstruction of justice. It also shows that the OCCOPS and the OIPRD are lying and covering up complaints against the police. So can you please launch a criminal investigation? He did not launch an investigation. Which is misconduct by the Chief. Because the Chief can clearly order a criminal investigation. Because he is in charge of all the investigators that work for the Hamilton police. The Office of the independent police review director (OIPRD) deals with complaints against police in Ontario. On their website it says

Who Can Make a Complaint?

Anyone who has had an interaction with police in Ontario can make a complaint. You do not have to be an Ontario resident to make a complaint.

You can make a complaint about a police officer if you:

Have a concern or were offended by something a police officer(s) said or did to you and were directly affected by the incident
Were a witness to an incident involving a police officer(s) that concerned or offended you
Are concerned or distressed as a result of the way a relative or friend has been treated by a police officer(s) and are:
- A person in a personal relationship with the directly affected person and has suffered loss, damage, distress, danger, or inconvenience
- A person who has knowledge of conduct, or has possession or control of anything that the Director feels constitutes evidence that establishes misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance
Are acting on behalf of an individual listed above; for example, a member of an organization who has been given written permission to make a complaint on another’s behalf (this person is known as an agent)
Have a complaint that a police service has not provided proper service
Have a complaint about a policy of a police service

It says A person who has knowledge of conduct or has possession or control of anything that the Director feels constitutes evidence that establishes misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance. In this email at the bottom, there is evidence of misconduct by the Chief. So you now have Possession of evidence of misconduct by the Chief of police in Hamilton. So can you please file a complaint against the Chief of Police Frank Bergen? When I file a complaint against a police officer it gets covered up. There is a six-month limitation period for filing a conduct complaint against a police officer. Ward 3 – Councilor Nrinder Nann ward3@hamilton.ca said I apologize but there is little our office can do to assist with your concerns. I would advise that you connect with the Office of the Independent Police Review Director for advice.

I then wrote back saying.

What do you mean there is little our office can do? There is enough there to file a complaint against the Chief. Ward 9 Councilor Brad Clark brad.clark@hamilton.ca said. Canadian jurisprudence requires that such complaints be filed by the witness and not by a third party. I then wrote back saying.

The rules on the OIPRD’s website say that anyone can file a complaint against the Chief. If they have enough evidence for the complaint. In my original email to you, there is enough evidence for a complaint against the Chief. I sent you the evidence of misconduct by the Chief in my email. So you do not have enough evidence to file a complaint against the Chief. So please file a complaint against the Chief.

He then wrote back saying.

I will not file a complaint based on third-party fact-finding. I have no direct knowledge of any wrongdoing.

I then wrote back saying.

The evidence in my original email is direct evidence of a misconduct by the Chief. If you feel it is not please explain. The OIPRD website says who can make a complaint. A person who has knowledge of conduct, or has possession or control of anything that the Director feels constitutes evidence that establishes misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance

He then wrote back saying.

As I stated before, I have no “direct knowledge” of any wrongdoing. Accordingly, if I filed a complaint, I would be putting myself in the position of relying on hearsay which is unacceptable. This will be my last communication on the matter.

I then wrote back saying.

Hearsay is a third person testifying to what a second person told them the second person’s ears heard. So my evidence to you of a misconduct by the Chief is not hearsay. So if you file a complaint against the Chief the OIPRD will get the evidence of the misconduct by the Chief from me. He did not respond back. Ward 15 Councilor Judi Partridge judi.partridge@hamilton.ca said. Thank you for reaching out to Councilor Partridge. As the Hamilton Police Services does not take direction from the Municipality, I would encourage you to direct your complaints to the Police Services Board of Directors. This would be the most efficient way of having your concerns addressed. I will be sure to bring your email and concerns to the counselor’s attention at my earliest opportunity. Take care and be well.

I then wrote back saying.

Why do you not file a complaint against the Chief? She did not respond back.

All the rest of the city councilors Ward 14 Councilor Terry Whitehead terry.whitehead@hamilton.ca Ward 13 Councilor Arlene Vanderbeek arlene.vanderbeek@hamilton.ca Ward 12 Councilor Lloyd Ferguson lloyd.ferguson@hamilton.ca Ward 11 Councilor Brenda Johnson brenda.johnson@hamilton.ca Ward 10 Councilor Maria Pearson maria.pearson@hamilton.ca Ward 8 Councilor John-Paul Danko ward8@hamilton.ca Ward 7 Councilor Esther Pauls esther.pauls@hamilton.ca Ward 6 Councilor Tom Jackson tom.jackson@hamilton.ca Ward 5 Councilor Chad Collins chad.collins@hamilton.ca Ward 4 Councilor Sam Marula sam.merulla@hamilton.ca Ward 2 Councilor Jason Far Jason.Farr@hamilton.ca Ward 1 Councilor Maureen Wilson maureen.wilson@hamilton.ca Mayor Fred Eisenberger mayor@hamilton.ca Did not respond back.

Update of October 20, 2021

48. On September 27, 2021, I began to email Matthew Green Federal Member of Parliament Hamilton Centre and my MP I emailed him 15 times. matthew.green@parl.gc.ca saying. Between July 23, 2021, and August 24, 2021, I emailed the Chief of police in Hamilton, Ontario. Saying.

My website www.injusticeinontario.ca shows that some of your officers are covering up crimes because the courts are swamped and they are under pressure to not add to it. And that your professional standards branch is covering up complaints against your officers. Both these things are obstruction of justice. It also shows that the OCCOPS and the OIPRD are lying and covering up complaints against the police. So, can you please launch a criminal investigation? He did not launch an investigation. Which is misconduct by the Chief. Because the Chief can clearly order a criminal investigation. Because he is in charge of all the investigators that work for the Hamilton police. The Office of the independent police review director (OIPRD) deals with complaints against police in Ontario. On their website it Says

Who Can Make a Complaint?

Anyone who has had an interaction with police in Ontario can make a complaint. You do not have to be an Ontario resident to make a complaint.

You can make a complaint about a police officer if you:

Have a concern or were offended by something a police officer(s) said or did to you and were directly affected by the incident
Were a witness to an incident involving a police officer(s) that concerned or offended you
Are concerned or distressed as a result of the way a relative or friend has been treated by a police officer(s) and are:
- A person in a personal relationship with the directly affected person and has suffered loss, damage, distress, danger, or inconvenience
- A person who has knowledge of conduct, or has possession or control of anything that the Director feels constitutes evidence that establishes misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance
Are acting on behalf of an individual listed above; for example, a member of an organization who has been given written permission to make a complaint on another’s behalf (this person is known as an agent)
Have a complaint that a police service has not provided proper service
Have a complaint about a policy of a police service

It says A person who has knowledge of conduct or has possession or control of anything that the Director feels constitutes evidence that establishes misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance. In this email at the bottom, there is evidence of misconduct by the Chief. So, you now have Possession of evidence of misconduct by the Chief of police in Hamilton. So can you please file a complaint against the Chief of Police Frank Bergen? When I file a complaint against a police officer it gets covered up. There is a six-month limitation period for filing a conduct complaint against a police officer. Matthew Green did not respond back.

Update of October 27, 2021

49. Between September 13, 2021, and October 04, 2021, I emailed the Chief of Police in Toronto saying.

My website http://www.injusticceinontario.ca shows that the OIPRD and the Ontario Ombudsman’s office are covering up complaints that they get. Both these things are obstruction of justice. Their offices are in Toronto so can you assign a Toronto police officer to do a criminal investigation into them? The Chief did not assign an officer to the case. So I emailed every city councilor in Toronto saying. Below are emails that I sent to the Chief of police in Toronto. From September 13, 2021 to October 04, 2021, Saying.

My website http://www.injusticceinontario.ca shows that the OIPRD and the Ontario Ombudsman’s office are covering up complaints that they get. Both these things are obstruction of justice. Their offices are in Toronto so can you assign a Toronto police officer to do a criminal investigation into them? The Chief did not assign an officer to the case. The Chief of Police in Toronto is in charge of all the investigators who work for the Toronto police. So, he can assign an officer to do a criminal investigation. The OIPRD deals with complaints against police in Ontario. On their website it says

Who Can Make a Complaint?

Anyone who has had an interaction with police in Ontario can make a complaint. You do not have to be an Ontario resident to make a complaint.

You can make a complaint about a police officer if you:

Have a concern or were offended by something a police officer(s) said or did to you and were directly affected by the incident
Were a witness to an incident involving a police officer(s) that concerned or offended you
Are concerned or distressed as a result of the way a relative or friend has been treated by a police officer(s) and are:
- A person in a personal relationship with the directly affected person and has suffered loss, damage, distress, danger, or inconvenience
- A person who has knowledge of conduct, or has possession or control of anything that the Director feels constitutes evidence that establishes misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance
Are acting on behalf of an individual listed above; for example, a member of an organization who has been given written permission to make a complaint on another’s behalf (this person is known as an agent)
Have a complaint that a police service has not provided proper service
Have a complaint about a policy of a police service

It says A person who has knowledge of conduct or has possession or control of anything that the Director feels constitutes evidence that establishes misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance. You now have in your possession the evidence of police misconduct by the Chief James Ramer. So can you please file a complaint against the Chief of Toronto police Chief James Ramer? When I file a complaint against a police officer it gets covered up. There is a six-month limitation period on filing a complaint with the OIPRD. John Tory the Mayor Tory@toronto.ca said. The Mayor’s Office does not direct the Toronto Police Service (TPS) in these matters. You may choose to report your concerns to the Toronto Police Service directly at 418-808-2222. Again, complaints about the conduct of police officers or about the policies or services delivered by the TPS should be directed to the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD). The OIPRD receives, manages, and oversees all complaints about police in Ontario. Complaints must be signed and filed on a form prescribed by the OIPRD.

I then wrote back to him saying.

The rules on the OIPRD’s website say if you have in your possession the evidence of a misconduct by a police officer in Ontario. You can file a complaint against the Officer. In my first email to you, there is evidence of misconduct by the Chief of police in Toronto. So you now have in your possession the evidence of a misconduct by the Chief. So please file a complaint. He did not respond back.

Mark Grimes Councillor_Grimes@toronto.ca said. Have you tried to file a complaint directly with the Toronto Police online through the “Community Policing complaint form”? https://www.torontopolice.on.ca/community-complaints/ Aside from this online form, we would encourage you to reach out to the Toronto Ombudsman, this is different than the Ontario Ombudsman. This is the contact: https://www.ombudsmantoronto.ca/ Since the Toronto Police and Toronto Ombudsman are both independent from the City Council, we can offer to forward your complaint to the Toronto Ombudsman’s office if you give us permission.

I then emailed him back saying.

The rules at the OIPRD say that if you have in your possession the evidence of misconduct you can file a complaint. In my first email, there is evidence of misconduct by the Chief of Toronto police. So you now have in your possession the evidence of a misconduct by the Chief of Police in Toronto. So can you please file a complaint? He then emailed me back saying.

