www.injusticeinontario.ca

Page two

Update of December 16, 2022

81. Today I received an email from the RCMP saying.

Mr. Robert Burgiss,

Public Complaint against Constable Jim Metropoulos
Public Complaint – Part VII of the RCMP Act

Please be advised that the investigation into this matter is continuing. I am in the process of gathering the required information to move forward. I may contact you in the near future, shall I require anything further. 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
Professional Standards Unit

Update of January 17, 2023

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

Mr. Robert Burgiss,

Public Complaint against Constable Jim Metropoulos
Public Complaint – Part VII of the RCMP Act

I will continue to provide you with monthly status
updates at 30-day increments. However, in the interim, should you have any questions, you can contact me via email at darren.mcgreal@rcmp-grc

Yours truly,
(Darren McGreal), Staff Sergeant
Non Commissioned Officer in Charge
Professional Standards Unit

Update of January 17, 2023, at 5:20 pm

83. On January 17, 2023, I wrote to the RCMP professional standards unit. saying.

Hi
It has been 60 days now that you have been investigating my complaint and you are still waiting on more information. What information are you still waiting for?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

84. On January 02, 2023, I began writing to the Chief of Police in Hamilton Frank Bergen saying.

fbergen@hamiltonpolice.ca

To the Chief of Police in Hamilton Frank Bergen

My website http://www.injusticeinontario.ca/ shows that some of your officers are covering up crimes because the courts are swapped and they are under pressure to not add to it. So they cover up crimes instead of filing charges. Covering up crimes is obstruction of justice. You are in charge of all the investigators that work for the Hamilton police and the criminal cover-ups are happening in Hamilton. So can you please launch a criminal investigation?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

He wrote back on January 17, 2023, saying

Dear Mr. Burgiss:

This will confirm receipt of your e-mail, with a link to your website http://www.injusticeinontario.ca/. The material provided does not disclose a basis to believe that there was any criminal act involved on the part of any person. As such, we are exercising our discretion not to initiate a criminal investigation.

Sincerely,

Frank Bergen

Chief of Police

Update of January 24, 2023

85. Received an email from the RCMP professional standards unit in regard to my email in paragraph 83. saying.

Hello Sir,

I ask that you please bear with me while I obtain further information regarding our policy and procedures in order to provide you with a detailed response.

86. Received an email from the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP saying.

Good afternoon Robert Burgiss,

The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP (the “Commission”) acknowledges receipt of your online contact us form submission dated January 20, 2023.

In your submission you asked, ‘Is there a time limit on how long the RCMP as to investigate a complaint?’ To answer your question – there is no legislated limit on the time the RCMP have to complete a public complaint investigation.

Regards,

David,

Complaint Intake Agent

Update of January 27, 2023

87. I emailed the new Chief of police in Toronto for 15 business days saying.

officeofthechief@torontopolice.on.ca

To the new Chief of police in Toronto Myran Demkiw

My website http://www.injusticeinontario.ca/ shows that some of your officers are obstruction justice because the courts are swapped and they are under pressure to not add to it. So they cover up crimes instead of filing charges. Covering up crimes is obstruction of justice. My website also shows that the Office of the independent police review director (OIPRD) and the Ombudsman’s Office in Ontario are covering up complaints that they receive. And this is also obstruction of justice. The offices of the OIPRD and the Ombudsman’s offices are in Toronto. You are in charge of all the investigators that work for the Toronto police. So can you please launch a criminal investigation into the OIPRD and the Ombudsman’s office and your officers?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

He did not respond back.

Update of February 07, 2023

88. Today I sent an email to the RCMP professional standards unit saying.

On January 24, 2023, you sent me an email saying I ask that you please bear with me while I obtain further information regarding our policy and procedures in order to provide you with a detailed response.

It has now been two weeks since you sent that email and still no explanation as to what information you are still waiting for.

So can I please get a timeline of when I will get an explanation of what information you are still waiting for?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of February 09, 2023

89. Received an email from the RCMP professional standards unit saying.

Hello Sir,

Our policy dictates that any final report/letter that is sent to a public complainant be reviewed by our Ottawa office before being forwarded. I hope to have something to you by early next week.

Regards,

Darren

Update of February 13, 2023

90. RE: Complaint against Constable Jim Metropoulos

Dear Mr. Burgiss,

This letter is in reference to your concerns as expressed to the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) on October 6, 2022.

You noted that you believed Constable Jim Metropoulos acted improperly by not accepting your criminal complaint against the Office of Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) and did not provide any source/documentation to support that statement.

A review of the details in your correspondence revealed that you had previously contacted the OIPRD regarding concerns you had with your interactions with a Hamilton Police Service officer.
The OIPRD advised you that your complaint could be more appropriately dealt with under another Act or other law, specifically the Landlord Tenant Act, and decided not to send your complaint for investigation to the Hamilton Police Service. You noted that because the OIPRD failed to look into your complaint about the Hamilton Police Service’s officer, you believe there is enough evidence for a charge of obstruction of justice against the OIPRD. As such, you believe the RCMP should take on that investigation. You noted in your submission that when you spoke with Constable Metropoulos. he advised you that your concerns were not within the RCMP’s Mandate in Ontario, but did not provide information to support that statement. Members of the public can conduct an internet query on the RCMP in Ontario and review on the website the

About the RCMP in Ontario

category.

This section states that the RCMP O Division has primary authority in federal law enforcement in Ontario.

The broad Federal Policing mandate is to enforce Federal laws, investigate serious and organized crime and conduct international law enforcement capacity building. Under the “Federal Policing Services” heading on the website, it’s noted that our operational response is organized into three areas of priority, Cybercrime, Border Integrity, and Transnational Serious and Organized Crime Operations. The RCMP Mandate in Ontario is strictly Federal, therefore we do not have the authority to investigate Provincial or Municipal matters or agencies.
With the submission of your complaint, you provided a copy of the letter you received from the OIPRD in response to your request for an investigation into the Hamilton Police Service’s officer. The letter noted that the Police Services Act, does not provide for an appeal from the classification and screening of complaints conducted by the OIPRD and that the only means of review for this decision is a judicial review in the Superior Court of Justice.

I reviewed the following website: OIPRD-Complaints-Brochure-June-2020_e.pdf. which can provide you with information surrounding what to do if you disagree with how your complaint
was handled by the OIPRD. Of specific interest, it is noted that there is no statutory right of appeal from a screening decision of the Director of the OIPRD. If you disagree with a screening decision, the only way to review that decision is to bring an application for judicial review in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. I appreciate the time you have taken in raising the concerns described in your correspondence. Given the mandate of the RCMP in Ontario and the appeal process outlined on the OIPRD’s website, please be informed that an investigation into your complaint will not be initiated by the RCMP.

Yours truly,

Darren McGreal, Staff Sergeant
Professional Standards Unit
RCMP O Division

Update of February 13, 2023, at 700 pm

91. Today I emailed the RCMP Professional Standards Unit saying.

Hi

In your letter of today, you said.

“About the RCMP in Ontario” category. This section states that the RCMP O Division has primary authority in federal law enforcement in Ontario.

The broad Federal Policing mandate is to enforce Federal laws,
You said federal laws.

My criminal complaint against the OIPRD is that I believe that they violated section 139 (2) of the criminal code of Canada.
The criminal code of Canada is federal law. The section of the RCMP website that you quote says. The broad Federal Policing mandate is to: Enforce federal laws, Again the OIPRD violated section 139 (2) of the Federal criminal code of Canada. So the RCMP can investigate the OIPRD. It is called the Criminal Code of Canada not the Criminal Code of Ontario.

In your letter you said

If you disagree with a screening decision, the only way to review that decision is to bring an application for judicial review in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. If the OIPRD covered up my complaint I can also ask for a criminal investigation. Because the OIPRD are not above the law.

They then emailed me back saying.

Sir,

Under the “Federal Policing Services” heading on the website, it is noted that our, (RCMP in Ontario), operational response is organized into three areas of priority, Cybercrime, Border Integrity, and Transnational Serious and Organized Crime Operations. It was documented in the letter you received from the OIPRD and again referenced in the letter you received from us that If you disagree with a screening decision by the OIPRD, the only way to review that decision is to bring an application for judicial review in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

I then emailed them back saying

The RCMP investigated the Toronto police around 2005. On a request of the Ontario Attorney General. I know of nothing that says that only the Ontario Attorney General can ask for that.

Thanks Robert Burgiss

Update of February 14, 2023

92. Last night I sent an email to the RCMP Professional Standards Unit saying.

I googled the thing you said in your letter of yesterday. It says

The broad Federal Policing mandate is to. Enforce federal laws, secure Canada’s borders between ports of entry, collect criminal intelligence, and ensure the safety of critical infrastructure, internationally protected persons, and other designated persons. investigate serious and organized crime, financial crime, and criminal activity related to national security. Conduct international law enforcement capacity-building, support Canadian international peace operations and advance domestic police operations through enhanced visibility, reach, and influence abroad.

It says enforce federal laws, And there is a coma after that. So it means that enforcing federal laws is one of the things that do.

So it means that they have to enforce federal law and secure Canada’s borders between ports of entry, collect criminal intelligence, and ensure the safety of critical infrastructure, internationally protected persons and other designated persons;

It does not say enforce federal laws in regards to secure Canada’s borders between ports of entry, collect criminal
intelligence, and ensure the safety of critical infrastructure, internationally protected persons, and other designated persons;

It does not say Enforce federal law in regards to investigate serious and organized crime, financial crime, and criminal activity related to national security

It also does not say enforce federal laws in regards to Conduct international law enforcement capacity-building, support Canadian international peace operations, and advance domestic police operations through enhanced visibility,
reach and influence abroad.

Again if I am wrong about this please explain!!

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of February 19, 2023

93. Today I asked the Commission for public complaints against the RCMP to review the decision of the RCMP professional standards unit dated February 08, 2023, saying.

The RCMP professional standards unit sent me a decision letter dated February 08, 2023. In it, they agreed with Officer Jim Metropoulos that the RCMP cannot investigate Provincial bodies in Ontario. I would like this decision reviewed.

They also did not say that there was not enough evidence for an investigation into the OIPRD for obstruction of justice.

They quote this in their decision letter.

About the RCMP in Ontario

RCMP O Division has primary authority in federal law enforcement in Ontario.

Under the authority of the RCMP Act and RCMP Regulations (2014), the Federal Policing mandate is multi-faceted with law enforcement authorities provided under more than 260 Acts.

The broad Federal Policing mandate is to:

Enforce federal laws, secure Canada’s borders between ports of entry, collect criminal intelligence, and ensure the safety of critical infrastructure, internationally protected persons, and other designated persons;

Investigate serious and organized crime, financial crime, and criminal activity related to national security; Conduct international law enforcement capacity-building, support Canadian international peace operations and advance domestic police operations through enhanced visibility, reach, and influence abroad.

The RCMP professional standards unit is trying to say that RCMP in Ontario have to Enforce federal law in regards to the secure Canada’s borders between ports of entry, collect criminal intelligence, and ensure the safety of critical infrastructure, internationally protected persons, and other designated persons;

And Investigate serious and organized crime, financial crime, and criminal activity related to national security;

And Conduct international law enforcement capacity-building, support Canadian international peace operations, and advance domestic police operations through enhanced visibility, reach, and influence abroad.

That is not what it means because the words in regards to are not in there.

What it means is Enforce federal law and secure Canada’s borders between ports of entry, collect criminal intelligence, and ensure the safety of critical infrastructure, internationally protected persons, and other designated persons;

And Investigate serious and organized crime, financial crime, and criminal activity related to national security;

On or about August 16, 2001, the Chief of Police in Toronto Julian Fantino asked the RCMP to investigate the Toronto police drug squad for allegations of perjury and theft. Charges were laid.

The RCMP was investigating the Toronto police drug squad for allegations of perjury and theft.

Not for the secure Canada’s borders between ports of entry, collect criminal intelligence, and ensure the safety of critical infrastructure, internationally protected persons, and other designated persons;

And Investigate serious and organized crime, financial crime, and criminal activity related to national security

So the part that says about the RCMP in Ontario must mean what I say it means. Because if it meant that the RCMP in Ontario can only investigate the secure Canada’s borders between ports of entry, collect criminal intelligence, and ensure the safety of critical infrastructure, internationally protected persons, and other designated persons;

And Investigate serious and organized crime, financial crime, and criminal activity related to national security

Then the RCMP could not have investigated the Toronto police drug squad for perjury and theft.

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.

It says and of offences against the laws of Canada and the laws in force in any province in which they may be employed.

So RCMP officers in Ontario have to enforce the criminal code of Canada in Ontario.

I say that the OIPRD violated section 139 (2) of the criminal code of Canada. And the criminal code of Canada is federal law.

On the RCMP home page at detachments Stoney Creek ON, it says Services available General information Report a crime

So at the Stoney Creek detachment, you can report a crime. And reporting a crime to the Stoney Creek Ontario detachment is what I did.

Desired outcome of request review. For the RCMP to launch an investigation into the OIPRD for covering up complaints. And file charges if there is enough evidence for charges. And for officer

Metropoulos to be disciplined.

Please review my original complaint for this review. And the decision letter from the RCMP professional standards unit of February 08, 2023.

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

Update of February 22, 2023

94. On December 14, 2022, I wrote to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council Saying.

A reporter on CP24 was talking about a taxi scam that is going around. His name is Steve.

He said if you suspect that the taxi is trying to scam you do not call 911 no one’s life is in danger.

He is wrong you don’t just call 911 only when someone’s life is in danger. You call 911 if you see a crime in process. Like someone trying to steal your car.

CP24 wrote back saying.

