TORONTO (CP) - A civilian body that reviews complaints against police must conduct a hearing to determine why seven women were strip-searched after a political demonstration four years ago, Ontario’s highest court was told Monday.
Linda Plumpton, a lawyer for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, told the Ontario Court of Appeals that a full hearing should investigate complaints that police threatened the women and determine whether the decision to send them to jail constitutes misconduct.
A lower court has already ordered the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services to review the matter, but the commission is appealing the decision before the province’s highest court.
Seven women were arrested while demonstrating in Guelph, Ont., where then-education minister Dave Johnson was attending a fundraising event in November 1997.
The women were among a large crowd of protesters and were not charged with any offences.
Police took them first to the local station, then to the maximum-security Wellington Detention Centre, where they underwent strip-searches by staff in accordance with jail procedure.
Five of the women filed formal complaints.
Police officials said the women were sent to the jail because the station was already full.
But on Monday, Plumpton argued the station never exceeded overall cell capacity and called the decision to send the women to the jail “arbitrary.”
Two years after the incident, former Guelph police Chief Lenna Bradburn released a report dismissing the complaints as “unsubstantiated.” The report was later endorsed by the Ontario Civilian Commission on Police Services, although reasons were not given.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association appealed, and the Superior Court of Ontario ruled there was some evidence of police misconduct.
It ordered the commission to take a second look at Bradburn’s report, calling the treatment of the complaints “patently unreasonable.”
The commission responded by filing an appeal of the decision, leading to Monday’s hearing in Toronto.
Commission lawyer Brian Whitehead said Monday that the superior court put weight on the fact that the commission didn’t provide reasons for endorsing the report even though the commission has no obligation to explain itself.
However, Whitehead agreed that its position might be held in higher regard if it had provided reasons.
“That’s difficult to argue against,” he said, adding it is assumed that commission members have sufficient expertise to know whether hearings are required in certain cases.
Three other groups - the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Association of Ontario and the Ontario Provincial Police Association - were granted intervenor status.
The lawyer for the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police said the superior court decision suggests it’s not a chief’s duty to weigh evidence when considering public complaints.
But police chiefs must be able to use their judgment to determine whether a hearing would be justified, David Migicovsky told the court. Stripping a chiefs’ ability to evaluate evidence against officers could result in disciplinary hearings every time there is a complaint, he suggested.
The appeal court reserved decision.
It is not known when their ruling will be released.