No problem, we will forward your email to the Toronto Ombudsman on your behalf. Just to clarify – although you’ve provided an account of misconduct this does not mean Councilor Grimes, nor his office, is in possession of evidence. This is simply your account of the incident/situation. By forwarding it to the Toronto Ombudsman we are ensuring that it gets to the appropriate channel.

I then emailed him back saying.

Emails are used as evidence in courtrooms all the time. So emails are evidence. The definition of possession from a law dictionary is the right of control per disposal of any article irrespective of the actual possession or location of the article. So can you please file a complaint against the Chief? He did not respond back.

Mike Layton councillor_layton@toronto.ca said. I cannot assist you with this. I am sorry. This must go through the OIPRD. I then emailed him back saying.

The rules on the OIPRD’s website say that you can file a complaint against an officer in Ontario if you have in your possession or control the evidence of the misconduct. In my first email to you at the bottom of the email are the emails that I sent to the Chief of Police in Toronto. The Chief did not respond to my emails. So you now have in your possession or control evidence of the Chief doing a misconduct. So please file a complaint. He did not respond back.

Stephen Holyday councillor_holyday@toronto.ca said. Your matter does not appear to be within the purview of the local Council. I suggest that you contact the Toronto Police directly if you wish to report a potential crime. Alternatively, you may wish to reach out to your local Member of Provincial Parliament to discuss systemic concerns.

I then emailed him back saying.

On the OIPRD’s website, it says if you have in your possession the evidence of misconduct you can file a complaint. It does not say that a person has to have purview over the matter. So please file a complaint. He did not respond back.

Shelley Carroll councilor_carroll@toronto.ca said.

Would you mind confirming your address so I can ensure the correct person in our office is assisting you with this? I then emailed her back. Telling her that my address was in Hamilton. She did not respond back.

Cynthia Lai councillor_lai@toronto.ca said.

Thank you for your email. In order for me to proceed further, please provide me with your home address (for our records only). I then emailed her back telling him my address.

She then emailed me back saying.

You will have to get in touch with the representative in your area. Councilor Lai is a City Councilor who represents Scarborough North (City of Toronto).

I then emailed her back saying.

On the OIPRD’s website, it says that if you have in your possession evidence of a misconduct you can file a complaint. It does not say anything about the person filing the complaint having to be the representative of someone. So please file the complaint.

She then emailed me back saying.

I have received all your emails and have forwarded off to the appropriate department. Would recommend that you connect with your local Councilor as that carries more weight than our office.

I then emailed her back saying.

The rules on the OIPRD’s website say that if you have in your possession the evidence of a misconduct a police officer in Ontario you can file a complaint against the Officer. In my first email to you, there is evidence of a misconduct by the Chief of Police in Toronto. So you now have in your possession the evidence of a misconduct by the Chief. So please file a complaint. She did not respond back.

All the rest

Kristyn Wong-Tam councillor_wongtam@toronto.ca

Jaye Robinson councillor_robinson@toronto.ca

Gord Perks councillor_perks@toronto.ca

James Pasternak councillor_pasternak@toronto.ca

Frances Nunziata councillor_nunziata@toronto.ca

Denzil Minnan-Wong councillor_minnan-wong@toronto.ca

Jennifer McKelvie councillor_mckelvie@toronto.ca

Josh Matlow councillor_matlow@toronto.ca

Nick Mantas councillor_mantas@toronto.ca

Michael Ford councillor_mford@toronto.ca

Paula Fletcher councillor_fletcher@toronto.ca

John Filion councillor_filion@toronto.ca

Joe Cressy councillor_cressy@toronto.ca

Gary Crawford councillor_crawford@toronto.ca

Brad Bradford councillor_bradford@toronto.ca

Mike Colle councillor_colle8@toronto.ca

Ana Bailão councillor_bailao@toronto.ca

Anthony Perruzza councillor_perruzza@toronto.ca

Michael Thompson councillor_thompson@toronto.ca

Paul Ainslie councillor_ainslie@toronto.ca

Josh Matlowcouncillor_matlow@toronto.ca

Did not respond back.

Update of November 08, 2021

50. In paragraph 24 I wrote to Doug Downy the Attorney General of Ontario Doug.Downey@ontario.ca Saying.

In the past, I have written to your office and asked for an investigation into the OIPRD for covering up complaints against the police. section 5 c of the memorandum of understanding between the OIPRD and the Attorney General says The Director is accountable to the Attorney General for the performance of the OIPRD in fulfilling its mandate and for carrying out the roles and responsibilities assigned to the Director by the PSA, Management Principles, all Directives, and this MOU. But your staff are saying that this does not mean that the AG can investigate the OIPRD director because the OIPRD is independent of the government. But section 5c of the MOU must mean that the AG can investigate the OIPRD director because it says The Director is accountable. So if the AG cannot investigate the Director then how can the AG hold him accountable? The AG did not respond back or launch an investigation. Thinking that the reason he did not respond back or launch an investigation is because my argument as to how the AG can investigate the OIPRD was not good enough.

I began today to email him again saying.

In the past, I have asked you to investigate the OIPRD for covering up complaints against police. Because of section 5c of the memorandum of understanding between the AG and the OIPRD. Your staff said that section 5c of the MOU does not mean that they can investigate the OIPRD because they are independent from the government. I have hired a lawyer to tell me what section 5c of the MOU means. He said In closing, my interpretation of the provision is simply that it sets out the ‘chain of command’ with the AG being above the OIPRD. I see no reason why based on that alone (I have not had a chance to review any of the other documents that would potentially apply) the AG could not investigate the OIPRD, in the event it so chooses. His email is below. So will you now investigate the OIPRD? Doug.Downey@ontario.ca

Update of December 12, 2021

51. On October 25, 2021, I began to email the Attorney General of Ontario attorneygeneral@ontario.ca Toll-free 1 800 518 7901 saying.

Hi In the past I have asked you to investigate the OIPRD for covering up complaints against the police. Because of section 5c of the memorandum of understanding it says. The Director is accountable to the Attorney General for the performance of the OIPRD in fulfilling its mandate and for carrying out the roles and responsibilities assigned to the Director by the PSA, Management Principles, all Directives, and this MOU. Your staff said that section 5c of the MOU does not mean that they can investigate the OIPRD because the OIPRD are independent from the government. So I hired a lawyer to tell me what section 5c of the MOU means (his email is below) He said I see no reason why based on that alone (I have not had a chance to review any of the other documents that would potentially apply) the AG could not investigate the OIPRD, So will you now investigate the OIPRD for covering up complaints against the police? I have forwarded the email to the AG every business day until December 10, 2021. But they still have not responded back. So, on December 11, 2021,

I began to email them again saying.

You have the resources to send an email to the OIPRD even with the pandemic on. So can you please send an email to the OIPRD and ask them to explain their decision in the complaint attached?

In 2021 I went to the Hamilton police to have them investigate of an obstruction of justice that happened in 2001. The officer at the police station would not write up a report on it. So, I filed a complaint against him with the OIPRD. The OIPRD said that you would not be able to get a conviction because it has been 20 years since the obstruction happened so the officer was right, this makes no sense because the evidence for the obstruction is all in written form. And I emailed copies of the evidence to the OIPRD.

Update of February 01, 2022

52. On 25, 10, 2021 I began emailing Andrea Horwath ahorwath-co@ndp.on.ca Phone Tel 905 544 9644 saying Below are emails that I sent to the ombudsman’s office asking them to investigate the SIU. The Ombudsman’s office said that cannot investigate the SIU for their decision to not file charges against a police officer. Because that is a legal decision of the SIU. However, the Ombudsman’s act says that they can investigate any decision of the SIU. So can you please email the Ombudsman’s office? Even with the pandemic on you still have the resources to send an email. I emailed her every business day for 66 business days. She did not respond back. On 08, 11, 2021. I began emailing the Attorney General of Ontario Doug Downey Doug.Downey@ontario.ca. Saying.

In the past I have asked you to investigate the OIPRD for covering up complaints against the police. Because of section 5c of the memorandum of understanding between the AG and the OIPRD. Your staff said that section 5c of the MOU does not mean that they can investigate the OIPRD because they are independent from the government. I have hired a lawyer to tell me what section 5c of the MOU means. He said In closing, my interpretation of the provision is simply that it sets out the ‘chain of command’ with the AG being above the OIPRD. I see no reason why based on that alone (I have not had a chance to review any of the other documents that would potentially apply) the AG could not investigate the OIPRD, in the event it so chooses. His email is below. So will you now investigate the OIPRD? In 2021 I went to the Hamilton police to have them investigate an obstruction of justice that happened in 2001. The officer at the police station would not write up a report on it. So I filed a complaint against him with the OIPRD. The OIPRD said that you would not be able to get a conviction because it has been 20 years since the obstruction happened so the officer was right, This makes no sense because the evidence for the obstruction is all in written form. And I emailed copies of the evidence to the OIPRD. You have the resources to send an email to the OIPRD even with the pandemic on. So can you please send an email to the OIPRD and ask them to explain their decision in the complaint attached? I emailed him for 57 business days in a row. He did not respond back. On 25, 10, 2021 I began emailing the office of the Attorney General of Ontario attorneygeneral@ontario.ca Toll-free 1-800-518-7901 Toronto Tel 416-326-2220 I emailed them for 68 business days in a row. Saying.

In the past, I have asked you to investigate the OIPRD for covering up complaints against the police. Because of section 5c of the memorandum of understanding it says. The Director is accountable to the Attorney General for the performance of the OIPRD in fulfilling its mandate and for carrying out the roles and responsibilities assigned to the Director by the PSA, Management Principles, all Directives, and this MOU. Your staff said that section 5c of the MOU does not mean that they can investigate the OIPRD because the OIPRD are independent from the government. So I hired a lawyer to tell me what section 5c of the MOU means (his email is below) He said I see no reason why based on that alone (I have not had a chance to review any of the other documents that would potentially apply) the AG could not investigate the OIPRD, So will you now investigate the OIPRD for covering up complaints against the police? In 2021 I went to the Hamilton police to have them investigate an obstruction of justice that happened in 2001. The officer at the police station would not write up a report on it. So I filed a complaint against him with the OIPRD. The OIPRD said that you would not be able to get a conviction because it has been 20 years since the obstruction happened so the officer was right, This makes no sense because the evidence for the obstruction is all in written form. And I emailed copies of the evidence to the OIPRD. You have the resources to send an email to the OIPRD even with the pandemic on. So can you please send an email to the OIPRD and ask them to explain their decision in the complaint attached? They did not respond back. So today I began emailing Doug Ford the Premier of Ontario. premier@ontario.ca premier@ontario.ca Tel 1-416-325-1941 Saying. On the Attorney General’s website, it says Your inquiry is important to us. At this time, you may experience a longer than usual wait for a response. On 25, 10, 2021 I began emailing the AG I have now emailed them every business day since then. So I have emailed for 68 business days in a row. But they have not responded back.