We have met with Mr. Ryan about your concerns. Based on his decades of experience as a Toronto police officer, he explained that calls to 911 are assessed and prioritized and that a fare dispute would not be treated as a priority call unless someone was reporting that they were in danger or, as you say, a crime was in progress. It would be put on the standard radio call list which is why he indicated in his report that it might take some time for police to attend the scene but the complaint should wait to pay until Police arrive. In reviewing the report with your concern in mind, we agree that Mr. Ryan’s wording could have been clearer in explaining that when someone calls 911, it is up to the operator to assess and prioritize how police respond to that call.

Sincerely Linda Oland

Director of News and Information Programming cp24

Update of February 26, 2023

95. On January 30, 2023, I began emailing all the new city councilors in Hamilton, Ontario that were elected in the October 24, 2022, municipal election saying.

I have written to the Chief of police in Hamilton. See below. Asking him to launch a criminal investigation into his officers that are covering up crimes. He did not.

On the website of the OIPRD, 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 possession or control of evidence of a misconduct

You now have in your possession the evidence of the Chief committing a misconduct. So can you please file a complaint against him? There is a six-month limitation period for filing a conduct complaint against a police officer in Ontario.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Ward 2 Cameron KroetschEmail: ward2@hamilton.ca Who is also on the Hamilton police services board said,

Hi Robert,

We will take a look over this. I would suggest emailing Kirsten Stevenson (Kirsten.stevenson@hamilton.ca) about this inquiry.

Thank you,

Hasnain Khan

Ward 2 Constituency Coordinator

I then emailed them back saying.

I contacted Kirsten Stevenson She said that the police services board will not file a complaint against the Chief.

Are you going to?

They did not respond back.

Ward 4 Tammy Hwang ward4@hamilton.ca

Hello Robert!

Thank you for emailing your concerns on this issue. We have taken your issue with the police under careful consideration. Please let me look into what action can be taken.

Warmest regards,

Jac Hypolite (She/Her)

Admin Assistant to Councillor Tammy Hwang – Ward 4

They then emailed me again saying.

Hi Robert

We have received your email and are working on a way to bring forth your complaint to the proper authorities. We can’t submit this complaint on our end but we’re looking at alternative ways on how to proceed.

I then emailed them back saying.

You said in your email. “We can’t submit this complaint on our end”

The rules say that if you have in your possession the evidence of a misconduct by a police officer you can file a complaint against that officer. In my original email, there is evidence of misconduct by the Chief. You now have in our possession that email. So you can file a complaint against the Chief.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Ward 5 Matt Francis matt.francis@hamilton.ca

He did not respond back and I emailed him 15 times.

Ward 10 Jeff Beattie jeff.beattie@hamilton.ca They said

Hi Robert,

I see that you continue to reach out to my office, but I’m not certain how I can assist. I see that you have asked for the Chief of the Hamilton Police Service to open an investigation. My office has no direct oversight over the Service, and cannot assist with your request.

Jeff Beattie
Councillor – Ward 10

I then emailed him back saying.

You can file a conduct complaint against the Chief. The rules say you can!!

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

He did not respond back.

Ward 11 Mark Tadeson mark.tadeson@hamilton.ca

He did not respond back. And I emailed him 15 times.

Ward 12 Craig Cassar ward12@hamilton.ca

They said

Thank you for reaching out again to our office. City Councillors do not have the authority to direct the operations of the Hamilton Police Service. While the funding comes out of the City’s budget, HPS is an independent entity which manages its own operations. As evident in the email from Chief Bergen below, “The material provided does not disclose a basis to believe that there was any criminal act involved on the part of any person. As such, we are exercising our discretion not to initiate a criminal investigation”.

As HPS is the authority on these matters in terms of what does (or does not) warrant their further investigation, our office will defer to their expertise in this matter.

Sherri Brown (she/her)

Constituency Coordinator – Ward 12

I then emailed him back saying

I am asking you to file a conduct complaint against the Chief. Filing a complaint against a police officer is not directing police.

I then emailed them again saying.

The Chief is lying.

They then emailed me back saying.

Good morning Mr. Burgiss,

As we do not have firsthand knowledge of this situation, we are unable to file a complaint on your behalf. If you feel the need, please do so on your own.

Moving forward, we will no longer be responding to emails regarding this issue. Please refrain from sending any further to our office.

I then emailed them back saying.

The rules say that if you have in your possession the evidence of a misconduct by a police officer you can file a complaint against them. You do not have to have firsthand knowledge of the misconduct to file a conduct complaint. So please file a complaint against the Chief.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

They did not respond back.

Ward 13 Alex Wilson ward13@hamilton.ca

He did not respond back. And I emailed him 15 times.

Ward 14 Mike Spadafora mike.spadafora@hamilton.ca

Good evening, Robert,

On behalf of Councillor Spadafora, thank you for your email. I will be sure to bring this information to the Councillor’s attention at my earliest opportunity.

Take care and be well, Christine

Thank you,

Mike Spadafora

Councillor Ward 14

They then responded back saying

No more responses to this guy, please

I then emailed them back saying.

Why not?

They did not respond back.

Ward 15 Ted McMeekin ted.mcmeekin@hamilton.ca

Hi Robert – it is not my intent to file an ‘obstruction of justice charge against the Police Chief.

I have been working with the Chief, the HPSB, and the Crime Unit to enhance police services for East Flamborough-Waterdown. We are finally making some real progress.

Stay safe – keep well.

All good things……..Ted

I then emailed him back saying.

I am not asking you to file a charge of obstruction of justice against the Chief. I am asking you to file a conduct complaint against the Chief with the OIPRD.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

He did not respond back.

I also wrote to the Hamilton police services board they ten wrote back saying.

Good afternoon Robert and thanks for your email.

Policing in Ontario is legislated through the Police Services Act (PSA), which sets out responsibilities of various parties, complaints processes, and discipline procedures, among other matters. Under the PSA, Police Services Boards are prohibited from being involved in day-to-day police operations and investigations and therefore aren’t involved in matters of discipline or conduct.

Public complaints about police conduct generally fall within the jurisdiction of the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD). If the complaint is about the misconduct of a police chief, police board member, auxiliary member of a police service, municipal law enforcement officer, and/or special constable, the Ontario Civilian Police Commission (OCPC) will consider the complaint and determine what actions, if any, are to be taken.

The OIPRD is responsible for receiving, managing, and overseeing all public complaints about the police in Ontario.

The OIPRD can be contacted at:

655 Bay Street, 10^th Floor
Toronto, ON M7A 2T4
Toll-free phone: 1-877-411-4773; TTY: 1-877-414-4773
email: OIPRD@ontario.ca
Website: www.oiprd.on.ca

The OCPC can be contacted at:

15 Grosvenor Street, Ground Floor

Toronto, ON M7A 2G6

Phone: 416-326-1356
Toll-free: 1-888-444-0240

Email: ocpcregistrar@ontario.ca

Regards,

Kirsten Stevenson

Administrator

Hamilton Police Services Board

I then emailed them back saying.

Are you going to file a complaint against the Chief of police in Hamilton? The rules clearly say that you can file a complaint against the Chief. The Chief of police in Hamilton is clearly corrupt. So, file a complaint against him.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

They then emailed me back saying.

Good afternoon Robert.

The Board will not be filing a complaint.

If you wish to file a complaint, please follow the appropriate process and contact the OIPRD using the information I provided in my previous email.

The Board becomes involved with complaints related to the Chief of Police if the OIPRD decides to open an investigation. After an investigation, the OIPRD would then provide a report to the Board for review (Section 69(1) of the Police Services Act).

Regards,

Kirsten Stevenson

I then emailed them back saying.

Why not the rules say they can!!

They did not respond back.

I also emailed the office of the Mayor City of Hamilton. Andrea Horwath. Who is also on the Hamilton police services board. officeofthe.mayor@hamilton.ca

They emailed me back saying.

I am sorry we cannot help Robert.

Regards,

Office of the Mayor

I then emailed them back saying.

Why not!!!

They did not respond back.

Update of March 03, 2023,

96. Today I received an email from the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP saying.

Robert Burgiss:

Please be advised that your request does not fall within the Commission’s mandate.

The Commission was established by Parliament to oversee the policing activities of the RCMP. The Commission may refuse to accept a review of the RCMP’s disposition of a complaint, if in the Commission’s opinion; the complaint could be dealt with more
appropriately according to a procedure provided under another Act of Parliament. Under subsection 45.61. (2) of the RCMP Act, the Commission feels this matter would be more appropriately addressed through a request for judicial review before the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice. A private lawyer or legal aid lawyer may be able to assist you with this process. Note, however, that there are strict time limits for such an application. As the Commission’s mandate is concluded, this constitutes our final correspondence to you in this matter.

Update of March 03, 2023, at 2:00 pm

97. At about 1:45 pm today I sent a message to the RCMP Complaints Commission saying.

RE your letter of March 03, 2023. Your file # 2022-2976

In your letter of March 03, 2023, you say.

The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission (the Commission) is in receipt of your online review form, dated February 19, 2023 Please be advised that your request does not fall within the Commission’s mandate.

This is not true.

Section 45. 7 (1) of the RCMP Act says

Referral of Complaints to Commission

Marginal note: Referral to Commission

7(1) A complainant who is not satisfied with a decision under section 45.61 or a report under section 45.64 may, within 60 days after being notified of the decision or receiving the report, refer the complaint in writing to the Commission for review.

So it is the mandate of the commission to do a review of the RCMP decision.

In your letter of March 03, 2023, you go on to say.

The Commission may refuse to accept a review of the RCMP’s disposition of a complaint, if in the Commission’s opinion; the complaint could be dealt with more appropriately according to a procedure provided under another Act of Parliament. Under subsection 45.61. (2) of the RCMP Act, the Commission feels this matter would be more appropriately addressed through a request for judicial review before the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice.

Section 45.61. (2) Does not say that the Commission can refuse to do a review.

What it says is

Right to refuse or terminate investigation

61(1) The Commissioner may direct the Force to not commence or continue an investigation of a complaint, other than a complaint initiated under subsection 45.59(1), if, in the Commissioner’s opinion,
- (a)any of the reasons for which the Commission may refuse to deal with a complaint under paragraph 45.53(2)(a), (b), or (c) or subsection 45.53(3) applies; or
- (b)having regard to all the circumstances, it is not necessary or reasonably practicable to commence or continue an investigation of the complaint.
Marginal note: Duty to refuse or terminate investigation

(2) The Commissioner shall direct the Force to not commence or continue an investigation of a complaint by a member or other person appointed or employed under Part I if the complaint has been or could have been adequately dealt with, or could more appropriately be dealt with, according to a procedure provided for under this Act or any other Act of Parliament.

It says Right to refuse or terminate investigation

It does not say right to refuse or terminate review.

Update of March 07, 2023,

98. Today I sent an email to the RCMP Complaints Commission at about 5:30 pm saying.

On March 03, 2023, I sent you an email. reference number R2023-001191 but have not heard from you in regards to it. It has been two business days since I sent the email. So, here it is again.

RE your letter of March 03, 2023. Your file # 2022-2976

In your letter of March 03, 2023, you say.

This is not true. Section 45. 7 (1) of the RCMP Act says

Referral of Complaints to Commission

Marginal note: Referral to Commission

7(1) A complainant who is not satisfied with a decision under section 45.61 or a report under section 45.64 may, within 60 days after being notified of the decision or receiving the report, refer the complaint in writing to the Commission for review.

So it is the mandate of the commission to do a review of the RCMP decision.

In your letter of March 03, 2023, you go on to say.

The Commission may refuse to accept a review of the RCMP’s disposition of a complaint, if in the Commission’s opinion; the complaint could be dealt with more appropriately according to a procedure provided under another Act of Parliament. Under subsection 45.61. (2) of the RCMP Act, the Commission feels this matter would be more appropriately addressed through a request for judicial review before the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice.

Section 45.61. (2) Does not say that the Commission can refuse to do a review.

What it says is

Right to refuse or terminate investigation

61(1) The Commissioner may direct the Force to not commence or continue an investigation of a complaint, other than a complaint initiated under subsection 45.59(1), if, in the Commissioner’s opinion,
- (a)any of the reasons for which the Commission may refuse to deal with a complaint under paragraph 45.53(2)(a), (b), or (c) or subsection 45.53(3) applies; or
- (b)having regard to all the circumstances, it is not necessary or reasonably practicable to commence or continue an investigation of the complaint.
Marginal note: Duty to refuse or terminate investigation

It says Right to refuse or terminate investigation

It does not say right to refuse or terminate review.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of March 08, 2023

99. Today I message the RCMP Complaints Commission saying.

I have messaged you two times now reference numbers R2023-001191 and R20233-001260 and you have not responded back.

So, can you please acknowledge that you got my two messages?

Update of March 15, 2023

100. Section 45.3 (2) of the RCMP Act says

PART VI Civilian Review and Complaints Commission For the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

(2) Each member of the Commission holds office during good behaviour for a term of not more than five years but may be removed for cause at any time by the Governor in Council.

I then found this.

What is Governor in Council and Order in Council?

Governor in Council (GIC): In the Canadian context, the Governor in Council is the Governor General. Order-in-Council: Are notices of an administrative decision made by the federal cabinet, signed by the Governor in Council (Governor General).

So, I have now begun writing to the Governor General of Canada.

asking her to fire the RCMP complaint commissioner.

Update of March 16, 2023

101. Today I received an email from the RCMP Complaints Commission saying.

Good day, Mr. Burgiss,

The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP (the Commission) is in receipt of your various online submissions between March 3^rd and March 14^th, 2023.

Please be advised that the Commission will be providing you with further correspondence next week on this matter.

Update of March 25, 2023

102. Today I emailed the RCMP Complaints Commission saying.

On March 16, 2023, you sent me an email saying.

Good day, Mr. Burgiss,

The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP (the Commission) is in receipt of your various online submissions between March 3^rd and March 14^th, 2023.

Please be advised that the Commission will be providing you with further correspondence next week on this matter.