Update of March 06, 2022

53. The Premier premier@ontario.ca Tel 1-416-325-1941 did not respond to my e-mail’s Thinking that the reason the AG is not responding to my e-mails and not answering their phones is because they are short-staffed because of the capacity limits. But as of March 01, 2022, the capacity limits have been lifted in Ontario. So March 03, 2022, I began emailing the Premier asking. When will the Ontario government be back at full staff?

Update of March 23, 2022

54. On March 03, 2022, I began calling the Attorney General attorneygeneral@ontario.ca Toll-free: 1-800-518-7901 Toronto Tel: 416-326-2220 office asking them to investigate the OIPRD Director for covering up complaints against police. They do not answer the phone when I call. And the message you get is that if you leave your name and number they will call you back. I have called them for 11 business days in a row. Leaving my name and phone number. I have also continued to email them. They have not called me back. On March 08, 2022, I began calling Andrea Horwath’s ahorwath-co@ndp.on.ca Tel. 905 544 9644 office. To ask them to write to the Ontario Ombudsman’s office. They do not answer the phone. The message you get when you call says if you leave your address, name, and number they will call you back. I have called them for 10 business days in a row. And left my name, address, and phone number. I have also continued to email them. They have not called me back. On March 08, 2022, I began calling Mathew Green’s matthew.green@parl.gc.ca Phone 905 526 0770 office to ask them to write to the Prime Minister about the RCMP complaints commission covering up complaints against RCMP. I called them for two business days in a row. They then called me back. The person that I talked to said that they would have to get the Ottawa office to contact the PM’s office. About an hour later I called them back. The person I talked to Trudy said she would have to talk to the person I talked to on the first call to find out what it was about. About an hour later I called them back and said that the person I talked to on the first call said that they would have to get the Ottawa office to write to the PM’s office. I then said the Hamilton office can’t send out emails. I told her that I sent emails to the PM about the RCMP complaint Commission covering up complaints but he did not respond back. She then said I will send you an email and you have to put in writing the dates of everything. She then sent me an email. I then sent her an email saying. I checked the RCMP Complaints Commission’s website it says that there is a new chairperson there as of January 2019. So there is not much sense in writing to the PM because he cannot fire the new Chair she is not the one who covered up my old complaint. So I will write to the RCMP again and ask for a new investigation. Can you send me an email saying that MP Matthew Green will be looking over the new investigation and complaint if one is filed? This may scare them into doing the right investigation. She did not respond back. Then on March 13, 2022, I called the RCMP Stoney Creek Ontario detachment. I asked them to investigate the Ontario Ombudsman’s office for covering my complaint against the SIU which is obstruction of justice. The RCMP officer said that the RCMP does not have jurisdiction in Ontario. I then said that section 18 of the RCMP act says that RCMP members have to prevent crimes in the province that there employed in. She then said call your police or the OPP and if they can call us we will do an investigation. Then on March 21, 2022, I filed a complaint against the RCMP officer saying. Back in 2019, I was sexually assaulted by a Hamilton police officer. The video of it is on my youtube channel. My youtube channel is called Injustice in Ontario. The title of the video is SIU Cover-up Here is the link to it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiiRn5IJeXI In this video at the 6-minute and 43-second mark it shows the officer touching my genitals. The criminal code of Canada section 271. says 271 Everyone who commits a sexual assault is guilty of (a) an indictable offense and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years. On this website. http://www.criminal-code.ca/criminal-code-of-canada-section-271-sexual-assault/ it says The offense of sexual assault captures an extremely wide range of behavior. Any physical application of force that is not consensual, and is done in circumstances of a sexual nature, can constitute a sexual assault In this case the courts said that touching someone on top of their clothes is sexual assault. https://www.canlii.org/en/nu/nucj/doc/2015/2015nucj2/2015nucj2.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAhc2V4dWFsIGFzc2F1bHQgb24gdG9wIG9mIGNsb3RoZXMgAAAAAAE&resultIndex=3 I then called the special investigations unit (SIU) in Ontario, Canada. The Special Investigations Unit Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 1, Sched. 5 says

Power to investigate 15 (1) The SIU Director may cause an investigation to be conducted into any incident in which any of the following occurs, if the incident may have resulted from criminal conduct by an official: 1. The death of a person. 2. The serious injury of a person. 3. The discharge of a firearm at a person. 4. The sexual assault of a person, as reported by the person. Application of section to officials (2) This section applies in respect of an official if, at the time of the incident, (a) the official was on duty; or (b) the official was off-duty but, (i) engaged in the investigation, pursuit, detention or arrest of a person or otherwise exercised the powers of a police officer, special constable or peace officer, as the case may be, whether or not the official intended to exercise such powers or identified him or herself as a person who may exercise such powers, or (ii) the incident involved equipment or other property issued to the official in relation to his or her duties. So, the SIU can investigate a sexual assault by a police officer. The SIU said that there was not enough evidence for a charge of sexual assault. The SIU did not say that the officer’s touch was not intentional. Or say that I consented to the touch. Or say that the touch was not of a sexual nature. They said that the touch from the police officer was a fleeting touch so it is not sexual assault. I recorded the phone call with the SIU. It is on my youtube channel. My youtube channel is called Injustice in Ontario. The title of the video is SIU Cover up 2 Here is the link to it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjRpbrTJex8, In this case, https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1500/index.do 1 The Judge said that fleeting touches are still sexual assault. I then emailed the SIU Director and put in the email the link to the case law. He refused to revise his decision. I then called the Ontario Ombudsman’s office. The SIU is on the list of agencies that the Ombudsman can investigate. I recorded the phone call with the Ombudsman’s office. It is on my youtube channel. My youtube channel is called Injustice in Ontario. The title of the video is Ombudsman 5 Here is the link to it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP685Wlf_7w The person at the Ombudsman’s office named Grace said that the Ombudsman’s office cannot investigate the decision of the SIU to not file criminal charges against a police officer. Because that is a legal decision. The Ombudsman’s act section 14.1 says Function of Ombudsman 14 (1)

The function of the Ombudsman is to investigate any decision or recommendation made or any act done or omitted in the course of the administration of a public sector body and affecting any person or body of persons in his, her or its personal capacity. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.6, s. 14 (1); 2014, c. 13, Sched. 9, s. 6 (1). The SIU is an administrative agency. So, any decision they make is an administrative one. So, the Ombudsman’s office can investigate any decision that the SIU makes. Section 139.2 of the Criminal Code of Canada says Criminal Code of Canada – section 139(2) – Idem. 139(2)

Everyone who willfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years. Complaints with the ombudsman’s office are done through the Ombudsman’s Act. So, if someone tries to cover up a complaint that the Ombudsman’s office receives they are obstructing the Ombudsman’s act. And obstructing a Government act is Obstructing justice. On March 13 2022 at about 120pm I called the RCMP detachment in Stoney Creek, Ontario. To ask for an investigation into the Ontario Ombudsman’s office for obstruction of justice. The RCMP officer I talked to said that the RCMP does not have jurisdiction in Ontario. I then said to her the RCMP Act section 18 says that RCMP members have to prevent crimes in the province in which they may be employed, She then said to call the local police or the OPP and if they feel it is necessary they could contact us to do an investigation. So she is contradicting herself. Because if the RCMP does not have jurisdiction in Ontario then the RCMP could not do an investigation even if the local police or the OPP contact them to do an investigation. So the RCMP does have jurisdiction in Ontario. I then asked her for her badge number it is 338417. I recorded the phone call. It is on my youtube channel. My youtube channel is called Injustice in Ontario. The title of the video is RCMP Cover-up. Here is the link to it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htRtqrBTrPQ Again the RCMP officer’s badge number is 338417. She is wrong because the RCMP Act section 18 says that RCMP members have to prevent crimes in the province in which they may be employed. And section 11.1 (1) of the RCMP Act says Peace Officers Officers 11.1 (1)

Every officer is a peace officer in every part of Canada and has all the powers, authority, protection, and privileges that a peace officer has by law until the officer ceases to be an officer. RCMP members have to do criminal investigations and file criminal charges. The Supreme Court of Canada said in this case R. v. Beaudry https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2340/index.do

That police have to do investigations. They went on to say that police discretion has to be done in the public interest. The officer that I am complaining about did not explain how it was in the public interest for her to not do an investigation or file charges. The RCMP act section 18 says

Duties 18 It is the duty of members who are peace officers, subject to the orders of the Commissioner, (a) to perform all duties that are assigned to peace officers in relation to the preservation of the peace, the prevention of crime and of offences against the laws of Canada and the laws in force in any province in which they may be employed, and the apprehension of criminals and offenders and others who may be lawfully taken into custody; (b) to execute all warrants, and perform all duties and services in relation thereto, that may, under this Act or the laws of Canada or the laws in force in any province, be lawfully executed and performed by peace officers; (c) to perform all duties that may be lawfully performed by peace officers in relation to the escort and conveyance of convicts and other persons in custody to or from any courts, places of punishment or confinement, asylums or other places; and (d) to perform such other duties and functions as are prescribed by the Governor in Council or the Commissioner. R.S., c. R-9, s. 18.

It says to preservation of the peace. For RCMP members to keep the peace they have to arrest people who are breaching the peace. For RCMP members to arrest people that are breaching the peace they must first do an investigation to determine if there is enough evidence for the arrest. The act goes on the say the prevention of crime and of offences against the laws of Canada and the laws in force in any province in which they may be employed, For RCMP members to prevent crimes they have to arrest people who are committing crimes. For RCMP members to arrest people that are committing crimes they must first do an investigation to determine if there is enough evidence for the arrest. Section 37 of the RCMP act says Responsibilities Responsibilities 37

It is the responsibility of every member (a) to respect the rights of all persons; (b) to maintain the integrity of the law, law enforcement and the administration of justice; (c) to perform the member’s duties promptly, impartially and diligently, in accordance with the law and without abusing the member’s authority; (d) to avoid any actual, apparent or potential conflict of interests; (e) to ensure that any improper or unlawful conduct of any member is not concealed or permitted to continue; (f) to be incorruptible, never accepting or seeking special privilege in the performance of the member’s duties or otherwise placing the member under any obligation that may prejudice the proper performance of the member’s duties; (g) to act at all times in a courteous, respectful and honourable manner; and (h) to maintain the honour of the Force and its principles and purposes. So RCMP members must do investigations and file criminal charges. The RCMP officer that my complaint is against is employed in the Stoney Creek, Ontario Canada detachment. So, she has to prevent crimes and file criminal charges in Ontario, Canada. There are no limitation periods on criminal charges.