It is now March 25, 2023, and I still have not heard from you.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of March 29, 2023

103. Received an email from the RCMP Complaints Commission today saying.

Good day, Mr. Burgiss,

Further to the Commission’s email to you on March 16, 2023, please be advised that your matter has been escalated to a senior decision maker and a formal decision will be provided to you soon.

Update of April 01. 2023

104. On March 01, 2023, I began emailing every new city councilor in Toronto who was elected in the October 24, 2022 municipal election saying.

My name is Robert Burgiss, I have emailed the new Chief of police in Toronto Myran Demkiw about his officers covering up crimes because the courts are swapped and police are under pressure to not add to it. The evidence on my website is https://injusticeinontario.ca/ So, they cover up crimes instead of filing charges. Covering up crimes is obstruction of justice. I asked the new Chief of police in Toronto Myran Demkiw to launch a criminal investigation into his officers for obstruction of justice. I emailed him from January 02, 2023, to January 20, 2023. He did not respond to my emails or launch an investigation. He is in charge of all the investigators that work for the Toronto police so clearly he can order a criminal investigation into his officers. See below for the emails I sent to the Chief.

The rules at the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) say.

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

So, you now have in your possession evidence of misconduct by the new Chief of police in Toronto. So can you please file a conduct complaint against the Chief? There is a six-month limitation period for filing a conduct complaint with the OIPRD

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Councillor Amber Morley Etobicoke-Lakeshore Ward 3

Email: Councillor_Morley@toronto.ca

Said

Hello Robert,

This is Mosheh from Councillor Morley’s office. I have read your email and see that you may have some dispute with TPS. Thank you for forwarding this correspondence to the Councillor.

As her Constituent Assistant I am writing to inform you that an investigation such as this falls outside of a City Councillor’s duties; Additionally, I see no discernable ask of the Councillor resulting in zero action from our office. If you continue to forward the emails to Councillor Morley, they will go unaddressed. If you would like further insight on this decision, you can contact me at the number I have left in my email signature below.

I then emailed them back saying.

I am asking the Councillor to file a conduct complaint against the Chief of Police in Toronto.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

They did not respond back.

Councillor Ausma Malik Ward 10, Spadina-Fort York Email: Councillor_Malik@toronto.ca said

Good afternoon Robert,

Thank you for reaching out to our office, I am sorry it is under these circumstances.

Council members are not allowed to direct police. The independence of law enforcement underpins the rule of law.

We recommend continuing to direct formal complaints about police via the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD). Their website, oiprd.on.ca provides information on how complaints are handled and how to submit a complaint, which can be done online, by fax, by mail, or email. The OIPRD can be reached by calling 1-877-411-4773. A complaint form is available and can be submitted at all police stations across Ontario.

I then emailed them back saying.

I am not asking you to direct the police. I am asking you to file a conduct complaint against the Chief of police. The rules say if you have in your possession the evidence of a misconduct by a police officer you can file a complaint against that officer. So, please file a conduct complaint against the Chief.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

They did not respond back.

Councillor Jon Burnside Don Valley East Ward 26

Email: Councillor_Burnside@toronto.ca

Said

Thank you!

Will pass this along to the Councillor.

I then emailed them back saying.

Is he going to file a complaint against the Chief?

They did not respond back.

The rest.

Councillor Vincent Crisanti Etobicoke North Ward 1

Email: Councillor_Crisanti@toronto.ca

Councillor Stephen Holyday Etobicoke Centre Ward 2

Email: councillor_holyday@toronto.ca

Councillor Bravo—Davenport Ward 9 Email: councillor_bravo@toronto.ca

Councillor Dianne Saxe University-Rosedale Ward 11

Councillor_Saxe@toronto.ca

Councillor Chris Moise Toronto Centre Ward 13

Email: Councillor_Moise@toronto.ca

Councillor Shelley Carroll Don Valley North Ward 17

Email: councillor_carroll@toronto.ca

Councillor Lily Cheng Willowdale Ward 18

Email: Councillor_Cheng@toronto.ca

Councillor Jamaal Myers Scarborough North Ward 23

Email: Councillor_Myers@toronto.ca

Did not respond back.

I even emailed the Toronto police services board they said.

Please be advised that the Police Services Act, allows the Board to review any investigations into complaints about the municipal force policies, and the Act prevents the Board from involvement in any investigations and/or complaints of police officers‘ services that were provided to the community members.

For this reason, we are referring you to please contact the OIPRD directly regarding your concern.

I then emailed them back saying.

Where does it say in the act? That the Toronto police services board cannot file a complaint against the Chief of police in Toronto?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

They then emailed me back saying.

Dear Mr. Burgiss,

In response to your email below and subsequent follow-up email messages we received, please be advised that the Board is permitted to file and review complaints against the Chief of Police. However, your email did not disclose any information about the substance of your complaint. Our staff reviewed the link you provided but could not identify the rationale for the complaint against Toronto Police officers or the Chief. Please provide us with more information on the misconduct you believe occurred, and the Board will be able to review this material and make a decision on how best to move forward.

Thank you,

I then emailed them back saying.

Paragraph 29 of my website shows that Grace from the Ontario Ombudsman’s office said the SIU’s decision to not file criminal charges against a police officer is a legal decision and that the Ombudsman’s office cannot investigate legal decisions of the SIU. There is a link on my website to a recording of the phone call with Grace from the Ombudsman’s office.

Section 14 of the Ombudsman’s Act 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).

It says any decision or recommendation. So, clearly, the Ombudsman’s office can investigate a legal decision of the SIU.

Section 139 (2) of the criminal code of Canada says (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 is guilty of
• (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or
• (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

So, what Grace did is obstruct of justice because covering up a complaint that the Ombudsman’s office receives is obstructing the Ombudsman’s act, and obstructing a government act is obstruction of justice. The Ombudsman’s offices are in Toronto Ontario. So, the Toronto police can investigate the Ontario Ombudsman’s office.

There is also evidence in paragraph 29 on my website that the Ombudsman Paul. Dude, John Vanthof New Democratic Party of Ontario and Sylvia Jones Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario have obstructed justice.

Paragraph 31 of my website shows that the old Chief of Police in Toronto Chief Sanders has obstructed justice. Paragraph 37 shows the a person from the Communications at the Toronto police has obstructed justice. And paragraph 46 shows that Toronto police have committed the crime of extortion.

Section 41 (1) of the police services act in Ontario says

CHIEF OF POLICE

Duties of chief of police
41 (1) The duties of a chief of police include,
(a) in the case of a municipal police force, administering the police force and overseeing its operation in accordance with the objectives, priorities, and policies established by the board under subsection 31 (1);
(b) ensuring that members of the police force carry out their duties in accordance with this Act and the regulations and in a manner that reflects the needs of the community, and that discipline is maintained in the police force;
(c) ensuring that the police force provides community-oriented police services;
(d) administering the complaints system in accordance with Part V. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, s. 41 (1); 1995, c. 4, s. 4 (8, 9); 1997, c. 8, s. 27.

The definition of administrator is to manage the affairs of (a business a city etc). Police investigate criminal acts and where there is enough evidence file criminal charges.
So, clearly, the Chief of police in Toronto can order the criminal investigators who work for the Toronto police to do a criminal investigation. The Chief of Police in Toronto did not order a criminal investigation into any of the things on my website.

Misconduct

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

(a)  commits an offence described in a prescribed code of conduct;
(b)  contravenes section 46 (political activity);

(c) engages in an activity that contravenes subsection 49 (1) (secondary activities) without the permission of his or her chief of police or, in the case of a municipal chief of police, without the permission of the board, being aware that the activity may contravene that subsection;

(d)  contravenes subsection 55 (5) (resignation during emergency);

(e) commits an offence described in subsection 79 (1) or (2) (offences, complaints);

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

(g)  contravenes section 117 (trade union membership);

(h) deals with personal property, other than money or a firearm, in a manner that is not consistent with section 132;

(i) deals with money in a manner that is not consistent with section 133;

(j) deals with a firearm in a manner that is not consistent with section 134;

(k) contravenes a regulation made under paragraphs 15 (equipment), 16 (use of force), 17 (standards of dress, police uniforms), 20 (police pursuits), or 21 (records) of subsection 135 (1). 2007, c. 5, s. 10.

Inducing misconduct and withholding services

Inducing misconduct

81 (1) No person shall,

(a) induce or attempt to induce a member of a police force to withhold his or her services; or

(b) induce or attempt to induce a police officer to commit misconduct. 2007, c. 5, s. 10.

Withholding services
(2) No member of a police force shall withhold his or her services. 2007, c. 5, s. 10.

Clearly, the Chief of Police in Toronto has done this!!

They then emailed me back saying.

We are referring you back to our response dated March 20, and we reiterate, your email did not disclose any information about the substance of your complaint.

You have mentioned that you have emailed the Chief and according to your email, no response from them was received about your complaint. Please be advised that by legislation, we are required to forward your email to the Office of the Chief so that he may classify your complaint as one concerning policy, service, or conduct. For this reason, as a follow-up, we are forwarding your email to the Office of the Chief for further review and appropriate response.

Please also be advised that if the Chief determines that your complaint concerns his own conduct, the Chief is required to forward your complaint back to the Police Services Board Office so that the Board may consider the matter further. Only at that time will the Board be able to make a determination on further steps, if any.

Thank you.

I then emailed them back saying.

This is what section 61 (8) of the police services act says.
Complaints about municipal chief, municipal deputy chief
(8) A complaint about the conduct of a municipal chief of police or a municipal deputy chief of police shall be referred by the Independent Police Review Director to the board and dealt with under section 69. 2007, c. 5, s. 10.
It says by the independent police review director to the board.
I read this as you have to file your complaint to the OIPRD not the Chief of Police. Are you going to send your complaint to the OIPRD?
Thanks Robert Burgiss

They have not responded back yet.

Update of April 07, 2023

105. On March 15, 2023, I received an email from the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council saying

CBSC File: C22/23-0715
Dear Robert Burgiss:
We have received your complaint regarding commentary that was made during CityNews broadcast on CityTV (CITY-DT) on January 28, 2023, at approximately 6:30 PM ET.
In your complaint you state the following, “On March 3, 1991, Rodney King was beaten by Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) officers. City news said that he was beaten to death.
this is not true he did not die.” As you may be aware, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) is an independent
organization that administers codes and standards proposed by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) and approved by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). CITY-DT is owned and operated by Rogers Sports & Media (Rogers) and is an associate in good standing with the CBSC. The codes and standards administered by the CBSC include the CAB Code of Ethics (“the Code”). Based on your complaint, we believe the following clause is applicable to
the broadcast in question, and will be relevant in determining whether a breach of the Code occurred:
Clause 5 – News

(1) It shall be the responsibility of broadcasters to ensure that news shall be represented with accuracy and without bias. Broadcasters shall satisfy themselves that the arrangements made for obtaining news ensure this result. They shall also ensure that news broadcasts are not editorial.

After receiving your complaint, we reviewed the logger for the broadcast in question and can confirm that at 6:32 PM ET, a CityNews reporter did state that Rodney King was “beaten to death by Los Angeles police officers in 1991”.

To begin, we wish to offer our apologies for the error that was made during our 6 PM news broadcast of the story with headline “Memphis Police Disbands Specialized Unit Tied To
Deadly Beating Of Tyre Nichols”. We also want to acknowledge that you are correct that Rodney King did not in fact pass away from the incident in 1991, but rather several years
later. This error was identified after broadcast and our news team took immediate action to correct it before our 11 PM news broadcast of the same story. We also ensured the story was
corrected on the CityNews website and YouTube page. We have secured the logger for the 11 PM. broadcast on January 28, 2023, should the CBSC wish to confirm this correction.
The corrected version of the broadcast can be seen on the CityNews web We also ensured the corrected version was uploaded to our YouTube page as well: Memphis police disbands unit tied to deadly beating of Tyre Nichols – YouTube
Once again, we sincerely apologize for this error and hope our response has assured you that we took immediate remedial action to ensure the story was corrected online and before
the story was rebroadcast later that evening.

Sincerely,
Susan Wheeler
Vice President, Regulatory & B2B Distribution
Rogers Sports & Media

Update of April 08, 2023

106. On March 31, 2023, I called the Governor General of Canada asking her to fire the RCMP Complaints Commissioner for covering up my complaint against an RCMP member. A person name Ludovick answered the phone and said that he does not know anything about that. I then asked to speak to his boss. He said that his boss would not know anything about that either.

So, I have now begun emailing them filing a complaint against Ludovick.

Update of April 09, 2023

107. If you are being arrested and you believe that it is a false arrest do not let on to the police that you know that you are being falsely arrested. Because if the police know that you know you are being falsely arrested they are more likely to lie in their police report to justify the arrest. If they do not know that you know that it is a false arrest they are more likely to tell the truth in their police report. So play dumb.

Update of April 12, 2023

108. Today I emailed the RCMP Complaints Commission saying.

On March 29, 2023, you sent me an email saying.

Good day, Mr. Burgiss,

Further to the Commission’s email to you on March 16, 2023, please be advised that your matter has been escalated to a senior decision maker and a formal decision will be provided to you soon.

Thank you for your patience.

It has now been two weeks since I got that email and still no response from you.

Update of April 13, 2023

109. I have been Emailing city tv asking them to apologize to the people who saw the 6:30 news on the day that they got it wrong when they said. That Rodney King was beaten to death by the LAPD. On April 12, 2023, I received an email from them saying.

Dear Robert Burgiss:
Following your ruling request to the CBSC regarding the broadcast of an incorrect statement related to Rodney King’s beating on January 28, 2023, we are writing to inform you that City News issued a correction to the statement on Saturday, April 8, 2023, at 6:30 PM ET. The correction was broadcast as an editorial note and stated the following:

“In January, while covering the death of Tyre Nichols at the hands of Memphis Police, we included a comment from Lora King, whose father Rodney King was brutally beaten
by Los Angeles police officers in 1991. King’s beating, and the subsequent acquittal of the accused officers, became a symbol of police brutality against Black people in America. King though died in 2012, not on the night of the beating as we
reported. This was corrected later on in the broadcasts, and we apologize for the error.”

We trust this correction has assured you that we take matters such as this seriously and have taken appropriate remedial actions. We have provided a copy of the broadcast logger to the
CBSC for their reference.

Thank you for taking the time to express your concerns about our station and its programming.
Sincerely,
Susan Wheeler
Vice President, Regulatory & B2B Distribution
Rogers Sports & Media

Update of April 18, 2023

110. Today I called the Governor General of Canada to see about having the RCMP complaints commissioner fired for covering up my complaint against an RCMP officer. The G. G. office gave me this phone number 1 800 622 6232. I called the number they said that they have nothing to do with the G. G. office. The number is 1 800 O Canada. Clearly, the G. G. office is giving me the run-around.

Update of April 23, 2023

111. On April 21, 2023, I called the Governor General of Canada’s office. About having her fire the RCMP complaints commissioner for covering up my complaint against an RCMP officer. They said you will have to write to the G. G. I then asked how long for a response. They said they do not know.

Update of April 25, 2023

112. On April 24, 2023, I called the Governor General’s office saying.

I began emailing you on March 09, 2023. I was told that there will be a response within three weeks. I have forwarded that email to you for every business for 22 business days. So it has been three weeks of business days and still no response. They then took my contact information and said someone will be in touch with me. But it may be a while because of the PSAC strike.

Update of April 27, 2023

113. On April 25, 2023, I emailed the Public Service Alliance of Canada asking them. If any of their members who are on strike work for the Governor General of Canada’s office? They did not respond back

Update of April 28, 2023

114. Today I emailed the RCMP Complaints Commission saying.

On March 29, 2023, you sent me an email saying.

Good day, Mr. Burgiss,

Further to the Commission’s email to you on March 16, 2023, please be advised that your matter has been escalated to a senior decision maker and a formal decision will be provided to you soon.

Thank you for your patience.

It is now April 28, 2023. 30 days since I got your email and still no response from you.

reference number R2023-002220

Update of April 30, 2023

115. On April 25, 2023, I received an email from the Toronto police services board saying.

Dear Mr. Burgiss,

We request that you please refer to our responses dated March 20th and March 23rd. Please know that to date, except for quotes from PSA from your email messages to us, we still have yet to receive the substance of the complaint against the Chief of Police.

It appears that your concerns need to be resolved between you and OIPRD. Please be advised that the Board does not file complaints to the OIPRD pertaining to citizen’s complaints against services provided by police officers. All complaints about the conduct of police officers or about the policies or services delivered by the Toronto Police Service must be reviewed by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD). In order for OIPRD to review the complaint, this has to be submitted to their office, by the complainant, in this case, it would be you, Mr. Burgiss. OIPRD will then review your complaint and determine if this is a complaint against the Chief of Police or Deputy Chief, or services provided by police officers. If this is a complaint against the Chief of Police or Deputy Chief, the OIPRD will then refer their decision to the concerned Police Service.

On April 30, 2023, I emailed the TPSB saying.

Please see attached for six questions. Can you please answer all six questions?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

To the Toronto Police Services Board

Re: complaint against the Chief

Evidence of criminal acts done by Toronto police staff

At paragraph 37 of my website, it says. 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 that I filed with them against the SIU because the Ombudsman’s offices are in Toronto. Section 139 (2) of the Criminal Code of Canada says. (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 is guilty of(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Complaints that are filed 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.

You do not have to prove criminal intent for obstruction of justice. Because to do that you would have to read the person’s mind. And you cannot read the person’s mind. You just have to prove that the person intended to obstruct the government act that they obstructed.

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.

The recording of the phone call with the Toronto police communication is on my youtube channel. My youtube channel is called Injustice in Ontario the title of the video is Toronto Police. Here is the link to it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRsSgKq9Vy8

The person told me to go to the Hamilton police for a crime that happened in Toronto. The Hamilton police cannot investigate crimes that happened in Toronto. The person also would not put me through to a Toronto police officer.

The Criminal Code of Canada section 139 (2) says.

(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 is guilty of(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction

The person on the phone is trying to cover up the crime of obstruction of justice. And trying to cover up an obstruction of justice is obstructing section 139 (2) of the criminal code of Canada. So they are obstruction justice.

Question # 1. Do you believe that there is enough evidence to justify a criminal investigation into the actions of the Toronto police staff member to determine if there is enough evidence for criminal charges for obstruction of justice?

Evidence that the Chief of police in Toronto knows about this obstruction and did not launch a criminal investigation.

On January 02, 2023, to January 20, 2023, I emailed the Chief of Police in Toronto with a link to my website. Saying that there is evidence of criminal acts by Toronto police staff. He the Chief did not launch a criminal investigation.

Question # 2 Do you believe that the Chief of Police in Toronto Myran Demkiw got my emails and that he did not launch a criminal investigation into the evidence on the website.

What the Police Services Act in Ontario says are the duties of the Chief of Police.

3. Duties of chief of police

41 (1) The duties of a chief of police include,

(a) in the case of a municipal police force, administering the police force and overseeing its operation in accordance with the objectives, priorities, and policies established by the board under subsection 31 (1);

(b) ensuring that members of the police force carry out their duties in accordance with this Act and the regulations and in a manner that reflects the needs of the community, and that discipline is maintained in the police force;

(d) administering the complaints system in accordance with Part V. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, s. 41 (1); 1995, c. 4, s. 4 (8, 9); 1997, c. 8, s. 27.

It says administering the police force and overseeing its operation in accordance with the objectives, priorities, and policies established by the board under subsection 31 (1);

It goes on to say.

Duties of Police Officer

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

(a) preserving the peace;

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

(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.

preventing crimes and other offences and providing assistance and encouragement to other persons in their prevention;

In order to prevent crimes a police officer has to arrest a person who is committing crimes. In order to arrest a person who is committing crimes a police officer has to first do an investigation to determine if there is enough evidence for the arrest.

The Chief of police is a police officer. So, the Chief of police can order a criminal investigation.

Question # 3 Do you believe that the Chief of police in Toronto can order a criminal investigation?

Definition of police discretion

4. In this case R. v.Beaudry, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 190, 2007 SCC 5 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.

It says in the public interest.

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

The Chief did not explain how it was in the public interest for him to not launch a criminal investigation into the person on the phone from the Toronto police staff. And the chief and The TPSB cannot ignore case law. Because case law is the law of the land.

There are no limitation periods on criminal charges in Canada.

Question # 4 Do you believe that the Chief of police should have had a criminal investigation launched into the actions of the person on the phone from the Toronto police staff?

Definition of misconduct in the Ontario Police Services Act.

5. Misconduct

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

(a) commits an offence described in a prescribed code of conduct;

(b) contravenes section 46 (political activity);

(c) engages in an activity that contravenes subsection 49 (1) (secondary activities) without the permission of his or her chief of police or, in the case of a municipal chief of police, without the permission of the board, being aware that the activity may contravene that subsection;

(d) contravenes subsection 55 (5) (resignation during emergency);

(e) commits an offence described in subsection 79 (1) or (2) (offences, complaints);

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

(g) contravenes section 117 (trade union membership);

(h) deals with personal property, other than money or a firearm, in a manner that is not consistent with section 132;

(i) deals with money in a manner that is not consistent with section 133;

(j) deals with a firearm in a manner that is not consistent with section 134;

(k) contravenes a regulation made under paragraphs 15 (equipment), 16 (use of force), 17 (standards of dress, police uniforms), 20 (police pursuits), or 21 (records) of subsection 135 (1). 2007, c. 5, s. 10.

Off-duty conduct

(2) A police officer shall not be found guilty of misconduct under subsection (1) if there is no connection between the conduct and either the occupational requirements for a police officer or the reputation of the police force. 2007, c. 5, s. 10.

Section Amendments with date in force (d/m/y)

Inducing misconduct and withholding services

Inducing misconduct

81 (1) No person shall,

(a) induce or attempt to induce a member of a police force to withhold his or her services; or

(b) induce or attempt to induce a police officer to commit misconduct. 2007, c. 5, s. 10.

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 offence 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.

Consent of Solicitor General

(4) No prosecution shall be instituted under this section without the consent of the Solicitor General. 2007, c. 5, s. 10.

It says (2) No member of a police force shall withhold his or her services.

The Chief of police in Toronto did not order a criminal investigation. So, he withheld his services.

Question # 5 Do you believe that the Chief of police in Toronto committed misconduct?

Who can make a complaint to the OIPRD?

The rules on the OIPRD’s website say.

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.

I emailed the Toronto police services board a copy of the emails I sent to the Chief. So, you now have knowledge of conduct and possession of evidence of misconduct or unsatisfactory work performance by the Chief of police.

There is enough evidence here to warrant an investigation into the actions of the Chief.

Question # 6 Do you believe that the TPSB can file a conduct complaint against the Chief? Before June 20, 2023, because of the six-month limitation period.

Update of May 02, 2023

116. Today Dubi Kanengisser from the Toronto Police Services Board called me and said that he does not know whether I am right or wrong about the reasons to file a conduct complaint against the Chief of Police in Toronto. But the Toronto police are not going to investigate the Ontario Ombudsman’s office for obstruction of justice. Phone 1 416 808 8424 dubi.kanengisser@tpsb.ca board@tpsb.ca Telephone: 416-808-8080

Today I emailed him saying.

Can I please get a letter from all the members of the TPSB saying that they agree with the decision you made today in regards to filing a complaint against the Chief of police in Toronto? With their Signatures on it.
Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of May 07, 2023

117. On April 03, 2023, I began emailing the new MPP for Hamilton Center Sarah Jama who is my MPP

Saying.

Back in 2019, I was sexually assaulted by a Hamilton police officer. I called the SIU but the SIU covered it up. I then called the Ontario Ombudsman’s office who can investigate the SIU. A person from the Ombudsman’s office named Grace said that the Ombudsman’s office cannot investigate a legal decision of the SIU. And them deciding whether or not to file criminal charges against a police officer 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 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. 0.6. s.

14 (1); 2014, c. 13, Sched. 9, s. 6 (1).

It says any decision or recommendation. So the Ombudsman’s office can investigate a legal decision of the SIU.

I am asking you to ask for a vote in the Ontario legislature to remove the Ombudsman from office.

On April 03, 2023, they responded back saying.

Hi Robert,

Thank you so much for contacting the office of MPP Sarah Jama.

I am so sorry to hear what you have gone through. I will ensure MPP Jama gets your email.

I have also included a link to some resources that may be helpful
given what you have gone through.

* https://sacha.ca/
*
https://wawg.ca/services-in-hamilton/sexual-assault-counselling-support/

Please be in touch if there is anything else we can do to help.

Kind Regards,
Amandeep Kaur | Constituency Assistant

The Office of MPP Sarah Jama

118. Then on April 10, 2023, I emailed them back saying.

Is she going to ask that the Ombudsman be fired? I emailed them up to April 19, 2023, they did not respond back. Then April 20, 2023, I sent an email saying.

I found this on the internet.

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.

So, you have to help me!!!

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

I emailed them from the 20 of April to the 24 of April 2023.

They did not respond back.

I then emailed them saying.

Because the Ombudsman’s office is covering up my complaint with them. They are obstructing the Ombudsman’s act. And obstructing a government act is obstructing justice.
Because there is a rule that says that you have to help me with my problem with the Ombudsman’s office if you do not help me you are obstructing justice.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

I emailed them from the 24 to May 02, 2023.

Then I emailed them saying.

Today I tried to call you at 905 544 9644 it said that this number cannot receive incoming calls.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

I did that from May 02 to May 03, 2023.

I then emailed them again saying.

Can you at least write to the Ombudsman’s office and tell them that they are wrong in their decision?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

They did not respond back.

Then on May 04, 2023, I called them and the message I got was. We are busy setting up our office and hiring staff.

Update of May 08, 2023

119. Today I began emailing CP24 breakingnews@cp24.com CBC Toronto torontotips@cbc.ca Toronto sun torsun.editor@sunmedia.ca Toronto star newstips@thestar.ca global tv newstips@globaltv.com and Bell media dotcom@bellmedia.ca City tv Saying.

Paragraph 31 of my website www.injusticeinontario.ca shows that Mark Saunders who is running for Mayor in Toronto committed a criminal act when he was Chief of police in Toronto.

Will you do a story on this?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of May 11, 2023

120. I have emailed the Governor General’s office about 30 times now. They have not responded back. So, they are clearly giving me the run-around. So, on May 10, 2023, I called Matthew Green’s office in Ottawa Matthew Green is my Member of Parliament. (MP) I told his Ottawa office that the Governor General can fire the RCMP Complaints Commissioner because it says this in Section 45.3 (2) of the RCMP Act. (2) Each member of the Commission holds office during good behaviour for a term of not more than five years but may be removed for cause at any time by the Governor in Council. A guy named Tyler at Matthew Green’s office said. That the Governor General cannot act without the advice of cabinet because it says this about the G. G. Governor in Council (GIC) appointments are those made by the Governor in Council—the Governor General acting on the advice of Cabinet. An Order in Council is the legal instrument, which, when signed by the Governor General, formalizes an appointment. I say that this only applies for appointments and not to firing someone from an appointment. Because it does not say that the G. G. has to get advice from cabinet to fire someone.

Update of May 13, 2023

121. Today I emailed the RCMP Complaints Commission saying.

On March 29, 2023, you sent me an email saying.
Good day, Mr. Burgiss,

Further to the Commission’s email to you on March 16, 2023, please be advised that your matter has been escalated to a senior decision maker and a formal decision will be provided to you soon.

Thank you for your patience.

It has now been 45 days since I got your email and still no response from you.

reference number R2023-002566

Update of May 14, 2023

122. On May 13, 2023, I emailed Tyler from my MP’s office saying.

Hi

To Tyler

I got the email below on March 29, 2023, and I still have not received a response.