Update of April 05, 2022

55. I tried to put ads on youtube for my website saying MPP Andrea Horwath is corrupt. see for yourself at www.injusticeinontario.ca I made it so the ad would only appear on computers in her riding. and an ad saying police and lawyer complaints are being covered up in Ontario Canada see for yourself at www.injusticeinontario.ca that would only appear on computers in Ontario Canada. Youtube blocked the ads saying derogatory content in the ad. Their policy said that the ad cannot have derogatory content in it. So I changed the ads saying is MPP Andrea Horwath corrupt see for yourself at www.injusticeinontario.ca and an ad saying are police and Lawyer complaints being covered up in Ontario Canada. see for yourself at www.injusticeinontario.ca. Then youtube changed their policy. It now says We value diversity and respect for others, and we strive to avoid offending users, so we don’t allow ads or destinations that display shocking content or promote hatred, intolerance, discrimination, or violence. Thinking the reason they changed their policy is because Andrea’s office complained to them. I am now looking for people to go door to door in her riding and put flyers in the doors. Saying is Andrea Horwath is corrupt see for yourself at www.injusticeinontario.ca. It is not defamation to ask a question. If you are interested. Please contact me. My contact information is below. I want to do this before the June 02, 2022 provincial election.

Update of April 27, 2022

56. On about April 24, 2022, I contacted youtube saying. My ad injustice 2 is inactive because it has derogatory content on the destination website. But the derogatory content on the website is true. The reason I bring this up is because the news media advertise on youtube and they have derogatory content on their websites.

Update of May 04, 2022

57. On May 04, 2022, I sent a fax to the RCMP Public Complaints Commission saying. Adding to my complaint against the officer with badge number 338417 that I faxed on April 01, 2022. When I was talking to Grace from the Ontario Ombudsman’s office. She said that they cannot investigate the legal decisions of the SIU in Ontario. I then asked her where on their website it says this. She said someone will get back to me about that. But no one has. So Grace knew that there is nothing on their website or in the Ombudsman’s act that says that they cannot investigate the legal decisions of the SIU.

Update of May 11, 2022

58. On May 04, 2017, I wrote to the premier of Ontario, Kathleen Wynne Saying.

Hi In the Public Inquiries Act in Ontario it says Establishing a Commission Commission 3. (1) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may by order establish a commission to conduct a public inquiry into a matter that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers to be in the public interest. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 6, s. 3 (1). The Lieutenant Governor in Council is the Executive Council you are the President of the Executive Council. So can you please call a public inquiry into the police complaints system? Thank You. I will now write to Doug Ford the new Premier of Ontario.

Update of May 12, 2022

59. Today I got an email from youtube saying your ads have been approved. So my argument that the news media can advertise on youtube and they have derogatory content on their websites. So I should be able to as well worked.

Update of May 24, 2022

60. Today I called the Ombudsman’s office and talked to Debrs and said that in 2019 I filed a complaint with the Ombudsman’s officer against the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) in Ontario. And that Grace said that the Ombudsman’s office cannot investigate a legal decision of the SIU to not file charges against a police officer. Dedra said that that has not changed. I then said that section 14 (1) of the Ombudsman’s act says the Ombudsman can investigate any decision or recommendation of the SIU. She then said that she will talk to her team about it and that that should take a couple of days. And then she will get back to me. info@ombudsman.on.ca Toll-free (Ontario only): 1-800-263-1830

Update of May 26, 2022

61. On May 23, 2022, I filed a complaint with the Ontario Ombudsman’s office against the Ontario Attorney General’s office saying.

I wrote to the Attorney General of Ontario saying.

Hi In the pasted I have asked you to investigate the OIPRD for covering up complaints against the police. Because of section 5c of the memorandum of understanding it says. The Director is accountable to the Attorney General for the performance of the OIPRD in fulfilling its mandate and for carrying out the roles and responsibilities assigned to the Director by the PSA, Management Principles, all Directives, and this MOU. Your staff said that section 5c of the MOU does not mean that they can investigate the OIPRD because the OIPRD is independent from the government. So I hired a lawyer to tell me what section 5c of the MOU means (his email is below) He said see no reason why based on that alone (I have not had a chance to review any of the other documents that would potentially apply) the AG could not investigate the OIPRD, So will you now investigate the OIPRD for covering up complaints against the police? I then wrote to them again saying. You have the resources to send an email to the OIPRD even with the pandemic on. So can you please send an email to the OIPRD and ask them to explain their decision in the complaint attached? They have not answered my emails or returned my phone calls. I have emailed them 50 times but still no response. The Ombudsman’s Act section 14 (1) says the Function of the Ombudsman

Function of Ombudsman

14 (1) The function of the Ombudsman is to investigate any decision or recommendation made or any act done or omitted in the course of the administration of a public sector body and affecting any person or body of persons in his, or her or its personal capacity. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.6, s. 14 (1); 2014, c. 13, Sched. 9, s. 6 (1).

It says that you can investigate any decision or recommendation of the Attorney General’s office. And there is no limitation period when filing a complaint with the Ombudsman’s office. So you can investigate them for not answering my emails. info@ombudsman.on.ca Toll-free (Ontario only): 1-800-263-1830

62. Today I emailed the RCMP saying. Adding to my complaint When I was talking to the SIU on the phone they said that fleeting touchs are not sexual assault. I then said that fleeting touches are sexual assault. If there was case law showing that fleeting touches are not sexual assault. Then the SIU would have emailed me a link to the case law. But they did not because there is no case law saying that. I then emailed them again saying Adding to my complaint. The RCMP and the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP (CRCC) cannot overrule case law. Because case law is the law of the land!!!!

Update of July 03, 2022

63. 2022-05-20 I emailed the Ontario Ombudsman’s office saying. Hi, I want to file a complaint against Grace from the Ombudsman’s office. What is her boss’s email address? Thanks, Robert Burgiss I then received an email from Patrick Martin Manager, Early Resolutions pmartin@ombudsman.on.ca saying

Good afternoon Mr. Burgiss,

My name is Patrick Martin, I am an Early Resolutions Manager with the Office of the Ombudsman.

I have your email of May 20, in which you raised concerns about a staff member at our office in the context of a previous review in 2019.

I also understand that you called our intake
line yesterday and spoke with a member of our staff about information that we had previously provided you in 2019 regarding our jurisdiction when it comes to the Special Investigations Unit. Please provide me with more information in writing about your concerns about our previous review of your complaints, so that I may review and respond accordingly.

Thank you, Patrick Martin Manager, Early Resolutions

I then sent him an email, saying.

In 2019 I talked to Grace about investigating the SIU and she said that the Ombudsman’s office cannot investigate the legal decisions of the SIU. But the Ombudsman’s Act section 14 (1) says

Function of Ombudsman

It says any decision or recommendation of the SIU. So Grace is wrong. Thanks, Robert Burgiss I then sent him another email saying I recorded the phone call with Grace in 2019. It is on my youtube channel. My youtube channel is called Injustice in Ontario the title of the video is Ombudsman 5 here is the link to it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP685Wlf_7w I recorded the phone call with Debra. The recording is on my youtube channel. My youtube channel is called Injustice in Ontario the title of the video is Ombudsman 6 here is the link to it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFLEwCV73ak&t=5s Thanks, Robert Burgiss I then sent him another email saying The video of when I was sexually assaulted is on my youtube channel. My dailymotion channel is called Injustice in Ontario the title of the video is SIU Cover-up. here is the link to it. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8tnmwq At the 6-minute and 43-second mark of the video, the officer touches my genitals. During the phone call with the SIU they told me that the touch was a fleeting touch so it is not sexual assault. The recording is on my youtube channel. My youtube channel is called Injustice in Ontario the title of the video is SIU cover-up 2. Here is the link to it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjRpbrTJex8 A pat on the behind is a fleeting touch. But it is still a sexual assault. Thanks, Robert Burgiss

I then got an email from him saying Dear Mr. Burgiss, I write further to your recent communication to our Office regarding our previous review of your concerns about the Special Investigations Unit (“SIU”) in December 2019. Your Concerns You complained about the SIU’s response to an incident that you reported to them in June 2019, regarding an interaction you had with the Hamilton Police, in which you believed a sexual assault had occurred. You remain dissatisfied with the SIU’s assessment that your complaint did not fall within its mandate. You spoke with an Early Resolutions Officer about your complaint on December 19, 2019. I understand that you have recently returned to our office to complain about how the Early Resolutions Officer responded to your complaint. Our Role and Function The Ombudsman is appointed under the Ombudsman Act as an independent and impartial Office of the Ontario Legislature. Our Office has the authority to address complaints about public sector bodies, including provincial governmental organizations, municipalities, school boards, and universities as well as services provided by children’s aid societies and residential licensees, and the provision of French language services under the French Language Services Act. As you know, the Ombudsman does not have the authority to investigate complaints relating to police conduct. Response to Your Concerns In response to your concerns, I have reviewed your previous files with our Office and can advise as follows. As set out on its website, the SIU’s mandate is to conduct criminal investigations into circumstances involving police and civilians that result in serious injury, death, or allegations of sexual assault. The SIU gathers and assesses evidence and the Director of the SIU determines whether or not the evidence leads to a reasonable belief that a criminal offence has been committed. As you are aware, our Office’s focus is on administrative conduct. Our Office does not function as an appeal body and we do not overturn decisions made by the SIU with respect to whether a criminal offence occurred. Based on the information that we have reviewed, the SIU appears to have addressed your complaint in a manner consistent with their mandate. During your call with the Early Resolutions Officer in December 2019, she explained to you that we could not interfere with the SIU’s decision-making with respect to its disposition of your complaint. She suggested that you speak with a lawyer and advised that we would not be taking any further steps with respect to your concerns. Conclusion I am satisfied that your complaint was reviewed appropriately by the Ombudsman staff and in accordance with the Ombudsman’s mandate. I understand that you are dissatisfied with the outcome of our review, however, we will not be taking any further steps with respect to your complaint. Thank you for contacting the Office of the Ombudsman. I then sent him an email saying in your letter of June 28, 2022, you said

“Our Office does not function as an appeal body and we do not overturn decisions made by the SIU with respect to whether a criminal offence occurred.” I am not asking the Ombudsman” office to overturn the decision of the SIU. I am asking the Ombudsman’s office to put in their annual report that the SIU got it wrong. The SIU investigated a sexual assault against me. For sexual assault you need three elements 1 An intentional touch. 2 A touch of a sexual nature. 3 A touch done without consent. If you believe that there are more elements to sexual assault than the three I listed. Please tell me what they are. If not then please tell me what elements of the three that I listed that you believe are missing from my case. Thanks, Robert Burgiss I then sent him another email saying.

further to my email of today.

In your letter of June 28, 2022, you said

“As you know, the Ombudsman does not have the authority to investigate complaints relating to police conduct.” The Ombudsman’s Act section 14, 1 says

Function of Ombudsman

14 (1) The function of the Ombudsman is to investigate any decision or recommendation made or any act done or omitted in the course of the administration of a public sector body and affecting any person or body of persons in his, or her or its personal capacity. R.S.O. 1990, c. O.6, s. 14 (1); 2014, c. 13, Sched. 9, s. 6 (1).