So, can you write to the RCMP Complaints Commission and ask them why it is taking so long for a response?

Complaints Commission File Number: 2022-2976

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: RE: Civilian Review and Complaints Commission – Registry Unit – 2022-2976
Date: 2023-03-29 13:45
From: CRCC Reviews-Examens CCETP.noreply-ne pas répondre <Reviewsnoreply-Examensnepasrepondre@crcc-ccetp.gc.ca>
To: “‘rburgiss@injusticeinontario.ca‘” <rburgiss@injusticeinontario.ca>

Please do not reply to this email, as it is not monitored.

Good day, Mr. Burgiss,

Further to the Commission’s email to you on March 16, 2023, please be advised that your matter has been escalated to a senior decision maker and a formal decision will be provided to you soon.

Thank you for your patience.

Regards,

Update of May 15, 2023

123. Today I called my MPP Sarah Jama Phone 905 544 9644 email SJama-QP@ndp.on.ca talked to Susan. She said that MPPs cannot get involved in problems with the Ontario Ombudsman’s office. I explained that there is a rule that says that they have to help me and if they don’t without a legitimate reason they are obstructing justice. She said she will find the rule that says they cannot help and email it to me. And to give her a week to find it.

Update of May 16, 2023

124. Yesterday I emailed Ana Bailao who is running for mayor in Toronto saying.

Paragraph 31 of my website www.injusticeinontario.ca shows that Mark Saunders who is running for Mayor in Toronto committed a criminal act when he was Chief of police in Toronto.

Will you bring this up with the people of Toronto?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

They responded back today saying.

Thank you for being in touch with Ana Bailao. Your email, and your website, raise some important issues.

Marha Ingram

Ana Bailao Campaign

Update of May 16, 2023, at 5:15 pm

125. Today I emailed Josh Matlow who is running for Mayor in Toronto saying.

Paragraph 31 of my website www.injusticeinontario.ca shows that Mark Saunders who is running for Mayor in Toronto committed a criminal act when he was Chief of police in Toronto.

Will you bring this up with the people of Toronto?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

His office responded back saying

Hi Robert,

Thank you for your email! We appreciate you sharing your perspectives with us and I will forward your email for further consideration.

Better is Possible,

Vanessa Evangelista (she/her)

Operations Assistant

votematlow.ca

Update of May 17, 2023

126. Today I received an email from Susan from my MPP Sarah Jama’s office saying.

Hello Robert,

Please see below the response we received from the Office of the Integrity Commissioner regarding your request:

When assisting constituents, there are limits with respect to MPPs’ advocacy efforts. Section 4 of the Members’ Integrity Act, 1994 addresses this. It reads as follows:

Influence

A member of the Assembly shall not use his or her office to seek to influence a decision made or to be made by another person so as to further the member’s private interest or improperly to further another person’s private interest.

As such, members must be careful not to seek or to suggest to others that they are seeking preferential treatment as a result of their MPP status. In this case, it is the Commissioner’s opinion that MPP Jama should not write a letter requesting that the Ombudsman’s Office reverse its investigation decision. Any attempt to “wave the magic wand” for the constituent by interfering with the Ombudsman’s processes would be contrary to s. 4 of the Act.

However, it is the Commissioner’s view that it is appropriate for MPPs or their staff to contact provincial organizations for the purposes of requesting information (i.e., status, policy, and procedures) and relaying such information to the constituent. It is my understanding that in this case, the Ombudsman’s Office has provided an explanation to the constituent as to why an investigation cannot be conducted. That being said, MPP Jama may find this course of action helpful with other constituent casework.

I trust the above is helpful.

Office of the Integrity Commissioner

Susan Sharma (she/her)
Constituency Assistant

Office of MPP Sarah Jama, Hamilton Centre

I responded back saying

To Susan
RE: your email of today
The Integrity Act section 4 says

Influence
4 A member of the Assembly shall not use his or her office to seek to influence a decision made or to be made by another person so as to further the member’s private interest or improperly to further another person’s private interest. 1994, c. 38, s. 4.

It says improperly to further another person’s private interest.

The Ombudsman’s office said that they cannot investigate a legal decision of the SIU. However, 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).

It says any decision or recommendation

So, the Ombudsman can investigate a legal decision of the SIU to not file charges against a police officer.

So, clearly, the Ombudsman’s decision to not investigate the SIU was wrong.

If the Ombudsman’s decision is wrong. Then it would not be improper for Sarah Jama to ask the Ombudsman’s office to do a proper investigation into the SIU decision!!!

So are you going to write to the Ombudsman’s office and ask them to do a proper investigation into the SIU decision?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of May 20, 2023

127. On May 19, 2023, I called my MPP Sarah Jama’s office about my email to them explaining how they can write to the Ombudsman’s office. The message on their phone system was that they are busy setting up their office and hiring staff. But they cannot use that excuse to not answer the phone when I call forever.

Update of May 21, 2023

128. Today I emailed every Liberal member of cabinet saying.

The RCMP Act section 45.3 (2) says

(2) Each member of the Commission holds office during good behaviour for a term of not more than five years but may be removed for cause at any time by the Governor in Council.

My member of parliament Matthew Green’s Ottawa office sent me this link.

https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/programs/appointments/governor-council-appointments/general-information/appointments.html

It says Governor in Council (GIC) appointments are those made by the Governor in Council—the Governor General acting on the advice of Cabinet. An Order in Council is the legal instrument, which, when signed by the Governor General, formalizes an appointment.

Because it says for appointments the G G must get advice from cabinet to appoint someone to a position. My MP’s office is saying that for the G G to fire someone from a position the G G needs advice from the cabinet to fire someone.

That is not how I read the legislation. Because it does not say anything about firing someone from a position in the legislation.

My MP’s office does not quote any legislation that says that the G.G. must get advice from cabinet to fire someone.

A Judge can interpret legislation to mean last than the wording of the legislation means. But they cannot interpret legislation to mean more than the wording of the legislation means. The reason I say this is because if a judge can interpret legislation to mean more than the wording of the legislation. Then a judge can interpret any legislation to mean anything they want it to mean. So, a Judge cannot interpret the legislation that governs the G G to mean that the G G has to have advice from the cabinet to fire someone. Because the legislation does not say that the G. G. needs advice from the cabinet to fire someone.

A Judge’s interpretation of legislation has to be within the wording of the legislation. So, a judge cannot interpret the legislation that governs the G G to mean that the G G has to have advice from the cabinet to fire someone. Because the legislation does not say anything about firing someone.

If a Judge cannot interpret the legislation that governs the G G to mean that the G G has to have advice from the cabinet to fire someone. Then my MP’s office cannot do that either.

Am I right or is my MP”s office right?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of May 23, 2023

129. On May 17, 2023, I received an email from my MPP’s office saying.

Hello Robert,

Please see below the response we received from the Office of the Integrity Commissioner regarding your request:

When assisting constituents, there are limits with respect to MPPs’ advocacy efforts. Section 4 of the Members’ Integrity Act, 1994 addresses this. It reads as follows:

Influence

A member of the Assembly shall not use his or her office to seek to influence a decision made or to be made by another person so as to further the member’s private interest or improperly to further another person’s private interest.

As such, members must be careful not to seek or to suggest to others that they are seeking preferential treatment as result of their MPP status. In this case, it is the Commissioner’s opinion that MPP Jama should not write a letter requesting that the Ombudsman’s Office reverse its investigation decision. Any attempt to “wave the magic wand” for the constituent by interfering with the Ombudsman’s processes would be contrary to s. 4 of the Act.

I trust the above is helpful.

Office of the Integrity Commissioner

Susan Sharma (she/her)
Constituency Assistant

Office of MPP Sarah Jama, Hamilton Centre

I then responded back saying.

Can you forward the exact email you got from the integrity

Commissioner.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

They then responded back saying.

Robert,

As requested, I have been authorized to release the email from the Office of the Integrity Commissioner. Please see below.

Regards,

Susan Sharma (she/her)
Constituency Assistant

Office of MPP Sarah Jama, Hamilton Centre

Address: 630 Main St. E., Hamilton, ON, L8M 1J7

Office: 905-544-9644

From: Kim Fryer-Ellis <Kim.Fryer-Ellis@oico.on.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2023, 5:01 PM
Subject: RE: Role and Responsibility of Constituency Office

! CAUTION: External message.

Dear Susan,

When assisting constituents, there are limits with respect to MPPs’ advocacy efforts. Section 4 of the Members’ Integrity Act, 1994 addresses this. It reads as follows:

Influence

As such, members must be careful not to seek or to suggest to others that they are seeking preferential treatment as result of their MPP status. In this case, it is the Commissioner’s opinion that MPP Jama should not write a letter requesting that the Ombudsman’s Office reverse its investigation decision. Any attempt to “wave the magic wand” for the constituent by interfering with the Ombudsman’s processes would be contrary to s. 4 of the Act.

I trust the above is helpful.

Kim Fryer-Ellis
Team Lead – Ethical Inquiries
Office of the Integrity Commissioner

I then emailed the integrity Commissioner saying.

My MPP says that the integrity Commissioner said in an email (see below) that she can not write to the Ombudsman’s office even if the Ombudsman’s office is wrong in their decision in regards to me.

Is this true?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of May 24, 2023

130. Today I received an email from the integrity Commissioner saying.

Dear Mr. Burgiss,

The Office of the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario has received your five emails regarding your request to Sarah Jama, MPP for Hamilton Centre to write to the Ombudsman on your behalf.

As you have included the email sent to Ms. Jama’s office, I can confirm that this is the Integrity Commissioner’s advice to the MPP under the Members’ Integrity Act.

Sincerely,

Michelle Renaud
Manager, Communications, and Outreach
Office of the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario

I then emailed them back saying.

In your email to MPP Sarah Jama’s office, you said.

A member of the Assembly shall not use his or her office to seek to influence a decision made or to be made by another person so as to further the member’s private interest or improperly to further another person’s private interest.

It says improperly

The Ombudsman’s office said the reason that they cannot investigate the SIU is because the decision of the SIU to not file charges against a police officer is a legal decision and the Ombudsman’s office cannot investigate legal decisions of the SIU.

But section 14 (1) 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).

It says any decision or recommendation. So the Ombudsman’s office can investigate a legal decision of the SIU. Ombudsman’s decisions are not final. So they can reconsider their decision.

The Ombudsman’s decision is clearly wrong and they are not final.

So, if Ombudsman’s decisions are wrong and not final. Would it be improper for an MPP to write to them and ask them to reconsider their decision?

Thanks Robert Burgiss

I then sent an email to MPP Sarah Jama’s office saying.

Can you please send me a copy of the email that you sent to the Integrity Commissioner?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of May 26, 2023

131. Today I emailed my MPP saying.

The Integrity Commissioner has not responded to my question in paragraph 130 and I have emailed them three times about it. If I was wrong in what I am saying they would have responded by now. So today I emailed my MPP Sarah Jama’s office saying.

Can you please ask the integrity Commissioner the question in this email?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

In your email to MPP Sarah Jama’s office, you said.

A member of the Assembly shall not use his or her office to seek to influence a decision made or to be made by another person so as to further the member’s private interest or improperly to further another person’s private interest.

It says improperly

The Ombudsman’s office said the reason that they cannot investigate the SIU is because the decision of the SIU to not file charges against a police officer is a legal decision and the Ombudsman’s office cannot investigate legal decisions of the SIU.

But section 14 (1) 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).

It says any decision or recommendation. So the Ombudsman’s office can investigate a legal decision of the SIU.

Ombudsman’s decisions are not final. So they can reconsider their decision.

The Ombudsman’s decision is clearly wrong and they are not final.

So, if Ombudsman’s decisions are wrong and not final. Would it be improper for an MPP to write to them and ask them to reconsider their decision?

Thanks Robert Burgiss

Update of May 28, 2023

132. Today I emailed the RCMP Complaints Commissioner saying.

On March 29, 2023, you sent me an email saying.

Good day, Mr. Burgiss,

Further to the Commission’s email to you on March 16, 2023, please be advised that your matter has been escalated to a senior decision maker and a formal decision will be provided to you soon.

Thank you for your patience.

Regards,

It has now been 60 days since you sent that email and still no response from you.

reference number R2023-002862

133. Today I emailed every liberal member of cabinet saying.

On 2023-05-21 I emailed you asking does the Governor General have to have advice from cabinet to fire the RCMP Complaints Commissioner or can she do it without advice from cabinet. If the G. G. needs advice from cabinet then you will have to ask her to fire the Commissioner. If she does not need advice from cabinet then I can just ask her to do the firing myself.

See below for the legislation in regards to this.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

The RCMP Act section 45.3 (2) says

(2) Each member of the Commission holds office during good behaviour for a term of not more than five years but may be removed for cause at any time by the Governor in Council.

My member of parliament Matthew Green’s Ottawa office sent me this link.

https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/programs/appointments/governor-council-appointments/general-information/appointments.html

It says Governor in Council (GIC) appointments are those made by the Governor in Council—the Governor General acting on the advice of Cabinet. An Order in Council is the legal instrument, which, when signed by the Governor General, formalizes an appointment.

Because it says for appointments the G G must get advice from cabinet to appoint someone to a position. My MP’s office is saying that for the G G to fire someone from a position the G G needs advice form cabinet to fire someone.

That is not how I read the legislation. Because it does not say anything about firing someone from a position in the legislation.

My MP’s office does not quote any legislation that says that the G. G. must get advice from cabinet to fire someone.

A Judge can interpret legislation to mean last than the wording of the legislation means. But they cannot interpret legislation to mean more than the wording of the legislation means. The reason I say this is because if a judge can interpret legislation to mean more than the wording of the legislation. Then a judge can interpret any legislation to mean anything they want it to mean. So, a Judge cannot interpret the legislation that governs the G G to mean that the G G has to have advice from cabinet to fire someone. Because the legislation does not say that the G. G. needs advice from cabinet to fire someone.

A Judge’s interpretation of legislation has to be within the wording of the legislation. So, a judge cannot interpret the legislation that governs the G G to mean that the G G has to have advice from cabinet to fire someone. Because the legislation does not say anything about firing someone.

If a Judge cannot interpret the legislation that governs the G G to mean that the G G has to have advice from cabinet to fire someone. Then my MP’s office cannot do that either.

Am I right or is my MP’s office right?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of June 01, 2023

134. Today I called my MPP Sarah Jama’s office about the question I asked them to write to the Integrity Commissioner. They did not answer the phone and the message that was on their system was to leave a message and we will call you back today. So, they are not saying that they are still setting up their office and hiring staff.

They did not call me back.

135. Today I called my MP Matthew Green’s Ottawa office leaving a message saying. This is a message for Tyler’s boss because I have emailed him 11 times and called him 6 times asking him to write to the RCMP Complaints Commissioner and he has not responded back or called me back.

Update of June 02, 2023

136. Today I received an email from the Integrity Commissioner saying.

Dear Mr. Burgiss,

The role of the Integrity Commissioner is to provide advice to MPPs about their obligations under the Members’ Integrity Act, 1994, as was done in this instance.

The Office of the Integrity Commissioner does not have a further role in this matter and cannot weigh in on an interpretation of other legislation, such as the Ombudsman Act.

Sincerely,

Michelle Renaud
Manager, Communications, and Outreach
Office of the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario
So they are not saying that I am wrong.

Update of June 03, 2023

137. Today I emailed the integrity Commissioner in response to their email of yesterday saying.

Where does it say that the integrity Commissioner cannot weigh in on an interpretation of other legislation, such as the Ombudsman Act?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of June 08, 2023

138. On May 15, 2023, I began emailing the top 5 candidates who are running for Mayor in Toronto saying.

Paragraph 31 of my website www.injusticeinontario.ca shows that Mark Saunders who is running for Mayor in Toronto committed a criminal act when he was Chief of police in Toronto.

Will you bring this up with the people of Toronto?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Ana Bailão, Olivia Chow, Brad Bradford, Mitzie Hunter,

Josh Matlow.

None of them said that they will bring this up to the people of Toronto. I emailed them all at least 15 times each.

Update of June 09, 2023

139. On May 08, 2023, I began emailing.

breakingnews@cp24.com

torontotips@cbc.ca

torsun.editor@sunmedia.ca

newstips@thestar.ca

newstips@globaltv.com

dotcom@bellmedia.ca

And city tv news saying.

Paragraph 31 of my website www.injusticeinontario.ca shows that Mark Saunders who is running for Mayor in Toronto committed a criminal act when he was Chief of police in Toronto.

Will you do a story on this?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

None of them emailed me back or did a story about it.

I emailed them all at least 15 times each.

Update of June 12, 2023

140. On May 13, 2023, I began emailing Tyler at MP Matthew Green’s Ottawa office saying.

Hi
To Tyler

I got the email below on March 29, 2023, and I still have not received a response.

So, can you write to the RCMP Complaints Commission and ask them why it is taking so long for a response?

Complaints Commission File Number: 2022-2976

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

I emailed him 12 times and called him about 6 times. When I call nobody answers the phone and nobody calls me back. and they do not respond to my emails.

So, on May 30, 2023, I began emailing Trudy Morris at MP Matthew Green’s Hamilton office saying.

I have emailed Tyler at Matthew Green’s Ottawa office 10 times now and called him about 6 times. But nobody answers my emails and nobody calls me back.

I have not received any explanation as to why no one called me back and why no one responded to my emails.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

I emailed her 9 times. Today I called her she said she was off last week. She then said she will go over the emails that I sent to Tyler and call me back. At about 4:30 pm today she called me and said she will email the RCMP Complaints Commission first thing in the morning.

Update of June 16, 2023

141. Today I emailed the RCMP Complaints Commission saying.

On March 29, 2023, you sent me an email saying.

Good day, Mr. Burgiss,

Further to the Commission’s email to you on March 16, 2023, please be advised that your matter has been escalated to a senior decision maker and a formal decision will be provided to you soon.

Thank you for your patience.

Regards,

It has now been 79 days since you sent me that email and still no response.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

reference number R2023-003259

Update of June 20, 2023

142. Today I sent an email to my MPP Sarah Jama’s office saying.

Hi,

Can you please send an email to the Integrity Commissioner asking them the question I asked them in the emails below? They are not responding to my emails.

Where does it say that the integrity Commissioner cannot weigh in on an interpretation of other legislation, such as the Ombudsman Act?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of June 29, 2023

143. Today I went to MP Matthew Green’s Hamilton office. Ask who do I complain to about Tyler from the Ottawa office. The guy at the front desk said to me. I then told him that Tyler from the Ottawa office is not returning my phone calls and not answering my emails. I then asked the guy his name he said Tyler. I then asked you are Tyler from the Ottawa office. He said yes. So Tyler from the Ottawa office said I can file a complaint against Tyler from the Ottawa office with Tyler from the Ottawa office. He said he will respond went he is back at the Ottawa office in about two weeks. Did not talk to Trudy. She was busy.

144. Today I went to my MPP Sarah Jama’s Hamilton Office. Asked did you write to the integrity Commissioner’s office. They said they did but they are not responding to their emails either. I then asked are you going to write to the Ombudsman’s office. They said no. Because the Integrity Commissioner’s office said that they cannot. I then asked why would the Integrity Commissioner’s office not respond back if I was wrong in what I am saying. They said they do not know why. But they are not going to write to the Ombudsman’s office. And I should see a lawyer.

Update of June 30, 2023

145. Today I emailed the RCMP Complaints Commission saying.

On March 29, 2023, you sent me an email saying.

Good day, Mr. Burgiss,

Further to the Commission’s email to you on March 16, 2023, please be advised that your matter has been escalated to a senior decision maker and a formal decision will be provided to you soon.

Thank you for your patience.

It has now been 93 days since you sent me that email. And still no response from you.

Update of July 01, 2023

146. On June 08, 2023, I began emailing Three city of Toronto city Councillors. Who are also on the Toronto Police Services Board? Their names are Vincent Crisanti, Lily Cheng, And Frances Nunziata Saying.

My name is Robert Burgiss, from January 02, 2023, to January 20, 2023, I emailed the Chief of police in Toronto Myron Demkiw saying My website http://www.injusticeinontario.ca/ shows that some of your officers are obstruction justice because the courts are swapped and they are under pressure to not add to it. So they cover up crimes instead of filing charges. Covering up crimes is obstruction of justice. My website also shows that the Office of the independent police review director (OIPRD) and the Ombudsman offices are in Toronto and they are covering up complaints that they receive. And this is also obstruction of justice. You are in charge of all the investigators that work for the Toronto police. So can you please launch a criminal investigation into the OIPRD and the Ombudsman’s office and your officers?

I then began emailing the Toronto Police Services Board saying.

Hi

My name is Robert Burgiss, I have emailed the new Chief of police in Toronto Myran Demkiw about his officers covering up crimes because the courts are swapped and police are under pressure to not add to it. So, they cover up crimes instead of filing charges. Covering up crimes is obstruction of justice. I asked the new Chief of police in Toronto Myran Demkiw to launch a criminal investigation into his officers for obstruction of justice. I emailed him from January 02, 2023, to January 20, 2023. He did not respond to my emails or launch an investigation. He is in charge of all the investigators that work for the Toronto police so clearly he can order a criminal investigation into his officers. See below for the emails I sent to the Chief.

The rules at the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) say.

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:
o    A person in a personal relationship with the directly affected person and has suffered loss, damage, distress, danger or inconvenience
o    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

o    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 So, you now have in your possession evidence of misconduct by the new Chief of police in Toronto. So can you please file a conduct complaint against the Chief? There is a six-month limitation period for filing a conduct complaint with the OIPRD

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

On May 02, 2023, Mr. Dubi Kanengisser of the TPSB called me and said that the TPSB is not going to file a conduct complaint against the Chief.

You are on the TPSB so do you agree with Mr.
Kanengisser’s decision?

There is a six-month limitation period on filing a complaint with the OIPRD.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

None of them responded back.

I even wrote to the Chair of the TPSB Ann Morgan saying the same thing. She did not respond back. I emailed them all every day for 15 business days.

Update of July 10, 2023

147. Today I emailed a lawyer saying.

I wrote to my Member of the provincial parliament (MPP) about writing to the Ontario Ombudsman’s office. Because it says this on the internet.

MPPs in Their Constituencies

Because the decision of the Ombudsman’s office to not investigate SIU Ontario was wrong. My MPP then wrote to the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario. They said

Dear Susan,

Thank you for your inquiry on behalf of MPP Sarah Jama which I have discussed with the Integrity Commissioner.

As I understand it, a constituent is unhappy with the fact that the Ombudsman of Ontario will not be conducting an investigation regarding his complaint about the Hamilton Police Service and the SIU. The constituent has asked MPP Jama to write to the Ombudsman’s office to advise that the organization’s decision not to conduct the investigation is contrary to section

14 (1) of the _Ombudsman Act_.

When assisting constituents, there are limits

with respect to MPPs’ advocacy efforts. Section 4 of the _Members’ Integrity Act,

1994_ addresses this. It reads as follows:

Influence

A member of the Assembly shall not use his or her office to seek to influence a decision made or to be made by another person so as to further the member’s private interest or improperly to further another person’s private interest.

As such, members must be careful not to seek or to suggest to

others that they are seeking preferential treatment as result of their

MPP status. In this case, it is the Commossioner’s opinion that MPP Jama should not write a letter requesting that the Ombudsman’s Office reverse its investigation decision.

Any attempt to “wave the magic wand” for the constituent by interfering with the Ombudsman’s processes would be contrary

to s. 4 of the Act.

However, it is the Commissioner’s view that it is appropriate for MPPs or their staff to contact provincial organizations for the purposes of requesting information (i.e., status, policy, and procedures) and relaying such information to the constituent. It is my understanding that in this case, the Ombudsman’s Office has provided an explanation to the constituent as to why an investigation cannot be conducted.

That being said, MPP Jama may find this course of action helpful with other constituent casework.

I trust the above is helpful.

Kim Fryer-Ellis
Team Lead – Ethical Inquiries
Office of the Integrity Commissioner

I then wrote to the integrity commissioner saying. If the decision of the Ombudsman’s office is wrong and can be revised would it still be wrong for my MPP to write to the Ombudsman’s office? The integrity Commissioner did not respond to my email. So I then wrote to my MPP asking them to write to the Integrity Commissioner and ask the question that I asked them. On June 29, 2023, I went to my MPP’s office and asked did you write to the IC. They said they did but the Commissioner’s office did not respond back. I then asked if they are going to write to the Ombudsman’s office. They said no because the IC said that they cannot. I then asked what would be the reason for the IG to not respond if what I am saying is wrong. They said they do not know. I then said if your MPP cannot write to the Ombudsman’s office even if their decision in my case was wrong and not final then when can they? They said they do not know. And then they said I should see a lawyer.

So my question is can my MPP write to the Ombudsman’s office if their decision in my case is wrong and can be revised?

How much to answer the question? I can etransfer you the money.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of July 10, 2023, at 4:10 pm

148. Received a response to my question from the lawyer saying.

Hi Robert,

As the LSRS referral brings with it a 30-minute free consultation to suggest next steps and determine any further paid legal services I may recommend that you obtain, I will address your question here in satisfaction of the consultation.

At first blush, the correctness or lack of correctness of the decision made by the Ombudsman’s Office seems to be irrelevant to whether your MPP should, with section 4 of the Members Integrity Act in mind, be writing and asking the Ombudsman’s Office to reverse or change a decision. If she were to write to the Ombudsman’s Office on the matter, her letter should be reflective of the concerns of her constituency as a whole, as opposed to her own concerns or the concerns of a particular constituent.

Accordingly, if your goal were for your MPP to write such a letter, the path in my mind would be to demonstrate to your MPP the presence of widespread support among the constituency for the decision to be reversed or reviewed. I believe a common way to accomplish this is to write a letter that is signed by as many constituents as you can find who share your concerns and are willing to sign the letter. If the constituency had shared concerns about the decision in question, it would then likely be appropriate for the MPP to write to the Ombudsman’s Office to express those concerns.

I cannot see any further paid legal services that I can offer in this situation. Accordingly, I confirm that your query was addressed inside the LSRS free consultation window and no monies are owed to me for the discussion.

Kind regards,

Ben Cavell

Benjamin R. Cavell

I then wrote back saying.

There is nothing in any legislation that says that a lot of constituents have to have the same concerns.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of July 16, 2023

149. Today I wrote to the RCMP Complaints Commission saying.

On March 29, 2023, you sent me an email saying.

Good day, Mr. Burgiss,

Further to the Commission’s email to you on March 16, 2023, please be advised that your matter has been escalated to a senior decision maker and a formal decision will be provided to you soon.

Thank you for your patience.

Regards,

Registry Unit, Complaint Intake, and Review Directorate

Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP / Government of Canada

It has now been 109 days since you sent me that email and still no response from you.

reference number R2023-003866

Update of July 18, 2023

150. On July 17, 2023, I emailed a lawyer saying.

I wrote to my Member of the provincial parliament (MPP) about writing to the Ontario Ombudsman’s office. Because it says this on the internet.

MPPs in Their Constituencies

Because the decision of the Ombudsman’s office to not investigate the SIU in Ontario was wrong. My MPP then wrote to the Integrity Commissioner of Ontario. They said

Dear Susan,

Thank you for your inquiry on behalf of MPP Sarah Jama which I have discussed with the Integrity Commissioner.

As I understand it, a constituent is unhappy with the fact that Ombudsman Ontario will not be conducting an investigation regarding his complaint about the Hamilton Police Service and the SIU.

The constituent has asked MPP Jama to write to the Ombudsman’s office to advise that the organization’s decisionnot to conduct the investigation is contrary to section 14 (1) of the _Ombudsman Act_.