It says any decision or recommendation of the SIU. I am not asking the Ombudsman’s office to investigate the Hamilton police. I am asking them to investigate the SIU. Thanks, Robert Burgiss I then sent him another email saying Further to my email of June 28, 2022. There are three elements to sexual assault. 1 An intentional touch. Evidence of intentional touch. The officer was patting me down and he was looking at his hands and he knows where his hands are. 2 A touch of sexual nature. Evidence of touch of a sexual nature. In this case, https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2006/2006canlii39317/2006canlii39317.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAfc2V4dWFsIGFzc2F1bHQgZmxlZXRpbmcgdG91Y2hlcwAAAAAB&resultIndex== 1 A man was found guilty of sexual assault when he touch the genitals of another man. On this website, https://www.danielbrownlaw.ca/sexual-assault-lawyer/ It says Sexual assault does not, however, require sexuality or sexual gratification. So same sex sexual assault without sexual gratification is still sexual assault. So this must mean that touching someone’s genitals is a touch of sexual nature. 3 A touch done without consent. Evidence of no consent. I did not consent to the touch. Thanks, Robert Burgiss I then sent him another email saying Further to my emails of June 28, 2022, In this case https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2006/2006canlii39317/2006canlii39317.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAfc2V4dWFsIGFzc2F1bHQgZmxlZXRpbmcgdG91Y2hlcwAAAAAB&resultIndex=1The Judge found a man guilty of sexual assault for touching another man’s genitals and the Judge did not say that there was sexuality or sexual gratification. So this must mean that touching someone’s genitals who is the same sex as you is a touch of a sexual nature. Thanks, Robert Burgiss I then sent him another email saying If you believe that my legal arguments in this email as to how the SIU got it wrong are wrong please explain how they are wrong. If you are not willing to explain this then please tell me the email address of your boss. Thanks, Robert Burgiss info@ombudsman.on.ca Toll-free (Ontario only): 1-800-263-1830

64. I sent an email to (Darren McGreal), Staff Sergeant Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge Professional Standards Unit “O” Division, Toronto who is investigating my complaint against the RCMP officer in the email I said Adding to my complaint file 2022-577103. There are three elements to sexual assault. 1 An intentional touch. Evidence of intentional touch. The officer was patting me down and he was looking at his hands and he knows where his hands are. 2 A touch of sexual nature. Evidence of touch of a sexual nature. In this case https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2006/2006canlii39317/2006canlii39317.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAfc2V4dWFsIGFzc2F1bHQgZmxlZXRpbmcgdG91Y2hlcwAAAAAB&resultIndex= A man was found guilty of sexual assault when he touch the genitals of another man. On this website, https://www.danielbrownlaw.ca/sexual-assault-lawyer/ It says Sexual assault does not, however, require sexuality or sexual gratification. So same sex sexual assault without sexual gratification is still sexual assault. So this must mean that touching someone’s genitals is a touch of sexual nature. 3 A touch done without consent. Evidence of no consent. I did not consent to the touch. In this case https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2006/2006canlii39317/2006canlii39317.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAfc2V4dWFsIGFzc2F1bHQgZmxlZXRpbmcgdG91Y2hlcwAAAAAB&resultIndex= The Judge found a man guilty of sexual assault for touching another man’s genitals and the Judge did not say that there was sexuality or sexual gratification. So this must mean that touching someone’s genitals who is the same sex as you is a touch of a sexual nature. Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of July 17, 2022

65. On July 11, 2022, I called the Ombudsman’s office and talked to Bianca telling her that my emails that I have sent explain how the Ombudsman’s office is wrong and that there is enough evidence against the SIU. (the arguments in paragraph 63). But the Ombudsman’s office said they are not going to take any further action against the SIU and they refused to explain how my arguments as to how they are wrong are wrong. info@ombudsman.on.ca Toll-free (Ontario only): 1-800-263-1830

Update of July 24, 2022

66. On July 22, 2022, I called the Ontario Ombudsman office and talked to Cynthia. I told her that I had sent emails to their office explaining how they could investigate the Ontario Attorney General’s office (the arguments in paragraph 61) for not investigating the OIPRD. I also ask for an explanation as to how my arguments are wrong. She said that someone will respond if a response is needed.info@ombudsman.on.ca Toll-free (Ontario only): 1-800-263-1830

67. On July 21, 2022, I got a call from Reyan Rajan Media Strategist The Hamilton Spectator / Hamilton Community News asking if I wanted to advertise my website doing pay per-click. I said I did not want to do a pay-per-click ad. I want to do an ad in the paper. The Chief of Police in Hamilton Frank Bergen is corrupt see for yourself at www.injusticeinontario.ca He then emailed me back saying that the legal department is not okay with the wording of the ad. So I then changed it to say Are police and Lawyer complaints being covered up in Ontario. See for yourself at www.injusticeinontario.ca He then emailed me back saying. After discussing with the legal team, We have decided to drop the ad due to legal complications. I apologize for the inconvenience. You can not be sued for defamation for asking a question. So what legal complications is he talking about? Clearly, the Hamilton Spectator is in bed with the Hamilton Police. The Hamilton Spectator News Desk 905-526-3420 news@thespec.com

68. On October 10, 2020, I emailed Julian N Falconer who is a Lawyer in Toronto 17 times saying.

Hi, I am looking you have you file a complaint against a police officer and do a judicial review if needed. On August 26 I went to the Hamilton police central station at about 2:00 pm and asked the officer at the front desk (who met me outside the front doors because of the virus) for an investigation into an obstruction of justice that happened in 2000. I told the officer that the lawyer for some people that I was suing filed baseless motions to have the cases thrown out of court. The officer’s badge number was 137 he was not wearing his badge or name tag so I do not know if he told me the truth about his badge number. The criminal code of Canada section 139 subsection (2) says

Every person who intentionally attempts in any manner other than the manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice. The people that I was suing were the management people of the company that I worked for who fired me for sexually harassing a female employee and I was already suing the company for libel. The officer said that he has never heard of police investigating that kind of thing and he refused to take a report on it. The courts are swapped and police are under pressure not to add to it. So police cover up crimes instead of filing charges. MOTION # 1 In the motion papers the lawyer argued that the limitation period for suing for libel is three months. At the motion hearing, I had a book about the law of limitations, and in it, the limitations period was six years. After I read the part of the book about the limitation period being six years the judge asked for the book so he could read it himself. He then read it out loud and the lawyer then said this is what I have it my notes and it was the same as in the book. So the lawyer was clearly lying to the court. If the lawyer really believed the limitation period was three months he would have filed a motion to have the main case against the company thrown out because it was two years after I was fired that the case was filed. Lying to the court to have a lawsuit thrown out is clearly obstruction of justice. MOTION # 2 the lawyer said that you cannot sue two people for the same thing even if they both did it. He does not cite any rule or case law that says this or give any reason why. Clearly, this kind of baseless motion is an obstruction of justice. MOTION # 3 The lawyer said that I had filed another lawsuit against my boss and that this one against my boss was the same as the one I had already filed against my boss. However, I did not serve my boss with the first statement of claim. Again he had no case law saying this. All the motions were denied Thanks, Robert Burgiss

He did not respond back.

So I filed a complaint against him with the Law Society of Ontario on December 16, 2020 The Law Society told him to respond to my emails. He did. saying.

Mr. Burgiss, We wrote you and advised that, respectfully, we are not prepared to act on your behalf. The information our office has already provided you is the full extent of the information we intend to communicate. I am sorry this is disappointing news but this concludes our correspondence with you and therefore we will not be responding any further to your communications. The Law Society said Case No.: 2020-248511 Outcome In order to conduct further investigation, s. 49.3(2) of the Law Society Act requires a reasonable suspicion that Mr. Falconer may have engaged in professional misconduct. The information provided does not meet this test and as a result, the Law Society will not take any further action in response to your complaint. Tom Koster Intake & Resolution Officer. The rules on the Law Society’s website say that a lawyer can only refuse representation for certain reasons. But the Law Society didn’t even ask Mr. Falconer the reasons he refused to take on my case. The rules say A lawyer declining representation should assist in obtaining the services of another licensee qualified in the particular field and able to act. But Mr. Falconer did not help me find another lawyer. I asked for a review of the decision. Marilyn E. Marshall Complaints Resolution Commissioner dealt with the review saying.

I have now completed my review of the decision of the Law Society to close your complaint against Mr. Falconer. After considering the material on file and your written submissions, I am satisfied that the Law Society’s consideration of your complaint, and its resulting decision to close the file, are reasonable. Accordingly, I will not be recommending that further action be taken by the Law Society with respect to your complaint, or with respect to Mr. Falconer, for the following reasons. Marilyn E. Marshall Complaints Resolution Commissioner. lawsociety@lso.ca Toll-free: 1-800-668 7380

Update of August 27, 2022

69. On August 10, 2022, I received an email saying.

This letter is in reference to your concerns as expressed to the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (CRCC) on April 20, 2022. It refers to an allegation against a Public Service Employee (badge number 338417) of the Stoney Creek Royal Canadian Mounted Police for whom; you expressed a concern with respect to the manner in which you were treated on March 13, 2022. In particular, you stated that you felt you were given contradictory information and that the RCMP neglected to investigate the matter or lay charges.

I would like to inform you that the RCMP and the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission are mandated under Part VII of the RCMP Act to deal with complaints concerning the conduct in the performance of any duty or function of any member, or other person, who at the time the conduct is alleged to have occurred was a member or employed under the authority of the RCMP Act.

The following criteria are required when dealing with Part VII of the RCMP Act:

1- Only applies to members and persons appointed or employed under Part I of the RCMP Act;

2- Must relate to conduct, on duty, while engaged in the performance of that duty; or
3- Off-duty conduct where the member holds himself out as a police officer and acts
with authority (e.g., shows his badge, indicates he is a police officer, etc.).
4- CRCC can review if the complainant is not satisfied with the disposition.

A review of the details in your correspondence revealed that the employee with whom you spoke in regard to your concerns is in fact a federal public service employee and is not appointed pursuant to Part I of RCMP Act. Accordingly, a public service employee is not subject to the complaint process contemplated by Part VII of the RCMP Act. Of note, this employee was simply relaying the circumstances in which the RCMP may intervene in your matter. I understand that you feel that the RCMP should investigate this matter however it would have no jurisdiction to do so in this case.

Part VII of the RCMP Act provides an investigation and review process in instances where a complaint is made about the conduct of an RCMP member in the performance of his or her duties, as per subsection 45.53(1) of the RCMP Act. This mechanism cannot be applied with respect to complaints concerning Public Service employees.

Accordingly, your concerns will not be investigated under Part VII of the RCMP Act.

Regards,

Frederick Fontaine, Staff Sergeant
c.c NHQ Professional Responsibility Unit
RCMP National Public Complaint Directorate (NPCD)
Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP (CR

Update of September 03, 2022

70. Back in the beginning of August 2022 I emailed CHCH news to try and advertise my website on their channel. They emailed me back saying

Hi Mr. Burgiss,

We received your request to advertise with us on CHCH TV – thank you for reaching out.

We’re glad you found the appropriate department – this is
the Marketing & Creative department, passed along from Sales who you originally spoke to in July. We are responsible for advertising on the channel.

We had the chance to view your website, and while we do empathize with you, we unfortunately cannot create or run an advertisement for you at this time.