When assisting constituents, there are limits with respect to MPPs’ advocacy efforts.

Section 4 of the _Members’ Integrity Act, 1994_ addresses this.

It reads as follows:

Influence

A member of the Assembly shall not use his or her office to seek to influence a decision made or to be made by another person so as to further the member’s private interest or improperly to further another person’s private interest.

Any attempt to “wave the magic wand” for the constituent by interfering with the Ombudsman’s processes would be contrary to s. 4 of the Act.

It is my understanding that in this case, the Ombudsman’s Office has provided an explanation to the constituent as to why an investigation cannot be conducted. That being said, MPP Jama may find this course of action helpful with other constituent casework.

I trust the above is helpful.

Kim Fryer-Ellis
Team Lead – Ethical Inquiries
Office of the Integrity Commissioner

I then wrote to the integrity commissioner saying. If the decision of the Ombudsman’s office is wrong and can be reversed would it still be wrong for my MPP to write to the Ombudsman’s office? The integrity Commissioner did not respond to my email. So I then wrote to my MPP asking them to write to the Integrity Commissioner and ask the question that I asked them. On June 29, 2023, I went to my MPP’s office and asked did you write to the IC. They said they did but the Commissioner’s office did not respond back. I then asked if they are going to write to the Ombudsman’s office. They said no because the IC said that they cannot. I then asked what would be the reason for the IG to not respond if what I am saying is wrong. They said they do not know. I then said if your MPP cannot write to the Ombudsman’s office even if their decision in my case was wrong and not final then when can they? They said they do not know. And then they said I should see a lawyer.

So my question is can my MPP write to the Ombudsman’s office if their decision in my case is wrong and can be revised?

I am not trying to sue anybody. So you do not have to worry about me trying to hire you to sue somebody.

How much to answer the question?

I can etransfer you the money.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

I then wrote to my MPP saying.

Hi

When I was at your office you said that I needed to talk to a lawyer about if an MPP can write to the Ombudsman’s office if their decision in my case was wrong and reversible. I talked to a lawyer today and they said that they need clarification on what the question is that you want me to ask the lawyer.

See attached for a recording of the phone call with the lawyer. The recording should work in Windows media player.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of August 01, 2023

151. Today I emailed the RCMP Complaints Commissioner saying.

On March 29, 2023, you sent me an email saying.

Good day, Mr. Burgiss,

Further to the Commission’s email to you on March 16, 2023, please be advised that your matter has been escalated to a senior decision maker and a formal decision will be provided to you soon.

Thank you for your patience.

Regards,

Registry Unit, Complaint Intake, and Review Directorate

Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP / Government of Canada

It has now been 125 days since you sent me that email and still no response from you.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

reference number R2023-004193

Update of August 17, 2023

152. Today I received an email from the RCMP Complaints Commission saying.

File No. 2022-2976

Further Explanation on Request for Review

Decision explanation

The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP (CRCC) reiterates its refusal of Mr. Burgiss’ request for review because there is no statutory right of review in cases where the
RCMP declines jurisdiction on a public complaint.

Overview

The Ontario’s Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) previously declined jurisdiction to accept a public complaint from Mr. Burgiss in regards to interactions he had with a Hamilton Police Service’s officer. The OIPRD advised that the core of the matter could be more appropriately dealt with under the Ontario Residential Tenancies Act.

Mr. Burgiss believed that the OIPRD should be charged for obstruction of justice and that the RCMP should conduct a criminal investigation against the OIPRD.

The RCMP declined to conduct a criminal investigation into the matter. On October 6, 2022, Mr. Burgiss then made a public complaint to the CRCC because of the RCMP’s refusal to conduct a criminal investigation against the OIPRD.

The RCMP declined to conduct a criminal investigation into the matter. On October 6, 2022, Mr. Burgiss then made a public complaint to the CRCC because of the RCMP’s refusal to
conduct a criminal investigation against the OIPRD.

On February 8, 2023, the RCMP sent a letter (the RCMP’s letter of jurisdiction, hereinafter “LOJ”) to Mr. Burgiss to inform him that the RCMP did not have jurisdiction over both his
criminal 1 and public complaints. 2 The RCMP stated that the RCMP would not investigate Mr. Burgiss’ public complaint because the RCMP mandate in Ontario is strictly federal. Therefore, the RCMP stated it does not have the authority to investigate provincial or municipal agencies like the OIPRD in this specific case.

1 The RCMP stated it did not have jurisdiction over the criminal complaint because it considered it a provincial or municipal matter, which does not fall under the RCMP mandate in Ontario.2 The RCMP does not have jurisdiction to use the Criminal code to replace the proper appeal or judicial
review process of a decision made by the OIPRD. A public complaint against the RCMP must fall within the scope of s. 45.53 pursuant to the process outlined in Part VII of the RCMP Act.

In its LOJ, the RCMP also noted that there is no statutory right of appeal from a screening decision of the Director of the OIPRD, and that if Mr. Burgiss disagrees then the proper remedy is to bring an application for judicial review to the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice.

On February 19, 2023, Mr. Burgiss asked the CRCC to review the RCMP’s LOJ (the “request for review”). In his request, Mr. Burgiss stated that his desired outcome was for the RCMP to launch an investigation into the OIPRD for covering up complaints.

On March 3, 2023, the CRCC declined Mr. Burgiss’ request for review because the request does not fall within the CRCC’s mandate.

Following this correspondence, Mr. Burgiss sent multiple emails demanding that the CRCC change its position and accept his request for review.

In the present context, it is important to note that requests for review are subject to conditions set out in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. This Act creates the CRCC and sets out the conditions under which it can have the authority to accept complaints and review the RCMP’s handling of those complaints. There is no statutory right of review where the RCMP declines jurisdiction.

Issue

[3] Does the CRCC have jurisdiction to accept the request for review in this context?

Analysis and Conclusion

The CRCC has examined the RCMP’s LOJ, as well as the law and information used to reach that decision. The CRCC concluded that it does not have the legal authority to conduct a review
in this matter.

The RCMP can decline jurisdiction to investigate a public complaint and in such situations, there is no statutory right of review. This also means that the CRCC does not have the statutory mandate to conduct a “review” under section 45.71 of the RCMP Act when the RCMP declines jurisdiction.

The CRCC agrees with the RCMP that this matter against the OIPRD is not criminal and would be more appropriately addressed through a request for judicial review before the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice. A private lawyer or legal aid lawyer may be able to assist Mr. Burgiss with this process. Note, however, that there are strict time limits for such an application

As previously communicated, the CRCC made the decision to decline the request for review. which ends the complaint process against the RCMP in this file. This decision is final.

Dominic Laferrière
A/Registrar and Duty Counsel
Complaint Intake and Review

Please write to the Commission and complain!!

File No. 2022-2976

https://www.crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/en/contact-form

Update of August 17, 2023, at 3;25 pm

153. For weeks now I have been emailing my PM Matthew Green’s Hamilton and Ottawa office saying. Can I get a meeting with Mr. Green? I want to talk to him about his staff giving me the run-around. But his staff are not passing the message on to him. So on August 12, 2023, I hired a private investigator to find Matthew’s home address. I then sent him a registered letter saying.

August 13, 2023,

To Matthew Green MP

My name is Robert Burgiss, some of your staff at your Constituency office and your Ottawa office are giving me the run-around.

On March 03, 2023, I received a letter from the RCMP Complaints Commission Saying.

March 3, 2023 File Number: 2022-2976

The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission (the Commission) is in receipt of your online review form, dated February 19, 2023. In your submission, you requested that the Commission review the RCMP’s disposition of your above-noted complaint. You stated that you received the RCMP’s Letter of Jurisdiction on February 8, 2023, outlining this matter. Please be advised that your request does not fall within the Commission’s mandate. The Commission was established by Parliament to oversee the policing activities of the RCMP. The Commission may refuse to accept a review of the RCMP’s disposition of a complaint, if in the Commission’s opinion; the complaint could be dealt with more appropriately according to a procedure provided under another Act of Parliament. Under subsection 45.61. (2) of the RCMP Act, the Commission feels this matter would be more appropriately addressed through a request for judicial review before the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice. A private lawyer or legal aid lawyer may be able to assist you with this process. Note, however, that there are strict time limits for such an application.

As the Commission’s mandate is concluded, this constitutes our final correspondence to you in this matter.

Regards, The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP

Later that day I wrote back to the Commission saying.

RE your letter of March 03, 2023.

Your file # 2022-2976

In your letter of March 03, 2023, you said.

The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission (the Commission) is in receipt of your online review form, dated February 19, 2023 Please be advised that your request does not fall within the Commission’s mandate.

This is not true. Section 45. 7 (1) of the RCMP Act says

Referral of Complaints to Commission

Marginal note: Referral to Commission

7(1)A complainant who is not satisfied with a decision under section 45.61 or a report under section 45.64 may, within 60 days after being notified of the decision or receiving the report, refer the complaint in writing to the Commission for review.

So it is the mandate of the commission to do a review of the RCMP decision.

In your letter of March 03, 2023, you go on to say.

The Commission may refuse to accept a review of the RCMP’s disposition of a complaint, if in the Commission’s opinion; the complaint could be dealt with more appropriately according to a procedure provided under another Act of Parliament.

Under subsection 45.61. (2) of the RCMP Act, the Commission feels this matter would be more appropriately addressed through a request for judicial review before the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice.

Section 45.61. (2) Does not say that the Commission can refuse to do a review.

What it says is

Right to refuse or terminate investigation

61(1)The Commissioner may direct the Force to not commence or continue an investigation of a complaint, other than a complaint initiated under subsection 45.59(1), if, in the Commissioner’s opinion,

(a) any of the reasons for which the Commission may refuse to deal with a complaint under paragraph 45.53(2)(a), (b), or (c) or subsection 45.53(3) applies; or

(b) having regard to all the circumstances, it is not necessary or reasonably practicable to commence or continue an investigation of the complaint.

Marginal note: Duty to refuse or terminate investigation

(2) The Commissioner shall direct the Force to not commence or continue an investigation of a complaint by a member or other person appointed or employed under Part I if the complaint has been or could have been adequately dealt with, or could more appropriately be dealt with, according to a procedure provided for under this Act or any other Act of Parliament.

It says Right to refuse or terminate investigation

It does not say right to refuse or terminate review.

Then received an email from the Commission dated March 29, 2023, saying.

Good day, Mr. Burgiss,

Further to the Commission’s email to you on March 16, 2023, please be advised that your matter has been escalated to a senior decision maker and a formal decision will be provided to you soon.

Thank you for your patience.

Regards,

Registry Unit, Complaint Intake, and Review Directorate

Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP / Government of Canada

I then wrote to the Governor General of Canada saying.

See attached for the letter from the RCMP Complaints Commission.

I said this in regards to their letter. The RCMP act says (2) Each member of the Commission holds office during good behaviour for a term of not more than five years but may be removed for cause at any time by the Governor in Council.

So, can you please remove the commissioner?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

On March 03, 2023, I sent you an email. reference number R2023-001191 but have not heard from you in regards to it. It has been two business days since I sent the email. So, here it is again.

RE your letter of March 03, 2023. Your file # 2022-2976

In your letter of March 03, 2023, you say.

The Civilian Review and Complaints Commission (the Commission) is in receipt of your online review form, dated February 19, 2023 Please be advised that your request does not fall within the Commission’s mandate.

This is not true. Section 45. 7 (1) of the RCMP Act says

Referral of Complaints to Commission

Marginal note: Referral to Commission

45.7 (1) A complainant who is not satisfied with a decision under section 45.61 or a report under section 45.64 may, within 60 days after being notified of the decision or receiving the report, refer the complaint in writing to the Commission for review.

So it is the mandate of the commission to do a review of the RCMP decision.

In your letter of March 03, 2023, you go on to say.
The Commission may refuse to accept a review of the RCMP’s disposition of a complaint, if in the Commission’s opinion; the complaint could be dealt with more appropriately according to a procedure provided under another Act of Parliament. Under subsection 45.61. (2) of the RCMP Act, the Commission feels this matter would be more appropriately addressed through a request for judicial review before the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice.

Section 45.61. (2) Does not say that the Commission can refuse to do a review.

What it says is

Right to refuse or terminate investigation

45.61 (1) The Commissioner may direct the Force to not commence or continue an investigation of a complaint, other than a complaint initiated under subsection 45.59(1), if, in the Commissioner’s opinion,

(a) any of the reasons for which the Commission may refuse to deal with a complaint under paragraph 45.53(2)(a), (b) or (c) or subsection 45.53(3) applies; or (b) having regard to all the circumstances, it is not necessary or reasonably practicable to commence or continue an investigation of the complaint.
• Marginal note:

Duty to refuse or terminate Investigation

(2) The Commissioner shall direct the Force to not commence or continue an investigation of a complaint by a member or other person appointed or employed under Part I if the complaint has been or could have been adequately dealt with, or could more appropriately be dealt with, according to a procedure provided for under this Act or any other Act of Parliament.

It says Right to refuse or terminate investigation
It does not say right to refuse or terminate review.

Good day,

Please see the attached letter regarding your recent online submission to the Commission. Regards,

Registry Unit, Complaint Intake, and Review Directorate

Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP / Government of Canada

Then on March 31, 2023, I called the G. G. and talked to Ludovick

Then on April 03, 2023, I emailed the G.G. saying.

On March 31, 2023, I called and talked to Ludovick asking the G.G. to fire the RCMP complaints Commissioner for covering up my complaint.

(The recording of the phone call with Ludovick is on my youtube channel. The name of my youtube channel is Injustice in Ontario. The title of the video is G G one.) Ludovick said that he could not make out what I was saying. And he said that he did not know anything about firing the RCMP complaints commissioner. I then ask to speak to his boss. But Ludovick said his boss would not know anything about that either.

And he refused to put me through to his boss.

See attached for the recording of the phone call.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

To: info@gg.ca

Complaint against the RCMP Complaints Commission.

Section 45.3

(2) Each member of the Commission holds office during good behaviour for a term of not more than five years but may be removed for cause at any time by the Governor in Council.

See below for evidence of a misconduct by the members of the commission.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

See attached for the letter from the RCMP Complaints Commission.

I said this in regards to their letter. The RCMP Act says (2) Each member of the Commission holds office during good behaviour for a term of not more than five years but may be removed for cause at any time by the Governor in Council.

So, can you please remove the commissioner?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

On March 03, 2023, I sent you an email. reference number R2023-001191 but have not heard from you in regards to it. It has been two business days since I sent the email. So, here it is again.

Please be advised that your request does not fall within the Commission’s mandate.

This is not true. Section 45. 7 (1) of the RCMP Act says

Referral of Complaints to Commission

Marginal note:Referral to Commission
• 45.7 (1) A complainant who is not satisfied with a decision under section 45.61 or a report under section 45.64 may, within 60 days after being notified of the decision or receiving the report, refer the complaint in writing to the Commission for review.

So it is the mandate of the commission to do a review of the RCMP decision.

Commission feels this matter would be more appropriately addressed through a request for judicial review before the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice.

Section 45.61. (2) Does not say that the Commission can refuse to do a review.

What it says is

Right to refuse or terminate investigation

• 45.61 (1) The Commissioner may direct the Force to not commence or continue an investigation of a complaint, other than a complaint initiated under subsection 45.59(1), if, in the Commissioner’s opinion, (a) any of the reasons for which the Commission may refuse to deal with a complaint under paragraph 45.53(2)(a), (b) or (c) or subsection 45.53(3) applies; or (b) having regard to all the circumstances, it is not necessary or reasonably practicable to commence or continue an investigation of the complaint.

• Marginal note: Duty to refuse or terminate investigation.
(2) The Commissioner shall direct the Force to not commence or continue an investigation of a complaint by a member or other person appointed or employed under Part I if the complaint has been or could have been adequately dealt with, or could more appropriately be dealt with, according to a procedure provided for under this Act or any other Act of Parliament.

It says Right to refuse or terminate investigation.

It does not say right to refuse or terminate review.

Good day,

Please see the attached letter regarding your recent online submission to the Commission.

Regards,

Registry Unit, Complaint Intake, and Review Directorate
Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP Government of Canada

Then on May 10, 2023, I called your Ottawa office and talked to Tyler. Tyler said that the G. G. does not have the power to fire anybody without advice from cabinet.

This makes no sense because the RCMP Act section 45.3 (2) says. (2) Each member of the Commission holds office during good behaviour for a term of not more than five years but may be removed for cause at any time by the Governor in Council.

I asked Tyler to email me the link to where it says that the G.G. has to have advice from cabinet to fire someone. The link he sent me does not say anything about the G.G. needing advice from cabinet to fire the RCMP complaints Commissioner.

The recording of the phone call with Tyler is on my youtube channel. Which is called Injustice in Ontario. The title of the video is Matthew Green one.

Here are the links

https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/programs/appointments/governor-council-appointments/general-information/appointments.html

https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/programs/appointments/governor-council-appointments/compensation-terms-conditions-employment/terms-conditions.html

On May 13, 2023, I began emailing Tyler saying.

Hi

To Tyler

I got the email below on March 29, 2023, and I still have not received a response.

So, can you write to the RCMP Complaints Commission and ask them why it is taking so long for a response?

Complaints Commission File Number: 2022-2976

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Good day, Mr. Burgiss,

Further to the Commission’s email to you on March 16, 2023, please be advised that your matter has been escalated to a senior decision-maker and a formal decision will be provided to you soon.

Thank you for your patience.

Regards,

Registry Unit, Complaint Intake, and Review Directorate

Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP / Government of Canada

I emailed him 25 times. He did not respond back or write to the Commission.

On June 12, 2023, I emailed Trudy from your Hamilton Office saying.

Hi
To Trudy

I have now emailed Tyler 25 times with no response back. I have called the Ottawa office about 6 times. But no one answers the phone when I call and no one calls me back.

I have not received an explanation for this.

To: tyler.crosby.435@parl.gc.ca

Hi
To Tyler

I got the email below on March 29, 2023, and I still have not received a response.

So, can you write to the RCMP Complaints Commission and ask them why it is taking so long for a response?

Complaints Commission File Number: 2022-2976

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

On June 12, 2023, I called your Hamilton office and talk to Trudy. About Tyler not writing to the Commission. She said she will look at the emails I sent to Tyler and call me back. Later that day she called me back and said. She will write to the Commission.

The recording of the call is on my youtube channel. Which is called Injustice in Ontario. The title of the video is Matthew Green Two.

Then on June 13, 2023, I began emailing Trudy saying.

To Trudy

Yesterday you said you would email the RCMP Complaints Commission. Can you please email me a copy of that email?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

I emailed her 13 times. She did not respond back.

Then on July 01, 2023, I began emailing her saying.

Have you heard back from the RCMP Complaints Commission?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

I emailed her 27 times. She did not respond back.

On June 30, 2023, I began emailing her saying.

Hi

Yesterday I was there and talked to Tyler from the Ottawa office. I asked him who do I complain to about Tyler from the Ottawa office for not returning my phone calls and not responding to my emails. Tyler from the Ottawa office said I can complain to him about that.

So who do I complain to about Tyler?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

I emailed her 28 times. She did not respond back.

On July 15, 2023, I began emailing her and Tyler saying.

Can I get a meeting with Mr. Green?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

I emailed her 18 times. She has not responded back.

I emailed Tyler 18 times he has not responded back.

Mr. Green got the letter on August 16, 2023

Update of September 04, 2023,

154. On May 13, 2023, I sent a question to a lawyer named Strömbergsson-DeNora, Adam Patrick the question was.

I am trying to get the Governor General of Canada to fire the RCMP Complaints Commissioner. Because section 45.3 (2) of the RCMP Act says.

(2) Each member of the Commission holds office during good behaviour for a term of not more than five years but may be removed for cause at any time by the Governor in Council.

My Member of Parliament Matthew Green’s office says that the G. G. cannot act unilaterally. She can only act if the cabinet advises her to.

Because it says this about the G. G. Governor in Council (GIC)
Appointments are those made by the Governor in Council—the Governor General acting on the advice of Cabinet. An Order in Council is the legal instrument, which, when signed by the Governor General, formalizes an appointment.

I say this only applies to appointments. Because it says
formalizes an appointment. It does not say anything about firing someone. So, it does not apply when firing someone.

Am I right or is my MP’s office right?

Now much to answer the question?

I can etransfer the money to you.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

He replied back saying.

Mr. Burgiss:

The representative of the Crown in Canada does not act without the advice of her or his ministers. The Governor General does possess what are called reserve powers, which authorize the Governor General to act without or against the advice of her or his ministers. These powers relate to the appointment of a first minister and other ministers. They also relate to the prorogation, dissolution, and calling of parliaments.

The sub-section that you cited refers to the Governor in Council. This reference is to the Governor taking formal advice from ministers. The sub-section completely disposes of your question. The Governor cannot act without the council to remove an RCMP Complaints Commissioner. You have no cause of action and no legal mechanism to pursue in relation to your inquiry.

Best,

Adam.

Then on August 11, 2023, I filed a complaint against him with the Law Society of Ontario saying.

The lawyer is lying because he thinks that I may want to sue someone and he does not want to do a lawsuit because they are hard work.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

155. On July 10, 2023, I sent a question to a lawyer named Cavell, Benjamin Robert The question was.

I wrote to my Member of provincial parliament (MPP) about writing to the Ontario Ombudsman’s office. Because it says this on the internet.

MPPs in Their Constituencies

They said Dear Susan,

Thank you for your inquiry on behalf of MPP Sarah Jama which I have discussed with the Integrity Commissioner. As I understand it, a constituent is unhappy with the fact that Ombudsman Ontario will not be conducting an investigation regarding his complaint about the Hamilton Police Service and the SIU. The constituent has asked MPP Jama to write to the Ombudsman’s office to advise that the organization’s decision not to conduct the investigation is contrary to section 14 (1) of the _Ombudsman Act_.

When assisting constituents, there are limits with respect to MPPs’ advocacy efforts. Section 4 of the _Members’ Integrity Act, 1994_ addresses this. It reads as follows:

Influence

A member of the Assembly shall not use his or her office to seek to influence a decision made or to be made by another person so as to further the member’s private interest or improperly to further another person’s private interest.

As such, members must be careful not to seek or to suggest to others that they are seeking preferential treatment as result of their MPP status. In this case, it is the Commissioner’s opinion that MPP Jama should not write a letter requesting that the Ombudsman’s Office reverse its investigation decision. Any attempt to “wave the magic wand” for the constituent by interfering with the Ombudsman’s processes would be contrary to s. 4 of the Act.

However, it is the Commissioner’s view that it is appropriate for MPPs or their staff to contact provincial organizations for the purposes of requesting information (i.e., status, policy, and procedures) and relaying such information to the constituent. It is my understanding that in this case, the Ombudsman’s Office has provided an explanation to the constituent as to why an investigation cannot be conducted.

If the decision of the Ombudsman’s office is wrong and can be revised would it still be wrong for my MPP to write to the Ombudsman’s office? The integrity Commissioner did not respond to my email. So I then wrote to my MPP asking them to write to the Integrity Commissioner and ask the question that I asked them. On June 29, 2023, I went to my MPP’s office and asked did you write to the IC. They said they did but the Commissioner’s office did not respond back. I then asked if they are going to write to the Ombudsman’s office. They said no because the IC said that they could not. I then asked what would be the reason for the IG to not respond if what I am saying is wrong. They said they did not know. I then said if your MPP cannot write to the Ombudsman’s office even if their decision in my case was wrong and not final then when can they? They said they did not know. And then they said I should see a lawyer.

So my question is can my MPP write to the Ombudsman’s office if their decision in my case is wrong and can be revised?

How much to answer the question? I can etransfer you the money.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

He replied back saying.

Hi Robert,

As the LSRS referral brings with it a 30 minute free consultation to suggest next steps and determine any further paid legal services I may recommend that you obtain, I will address your question here in satisfaction of the consultation.

At first blush, the correctness or lack of correctness of the decision made by the Ombudsman’s Office seems to be irrelevant to whether your MPP should, with section 4 of the Members Integrity Act in mind, be writing and asking the Ombudsman’s Office to reverse or change a decision. If she were to write to the Ombudsman’s Office on the matter, her letter should be reflective of the concerns of her constituency as a whole, as opposed to her own concerns or the concerns of a particular constituent.

Accordingly, if your goal were for your MPP to write such a letter, the path in my mind would be to demonstrate to your MPP the presence of widespread support among the constituency for the decision to be reversed or reviewed. I believe a common way to accomplish this is to write a letter that is signed by as many constituents as you can find who share your concerns and are willing to sign the letter. If the constituency had shared concerns about the decision in question, it would then likely be appropriate for the MPP to write to the Ombudsman’s Office to express those concerns.

I cannot see any further paid legal services that I can offer in this situation. Accordingly, I confirm that your query was addressed inside the LSRS free consultation window and no monies are owed to me for the discussion.

Kind regards,

Ben Cavell

Then on August 04, 2023, I filed a complaint against him with the Law Society of Ontario saying.

The lawyer is lying because he thinks that I may want to sue someone and he does not want to do a lawsuit because they are hard work.

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of September 10, 2023,

156. Today I began emailing my MPP’s office saying.

Attached to this email is a recording of a phone call with a lawyer where they say that an MPP can write to the Ombudsman’s office if their decision is wrong and revisable.

Can you now write to the Ombudsman’s office about their decision in regard to the SIU?

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Update of September 12, 2023,

157. On September 11, 2023, I received a message from the Law Society of Ontario saying.

Dear Robert S Burgiss:

Re: Subject: Adam Patrick Strombergsson-DeNora
Case No.: CAS-133090-H8H4G7

I am writing in response to your correspondence about Adam Patrick (the Lawyer), which we received on August 2, 2023. A review of your correspondence indicates that you have concerns which relate to the actions of your MP, the Governor General, as well as information you received from the Lawyer.

With respect to your concerns regarding the actions of your MP and the Governor General, please note that the Law Society cannot comment on these issues or intervene, as the Law Society does not provide legal advice to members of the public.

Although it appears that you have consulted with a lawyer, you may want to consult with another lawyer in private practice to determine if there are any other options available to you. If you would like to be referred to another lawyer, you may submit a request to the Law Society Referral Service by completing the online request form at www.findlegalhelp.ca. The Law Society Referral Service is designed to connect users with a lawyer for a free initial consultation of up to 30 minutes, either by phone or in person. However, the service is not designed to provide legal advice or second opinions.

If you decide to retain the lawyer, their usual fees and disbursements would apply.

Based up on the information we have received, we are closing our file.

Yours truly,

Carla Frutuoso
Law Clerk
Intake & Resolution
Professional Regulation Division

I responded back saying.

The complaint that I filed with the Law Society of Ontario is not against my MP or the G.G. It is against the lawyer who lied to me.

Update of September 13, 2023,

158. I have gone to my MP Matthew Green’s Hamilton office a couple of times now and they said that the person I dealt with Trudy has retired. Her name is in her work email address. So today I called them and asked if Trudy has retired please explain why her email still works.

Update of September 15, 2023,

159. Today I went down to my MP Matthew Green’s Hamilton office and said.

I was told that Trudy retired but her email still works. They said that she is coming back. And it will take a couple of weeks for her to get caught up on her files.

Update of September 18, 2023,

160. Today I began emailing my MP Matthew Green’s Hamilton office saying.

To Trudy

Why did you not write to the RCMP Complaint Commissioner? When you said you would on June 12, 2023,

Thanks, Robert Burgiss

Home page Page three

Donate to injustice in Ontario