As a policy, we work with only registered businesses and
registered charities on CHCH TV and chch.com [1]. We don’t advertise personal causes unless they’re political in nature – at which point political ads are subject to additional rules and regulations.

Best,
CHCH Team

I then emailed Geoff Thrasher General Sales Manager Channel Zero Inc.

Geoff.thrasher@chch.com 905-522-1797 saying

To Geoff Thrasher

Below is an email that I got from Chch about advertising my website. In the email the person who did not put their name in it said. We don’t advertise personal causes unless they’re political in nature at which point political ads are subject to additional rules and regulations.

CHCH news does news stories about personal causes. But you will not let someone advertise a website about personal causes? I emailed him 16 times he did not respond back.

Update of September 11, 2022

71. Below are emails sent and from cp24

—– Original Message ——–
Subject: Advertise my website
Date: 2022-08-10 14:24
From: rburgiss@injusticeinontario.ca
To: sales@cp24.com

I would like to advertise my website. I would like the ad to say Are police and lawyer complaints being covered up in Ontario. See for yourself at www.injusticeinontario.ca that’s injusticeinontario.ca

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

They responded back saying.

Hi Robert:

Thanks for your inquiry. I have copied Mark Smith, our CP24 Account Executive who can assist you with your advertising questions.

Thx,

Lindsey

Hi Robert,

Thank you for your email! Our apologies for the delayed response – your email seems to have been stuck in our Spams!

Thinktv Clearance is the body that reviews and approves commercials/PSAs/infomercials on behalf of our member stations across TV Canada. We do not create the ad for you – you will need to reach out to a creative agency if you would like for an outside body to produce the commercial, or you may create the commercial yourself. Once the commercial is ready for review, you may submit the video to our platform for clearance. If all looks good and it complies with our member-approved Guidelines, you will receive a TC# that you may present to your contact at CP24 as it will serve as confirmation that the commercial meets the Guidelines (depending on its content). The process after our TC approval has been sent out is entirely at the discretion of each broadcaster. Please note that receiving a TC# does not necessarily mean that your commercial will be aired as it is at the discretion of each broadcaster as well.

To submit for clearance, you will require an account with us and the entire process towards approval is done online via the thinktv platform. Please note that we may request for additional material once we review the video as each submission is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Here is the link to our Clearance Guidelines: https://thinktv.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/thinktv_clearance_Telecaster_GUIDELINES.pdf

I would like to advertise my website on CP24. They told me to contact you. I would like the ad to say. Are police and lawyer complaints being covered up in Ontario? See for yourself at www.injusticeinontario.ca

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Hi Robert,

Thanks for reaching out to Think TV for their guidance.
It’s up to us after you receive TC approval as they mention below.

“The process after our TC approval has been sent out is entirely at the discretion of each broadcaster.

Thinktv says it is up to you if you want to do the ad.

See below.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

CP 24 then responded back saying.

Because the purpose of the ad is a redirect to the site, not to sell a product, store, or service or promote an event in public.

I’m obligated to send to legal anything that is controversial.

Mark Smith | Account Executive – Broadcast & Interactive | CTV-CTVtwo-CP24-BNNBloomberg Sales
CTV Sales | t 416.440.6392 | f 416.483.1831 | m 647.518.1563 | mark.smith@bellmedia.ca
50 Eglinton Avenue East, Toronto, Ontario M4P 1A6. Canada
http://www.bellmedia.ca/sales

I then email them back saying.

Why does legal have to approve the site? It is not defamation to ask a question?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

They then emailed me back saying.

Hello Robert, this is not an advertisement that CP24 would feel comfortable posting at this time, thank you

I then emailed them back saying.

Why not?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

They then emailed me back saying.

We are not taking on new advertisers right now

—–Original Message—–
From: rburgiss@injusticeinontario.ca <rburgiss@injusticeinontario.ca>
Sent: August-26-22 9:31 AM
To: CP24 Sales <cp24sales@bellmedia.ca>
Subject: [EXT]Fwd: Re: Fwd: Advertise my website

I them emailed them back saying.

When will you be taking on new advertisers?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Hi Ron….

I am waiting to hear, once I know we will let you know….thx

Update of September 16, 2022

72. Today I faxed the RCMP Complaints Commission filing a complaint against an RCMP officer and also sent the Commission written arguments as to how there is enough evidence for a charge of obstruction of justice against the OIPRD. The complaint said.

This is a neglect of duty complaint against RCMP Officer Jim Metrotoulos badge number 42831 of the Stoney Creek Ontario detachment. If the Officer gave me the wrong name then this is a refusal to identify oneself complaint.

On September 06, 2022, I called the Stoney Creek, Ontario, Canada RCMP detachment and talked to Officer Jim Metrotoulos badge number 42831. I told him that I had written arguments as to how there is enough evidence for a charge of obstruction of justice against the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) for covering up my complaint against a Hamilton police officer. (The written arguments are with this fax) If he said that I was right I would have gone down to the Stoney Creek Ontario detachment and made a criminal complaint. Because it says on the RCMP website that the RCMP does not take criminal reports by email. Mr. Metrotoulos said that the RCMP does not investigate provincial bodies. I then asked him where it says that he said that nothing says that that’s just our mandate in Ontario. I recorded the phone call with him. The recording of the phone call with him is on my youtube channel. My youtube channel is called Injustice in Ontario. The title of the video is RCMP 2. Here is the link to it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gngp3B2a9I

There is nothing in the RCMP Act that says that the RCMP does not investigate provincial bodies.

The RCMP Act section 18 says

Duties

18 It is the duty of members who are peace officers, subject to the orders of the Commissioner,

(a) to perform all duties that are assigned to peace officers in relation to the preservation of the peace, the prevention of crime and of offenses against the laws of Canada and the laws in force in any province in which they may be employed, and the apprehension of criminals and offenders and others who may be lawfully taken into custody;
(b)to execute all warrants, and perform all duties and services in relation thereto, that may, under this Act or the laws of Canada or the laws in force in any province, be lawfully executed and performed by peace officers
(c) to perform all duties that may be lawfully performed by peace officers in relation to the escort and conveyance of convicts and other persons in custody to or from any courts, places of punishment or confinement, asylums or other places; and
(d) to perform such other duties and functions as are prescribed by the Governor in Council or the Commissioner.

It says the preservation of the peace. In order for RCMP members to preserve the peace they must arrest people who are breaching the peace. In order for RCMP members to arrest people who are breaching the peace they must first do an investigation to determine if there is enough evidence for the arrest.

It goes on to say the prevention of crime and of offenses against the laws of Canada and the laws in force in any province in which they may be employed. In order for RCMP members to prevent crimes and offenses against the laws of Canada and the laws in force in any province in which they may be employed. They must arrest people who are committing crimes and offences against the laws of Canada and the laws in force in any province in which they may be employed. In order for RCMP members to arrest people who are committing crimes and offenses against the laws of Canada and the laws in force in any province in which they may be employed. They must first do an investigation to determine if there is enough evidence for the arrest.

It goes on to say in any province in which they may be employed. So RCMP members in at the Stoney Creek Ontario Canada detachment have to preserve the peace and prevent crimes and of offenses against the laws in force in the province of Ontario Canada.

Section 11.1 (1) of the RCMP Act says

Officers

11.1 (1) Every officer is a peace officer in every part of Canada and has all the powers, authority, protection, and privileges that a peace officer has by law until the officer ceases to be an officer

In this R Beaudry Supreme Court of Canada case law the Supreme Court of Canada said.

A police officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed, or that a more thorough investigation might produce evidence that could form the basis of a criminal charge, may exercise his or her discretion to decide not to engage the judicial process. But this discretion is not absolute. The exercise of the discretion must be justified subjectively, that is, the discretion must have been exercised honestly and transparently, and on the basis of valid and reasonable grounds; it must also be justified on the basis of objective factors. In determining whether a decision resulting from an exercise of police discretion is proper, it is therefore important to consider the material circumstances in which the discretion was exercised. The justification offered must be proportionate to the seriousness of the conduct and it must be clear that the discretion was exercised in the public interest.

They went on to say at paragraph 35. There is no question that police officers have a duty to enforce the law and investigate crimes.

The Supreme Court of Canada said. There is no question that police officers have a duty to enforce the law and investigate crimes. The Supreme Court of Canada did not say enforce some laws and investigate some crimes.

In this case Law Society of Upper Canada v. Mckay, 2017 ONLSTA 19 Date: June 6, 2017, Tribunal File No.: LAP11/16 the RCMP investigated a lawyer in Ontario, Canada.

So RCMP members that are employed in the province of Ontario must do criminal investigations and lay criminal charges in the province of Ontario. That includes provincial bodies. Except when it is not in the public interest to lay the charges. And Jim Metrotoulos the RCMP officer that I talked to on September 06, 2022, at the Stoney Creek Ontario detachment did not explain how it was in the public interest to not file charges in this case.

The RCMP and the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP cannot ignore case law because case law is the law of the land.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions.

Obstruction of justice by the OIPRD office

Complaint I filed with the OIPRD

On August 30, 2015, I filed a complaint with the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) file # E-20150830122205171 saying.

On August 27, 2015, the staff at the RCF where I live Shelly and another woman came into my room and threw out some of my stuff. This is theft. That same day I called the police the next day the police called me back at 289 768 4276. I told the officer what had happened and the officer called the woman who threw out my stuff. The officer called me back and said that the stuff had bed bugs in it which is why they threw it out she then said I will have to deal with Shelly this is not a police matter. There is no law that says your landlord can throw out your stuff. If my stuff had bed bugs in it they should have sprayed it with bed bug spray and given it back to me.

On the OIPRD complaint form just above the part where you sign it. It says Declaration I certify that the information provided is true. And on the complaint that I filled out, it says. Digitally signed by Robert Burgiss on 8/30/2015

Criminal definition of theft

The Criminal Code of Canada section 322 (1) says “Theft

322 (1) Everyone commits theft who fraudulently and without color of right takes, or fraudulently and without color of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent

(a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;

(b) to pledge it or deposit it as security;

(c) to part with it under a condition with respect to its return that the person who parts with it may be unable to perform; or

(d) to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be restored in the condition in which it was at the time it was taken or converted.

Marginal note: Time when theft completed

(2) A person commits theft when, with intent to steal anything, he moves it or causes it to move or to be moved, or begins to cause it to become movable. Secrecy

(3) A taking or conversion of anything may be fraudulent notwithstanding that it is effected without secrecy or attempt at concealment.”

It says who fraudulently. In this case, The Queen v. Shymkowich the Supreme Court of Canada said “A man who takes possession of property which he really believes to be his own does not take it fraudulently. In my case, I said right on the complaint form the staff came into my room and threw out some of my stuff. And there is no evidence that the staff believed that they owned the stuff that they threw out.

It goes on to say. Without color of right. In this case, Lilly v. the Queen the Supreme Court of Canada said The phrase ‘color of right’ simply means a bona fide belief or an honest belief. And a bona fide belief or an honest belief may arise from a genuine mistake or in some cases even from ignorance. Therefore the phrase in the definition of theft, ‘without color of right’, simply means the lack of a bona fide or honest belief.

In my case, I did not consent to them throwing out my stuff and there is no evidence that had an honest belief that they did have consent.

The criminal code of Canada goes on to say. (a) “to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;” In my case, I say on the OIPRD complaint form that they threw out some of my stuff. And I did not get my stuff back.

There are no limitation periods on criminal charges in Canada.

The Hamilton police and the OIPRD must go by the criminal definition of theft. They cannot go by their own definition.

So there is enough evidence in my case that there should be a criminal investigation by the Hamilton police.

Duties of police officers in Ontario

The Supreme Court of Canada said in this case. R v. Beaudry [2007] 1 S.C.R. 190, 2007 SCC 5

“A police officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that an offense has been committed, or that a more thorough investigation might produce evidence that could form the basis of a criminal charge, may exercise his or her discretion to decide not to engage the judicial process. But this discretion is not absolute. The exercise of discretion must be justified subjectively, that is, the discretion must have been exercised honestly and transparently, and on the basis of valid and reasonable grounds; it must also be justified on the basis of objective factors. In determining whether a decision resulting from an exercise of police discretion is proper, it is therefore important to consider the material circumstances in which the discretion was exercised. The justification offered must be proportionate to the seriousness of the conduct and it must be clear that the discretion was exercised in the public interest.”

The Hamilton police have not explained how it was in the public interest to not do an investigation or file charges in this case.

The Supreme Court of Canada goes on to say in paragraph 35. “There is no question that police officers have a duty to enforce the law and investigate crimes.”

The police services act in Ontario section 42 (1) Says Duties of police officer

“42 (1) The duties of a police officer include,

(a) preserving the peace;

(b) preventing crimes and other offenses and providing assistance and encouragement to other persons in their prevention;”

It says(a) preserving the peace.In order for the police in Hamilton to preserve the peace they have to arrest people who are breaching the peace. In order for the police in Hamilton to arrest people who are breaching the peace they must first do an investigation to determine if there is enough evidence for the arrest.

It goes on to say (b) preventing crimes.In order for the Hamilton police to prevent crimes they must arrest people who are committing crimes. In order for the Hamilton police to arrest people who are committing crimes they must first do an investigation to determine if there is enough evidence for the arrest.

So the Hamilton police must do criminal investigations and lay criminal charges. Unless it is in the public interest to not lay the charges.

Definition of misconduct in the police services act

The police services act section 80 (1) says “Misconduct

80 (1) A police officer is guilty of misconduct if he or she,

(f) contravenes section 81 (inducing misconduct, withholding services);”

It says withholding services is misconduct.

This is exactly what I say the Hamilton police did.

What you can complain to the OIPRD ABOUT

On the OIPRD’s website, it says. What can I complain about?

“The OIPRD accepts complaints about the conduct of a police officer or the policies or services of a police service.

Conduct complaints are about the behavior of a police officer

Policy complaints are about the rules and standards of a police service that guide how an officer delivers police services”

Service complaints relate to how effectively and efficiently a particular service performs its duties

On September 14, 2015, I received an email from MR. Federico Dela Torre of the OIPRD office said. Section 60 (4) of the police services act permits the independent police review director not to deal with a complaint if, In his opinion, the complaint could be more appropriately dealt with, In whole or in part, under another act or other law.

You indicate your landlord threw out some of your stuff. You called the police and informed an officer of the incident. You also indicate the officer informed you that your concern is not a police matter and advised that you would have to deal with this issue with your landlord.

In light of the information provided in your complaint, the director has decided that the landlord and tenant board is the more appreciative forum to deal with your complaint and has decided not to send your complaint for investigation.

You may wish to seek legal advice with respect to other options available to you.

The police services act section 60 (4) says the Power of an Independent Police Review Director to refuse

60 (1) The Independent Police Review Director may, in accordance with this section, decide not to deal with a complaint made to him or her by a member of the public under this Part. 2007, c. 5, s. 10.

The complaint could be more appropriately dealt with, in whole or in part, under another Act or other law.

When it says the complaint it means the conduct complaint against the police officer, not the criminal complaint that I called the police about.

The OIPRD have not explained how it is in the public interest for the Hamilton police to not do an investigation or not file charges in this case.

Criminal definition of Obstruction of justice

The Criminal Code of Canada section 139 (2) says. Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offense and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

Complaints against the police in Ontario are done through the police services act. So if someone tries to cover up a complaint that is filed with the OIPRD they are obstructing the police services act. And obstructing a government act (law) is obstructing justice.

It says who willfully attempts. So just an attempt to obstruct justice is a crime.

I have called Mr. Torre 4 times and left messages and emailed him 9 times asking him how is what happened not a police matter. He has not returned my phone calls or answered my emails. If what happened is legitimately not a police matter there would be no reason for him to not tell me. So this proves that he knows that it is a police matter and that he intentionally covered up my complaint.

Even if the person that I complained about to the OIPRD is not a police officer it is still obstruction of justice for Mr. Federico Dela Torre to cover up my complaint. Because the criminal code of Canada section 139 (2) says everyone who willfully attempts to obstruct justice. So just an attempt to obstruct justice is a crime. And Mr. Federico Dela Torre did not say that it was not a police officer who said that is not a police matter.

You do not have to prove criminal intent for obstruction of justice. Because that would mean that you would have to prove the person who committed the crime knew that it was obstruction of justice for them to do what they did. And they would never admit to that. You just have to prove that they intended to obstruct the government act that they obstructed.

In this case, the suspect knows that police complaints are done through the police services act and that he intended to obstruct that act.

Duties of RCMP officers in Ontario

The Supreme Court of Canada said in this case. R. v. Beaudry, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 190, 2007 SCC 5

A police officer who has reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed, or that a more thorough investigation might produce evidence that could form the basis of a criminal charge, may exercise his or her discretion to decide not to engage the judicial process. But this discretion is not absolute. The exercise of discretion must be justified subjectively, that is, the discretion must have been exercised honestly and transparently, and on the basis of valid and reasonable grounds; it must also be justified on the basis of objective factors. In determining whether a decision resulting from an exercise of police discretion is proper, it is therefore important to consider the material circumstances in which the discretion was exercised. The justification offered must be proportionate to the seriousness of the conduct and it must be clear that the discretion was exercised in the public interest.

The Supreme Court of Canada went on to say in paragraph 35. There is no question that police officers have a duty to enforce the law and investigate crimes.

Section 18 of the RCMP Act says Duties

18 It is the duty of members who are peace officers, subject to the orders of the Commissioner,

(a) to perform all duties that are assigned to peace officers in relation to the preservation of the peace, the prevention of crime and of offences against the laws of Canada, and the laws in force in any province in which they may be employed, and the apprehension of criminals and offenders and others who may be lawfully taken into custody;

(b) to execute all warrants, and perform all duties and services in relation thereto, that may, under this Act or the laws of Canada or the laws in force in any province, be lawfully executed and performed by peace officers;

(c) to perform all duties that may be lawfully performed by peace officers in relation to the escort and conveyance of convicts and other persons in custody to or from any courts, places of punishment or confinement, asylums, or other places; and

(d) to perform such other duties and functions as are prescribed by the Governor in Council or the Commissioner.

It says preservation of the peace, For RCMP officers in Ontario to preserve the peace they have to arrest people who are breaching the peace. For RCMP officers in Ontario to arrest people who are breaching the peace they must first do an investigation to determine if there is enough evidence for the arrest.

It goes on to say prevention of crime and of offenses against the laws of Canada and the laws in force For RCMP officers in Ontario to prevent crimes they have to arrest people who are committing crimes. For RCMP officers in Ontario to arrest people who are committing crimes they must first do an investigation to determine if there is enough evidence for the arrest.

It goes on to say offences against the laws of Canada and the laws in force in any province in which they may be employed

So RCMP officers that are employed at the Stoney Creek Ontario detachment have to preserve the peace and prevent crimes in the province of Ontario, Canada. And the OIPRD office is in Toronto Ontario.

On the RCMP home page where it lists detachments, it list the things you can do at the Stoney Creek detachment one of them is report a crime.

So RCMP officers in the province of Ontario must do criminal investigations in the province of Ontario and lay criminal charges in the province of Ontario. Unless it is in the public interest to not lay the charges.

Update of September 17, 2022

73. I will not be asking for a review by the Commission for public complaints against the RCMP of the decision of Frederick Fontaine, Staff Sergeant Professional Responsibility Unit RCMP in paragraph 69 because the person that I filed the complaint against is not an RCMP officer. The complaint that I filed in paragraph 71 is against an RCMP officer I know this because I checked with RCMP HQ to verify that the person is an RCMP officer.

Update of September 20, 2022

74. In this phone call I ask the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario to order a public inquiry into the police complaints system in Ontario. Because the Public Inquiry Act says

Establishing a Commission

Commission

3 (1) Lieutenant Governor in Council may by order establish a commission to conduct a public inquiry into a matter that the Lieutenant Governor in Council to be in the public interest. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 6, s. 3 (1)

Her staff said they will look into it

Update of October 13, 2022

75. In this phone call I asked CHCH news to do a news story about Andrea Horwath who is running for Mayor in Hamilton in the October 24, 2022 election committing a criminal act when she was my Member of Provincial Parliament MPP. I emailed CHCH News 17 times about this and called them about three times. They did not respond back. tips@chch.com 905-522-1101 x 2251

Update of November 04, 2022

76. Back in 2021 I emailed City TV in Toronto about their reporter Cynthia lying in the news. In the email it said.

“On June 29, 2021, at about 5:25 pm City TV in Toronto, Ontario, Canada did a news about female police officers in Toronto being sexually harassed by other Toronto police officers and sexually assaulted by other Toronto Police Officers. And that the collective agreements with the police union stop any criminal charges against the male officers from going forward. This is not true collective agreements cannot stop criminal charges from going forward. The reason City TV is saying this is because they are trying to make a big news story about something that is not a big news story.

City TV is owned by Rogers. Who do I complain to about this?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss”

They responded back saying

“Dear Robert Burgiss,

Thanks for getting in touch with CityNews. We didn’t mean to imply that police officers were immune from sexual assault criminal charges involving other officers. Of course, criminal charges can be filed. The issue in question is the difficulty in using the courts in disputes involving parties where a collective agreement is involved, and the union doesn’t wish to proceed with a grievance/arbitration, which is the prescribed process.

I do though see how a reading of the script could leave the audience with that impression, and so we have amended the story to reflect that concern.

The CityNews team”

I recently began emailing them back saying.

“In your email you said. “The issue in question is the difficulty in using the courts in disputes involving parties where a collective agreement is involved, and the union doesn’t wish to proceed with a grievance/arbitration, which is the prescribed process.”

My question is where does it say that to file criminal charges a grievance/arbitration, has to be done?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss”

I emailed them 11 times they did not respond back. News.to@CityNews.ca

Update of November 12, 2022

77. On July 31, 2021, I emailed the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council Saying.

On June 29, 2021, at about 5:25 pm City TV in Toronto, Ontario, Canada did a news about female police officers in Toronto being sexually harassed by other Toronto police officers and sexually assaulted by other Toronto Police Officers. And that the collective agreements with the police union stop any criminal charges against the male officers from going forward.

This is not true collective agreements cannot stop
criminal charges from going forward. The reason City TV is saying this is because they are trying to make a big news story about something that is not a big news story.

They responded back saying.

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) has received your message about a report about police officers on City News at 5.

The CBSC requires the broadcasters to hold the logger tapes for a
period of 28 days after a broadcast. A logger tape is the official copy of the broadcast which is required for the CBSC to investigate a complaint.

Unfortunately, your complaint was sent to us outside of that
28-day window.

Sincerely,
K. Smeltzer

Manager, Operations and Administration

I then emailed them again saying.

Can you see if City News as a copy of the broadcast? I have tried to get a copy of the broadcast but City News have not responded back to me. The broadcast may be on youtube.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

They then emailed me back on 2021-08-17 saying.

We are unable to use videos from websites such as Youtube because in Canada, there is no organization that regulates internet content.

The Codes that the CBSC administers apply only to content broadcast on traditional radio or television.

Thus, the CBSC cannot deal with complaints about internet content or social media, even if that content is related to a CBSC broadcast associate’s station and posted on their website. We have no authority to force broadcasts to remove content from their website.

Given the circumstances, we cannot take any further action with respect to your complaint.

Sincerely,

Smeltzer

I then emailed them back saying.

Are you saying that you cannot go forward with my complaint because I cannot prove that City News said what I said they said. They did not deny to me that they said what I said they said.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

They did not respond back.

Update of November 17, 2022

78. Today I received an email from the RCMP Professional Standards Unit saying.

Public Complaint against Constable Jim Metropoulos

Public Complaint – Part VII of the RCMP Act

Please be advised that we are in receipt of your public complaint against Constable Jim Metropoulos.

I will be conducting this investigation. I may be contacting you in the near future to further the investigation.

As per the RCMP policy on public complaints, you will receive a forty-five-day interim report with respect to the progress of the investigation.

And then thirty-day status updates thereafter,
until the conclusion. You have the option to opt out of these status updates. If you choose not to receive the updates, please advise us in writing.

Otherwise, until then, I will continue to provide you with monthly status updates at 30-day increments.

Yours truly,

(Darren McGreal), Staff Sergeant
Non-Commissioned Officer in Charge.

Update of December 03, 2022,

79. Sometime in November 2021 I emailed ctv cp 24 saying

On September 24, 2021, A reporter named Steve who used to be a Toronto police detective said that someone not wearing a mask in a store or not showing their COVID-19 proof of vaccination. And refusing to leave is breach of the peace. This is not true it is not breach of the peace.

They responded back saying.

Dear Mr. Burgiss, Re: CBSC 20.2022-0140 We acknowledge receipt of your complaint about CP24’s coverage of Ontario’s proof of vaccination policy on September 24, 2021, by CP24’s Crime Analyst Steve Ryan. You write “A reporter named Steve who used to be a Toronto police detective said that someone not wearing a mask in a store or not showing their covid Proof of vaccination. And refusing to leave is breach of the peace. That is not true it is not breach of the peace.” (sic) As we have advised previously, Mr. Ryan was hired at CP24 as a Crime Analyst who can draw on decades of experience as a police officer and investigator and provide insight for viewers into the police process. In speaking to Mr. Ryan about your concern, he has indicated that breach of the peace is an arrest authority under the Criminal Code and can be used by police to remove someone causing a disruption without laying any charges as he described in his report that day: “There is an arrest authority called the breach of peace whereby the police can arrest somebody who is not wearing a mask inside of a non-essential business, let’s say, they can arrest them and remove that person without charges. That is probably what happened out in Durham Region, that is the course of action that will most likely take place a lot of times if someone is causing a scene.” I hope this explanation helps to satisfy your concern. CP24 is a member in good standing with the CBSC and we adhere to the cod

Sincerely, Linda Oland Director of News and Information Programming, CP24

I then wrote back to them saying

On this website https://www.thecourt.ca/fleming-v-ontario/ it says A breach of the peace is defined in Brown v Durham Regional Police Force, [1998] O.J. No. 5274 (CA) as an “act or actions which result in actual or threatened harm to someone”

Just not wearing a mask is not going to harm someone. You have to know that you have covid 19. And Steve did not say that the person has to know that they have covid 19 to be breach of the peace. He said that just not wearing a mask is breach of the peace.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Cp24 did not respond back. So I then wrote to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council Saying

On September 24, 2021, A reporter named Steve who used to be a Toronto police detective said that someone not wearing a mask in a store or not showing their covid Proof of vaccination. And refusing to leave is breach of the peace. This is not true it is not breach of the peace.

I then wrote back to the CBSC saying

I have heard back from ctv they said As we have advised previously, Mr. Ryan was hired at CP24 as a Crime Analyst who can draw on decades of experience as a police officer and investigator and provide insight for viewers into the policy process.

In speaking to Mr. Ryan about your concern, he has indicated that breach of the peace is an arrest authority under the Criminal Code and can be used by police to remove someone causing a disruption without laying any charges as he described in his report that day:

“There is an arrest authority called the breach of peace whereby the police can arrest somebody who is not wearing a mask inside of a non-essential business, let’s say, they can arrest them and remove that person without charges.

That is probably what happened out in the Durham Region, that is the course of action that will most likely take place a lot of times if someone is causing a scene.”

I hope this explanation helps to satisfy your concern.

I then wrote back to the CBSC saying. Hi

On this website http://www.thecourt.ca/fleming-v-ontario/ it says A breach of the peace is defined in Brown v Durham Regional Police Force, [1998] O.J. No. 5274 (CA) as an “act or actions which result in actual or threatened harm to someone”

Just not wearing a mask is not going to harm someone. You have to know that you have covid 19. And Steve did not say that the person has to know that they have covid 19 to be breach of the peace. He said that just not wearing a mask is breach of the peace.

They did not respond back. Do I now file an appeal to you?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

I then heard back from the CBSC on January 25, 2022 They said.

Re: CP24 re a news report about COVID-19 vaccine passports Dear Robert Burgiss, Further to your complaint in the above-mentioned matter, the CBSC Secretariat viewed the news report about COVID-19 vaccine passports that aired on September 24, 2021, at 11:03 am. The CBSC Secretariat has also read all of the correspondence: your complaint of September 28, CP24’s response dated November 1, your email of November 9, and your Ruling Request of November 11. The CBSC Secretariat understands that you may have a different opinion; however, as explained below, the CBSC has dealt with similar issues in previous decisions and has concluded that the content does not constitute a breach of any CBSC-administered codes. There is, therefore, no need to send your complaint to a CBSC Adjudicating Panel for review. The report in question was about Ontario’s COVID-19 vaccine certificate, which had recently been implemented. Under new rules, patrons of restaurants and other nonessential businesses were required to provide proof of vaccination before entering. Reporter Steve Ryan was live on King Street in Toronto. He said that he had interviewed staff at some businesses and they had all reported that the new passport system was working well and they had not experienced much pushback from customers. Ryan then said: Now there was a situation, I believe, out in Durham this week where a member of the People’s Party of Canada was arrested for not wearing a mask. That is an anomaly. That is a one-off in my view. The cops would normally not get involved in something like that. But if you have a situation in law enforcement where somebody is challenging you or saying, “I’m here. I’m not leaving. I’m not wearing a mask,” well the police have no other choice but to make an arrest. And in a case like that, there may not be criminal charges as well. There is an arrest authority called breach of peace whereby the police can arrest somebody who is not wearing a mask inside a nonessential business, let’s say. They can arrest them and remove that person without charges. That is probably what happened out in the Durham region. That’s the course of action that will most likely take place a lot of times if somebody is causing a scene. But so far, so good. It’s gone smoothly according to these business owners here on King Street. This weekend will be a test for sure. So I’m sure we’ll speak with them after this weekend passes to see if things have changed at all. But so far, so good and let’s hope it continues. Your complaint was that this report contained inaccurate information because refusing to wear a mask and refusing to leave would not actually be considered a breach of the peace. In your subsequent correspondence, you provided more details about how the courts have interpreted a breach of the peace and argued that not wearing a mask would not fall into that category. The CBSC Secretariat has examined your complaint under Clause 5 (News) of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ (CAB) Code of Ethics, as well as under Article 1.0 of the Radio Television Digital News Association of Canada’s (RTDNA) Code of Journalistic Ethics, both of which require news to be presented accurately. In previous decisions, the CBSC has affirmed broadcasters’ right to choose which stories to cover and which angles to take in those stories.1 Not every fact and facet of every subject can be covered in every story about it.2 The CBSC has recognized that some viewers might wish to see certain facts highlighted or more in-depth insight, but the absence of such treatment does not amount to a code breach.3 In this case, Steve Ryan speculated on the incident that had occurred in Durham. H described it as “an anomaly” and a “one-off” because the “cops would normally not get involved in something like that”. He suggested that the only law enforcement tool that police would have in such a circumstance would be a “breach of peace” arrest. He also clearly stated that this would be used “if somebody is causing a scene”. He did not state that it would be used for simply not wearing a mask. While there could no doubt be legal debate in each particular case about whether a breach of peace arrest was warranted or justified, Ryan was only trying to explain what the potential results might be in the face of belligerence over the new vaccine rules. The purpose of the report was not to explore the details and legalities of the breach of peace authority, but only to inform viewers how events had unfolded within the first few days of Ontario’s vaccine passport system. There was nothing inaccurate in this report. 3 In conclusion, the CBSC Secretariat can see no aspect of this file that requires adjudication by a CBSC Panel.

Sincerely, Sylvie Courtemanche Chair

I then wrote back to them saying

The police falsely arrest people a lot. I have been falsely arrested 7 times see www.injusticeinontario.ca. So you cannot go by the fact that someone was arrested for breach of the peace for that thing. You have to go by the definition of the criminal code of Canada says and case law. This is what case law says about breach of the peace act or actions which result in actual or threatened harm to someone” Please see Breach of the Peace: ONCA Addresses Police Power to Arrest in Fleming v Ontario. So please explain how not wearing a mask and not leaving a business and not knowing that you have Covid 19 is a breach of the peace.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss I then heard back from them saying

Dear Robert Burgiss,

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) has received your message about your file.

If you are dissatisfied with a CBSC decision, you can request that the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) review it. The CRTC is the government agency with ultimate authority over the broadcasting system in Canada. You can contact the CRTC at https://crtc.gc.ca/ You would need to inform them that you have received a CBSC decision and would like them to review it.

Sincerely,

Smeltzer

Update of December 15, 2022

80. I have now called the office of the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. Her staff have not called me back and she has not ordered a public inquiry.

September 20, 2022, October 07, 2022, October 20, 2022, October 27, 2022, November 14, 2022, December 09, 2022

Page two Page three

Donate to injustice in Ontario