<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
______________________________________________________________________
<!--mc:cls:cover-masthead-->
B E T W E E N:
Carl Smith
Applicant
-and-
Windsor Police Service
Respondent
______________________________________________________________________
CASE RESOLUTION Conference DECISION
______________________________________________________________________
Adjudicator: Jim Dimovski
<!--mc:cls:cover-meta-->
Date: September 10, 2009
<!--mc:cls:cover-meta-->
Citation: 2009 HRTO 1440
<!--mc:cls:cover-line-->
Indexed as: Smith v. Windsor Police Service
______________________________________________________________________
AppearanceS BY
Carl Smith, Applicant ) On his own behalf
Windsor Police Service, ) Patrick Brode,
Respondent ) Counsel )
---
<!--mc:close:case-cover-->
[1] This is an Application filed under section 53(3) of Part VI of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The Application alleges discrimination on the basis of disability, race and place of origin.
[2] On February 20, 2007, while speaking with a Family Responsibility Office (Ontario) (“FRO”) representative over the telephone from his home in Windsor, the applicant became frustrated about the financial obligations owed to his former partner. Among other things, the applicant stated to the FRO’s representative that he was suicidal. In response, as a result of his threat to do himself harm, the FRO’s representative indicated that he would alert the police.
[3] The applicant had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. Although he has taken medication in the past, he testified he stopped taking medication from approximately the year 2000. The respondent was aware of the applicant and his disability prior to February 20, 2007. The applicant self-identifies as Black. His place of origin is Jamaica.
[4] After being alerted by the FRO, the respondent dispatched police officers to the applicant’s home. By this time, the applicant had made his way to a store in order to fax documents to the FRO. Advised of the applicant’s whereabouts by KH, the applicant’s roommate, the police approached him outside the store.
[5] After a discussion with him, the police apprehended the applicant under s. 17 of the Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. M.7 and he was driven in restraints, to hospital by ambulance under police supervision. In the course of apprehending him, the applicant alleges he was subject to discrimination by the respondent’s police officers which caused physical injuries to his neck, shoulders, hips and elbows. He states that the police officers assumed he was violent because of his disability. In his Application, the applicant also alleged discrimination based on race and place of origin. In addition to lost wages caused by his physical injuries, the applicant claims, his self-worth has been reduced to “zero”.
[6] In response, the respondent submits that its police officers performed the required apprehension under the provisions of the Mental Health Act. At all times the police officers acted in the best interests of the applicant and the community and used only such force as necessary to perform these duties.
[7] A Case Resolution Conference (“CRC” or “hearing”) was held on May 20, 2009, in Windsor in accordance with the expectation, expressed in the Code and the Tribunal’s Rules, that section 53(3) applications proceed in a highly expeditious manner. I heard testimony from the applicant and Police Constables Kovacic, deJong, and Godwin. At times, I took the lead in questioning the applicant and the respondent’s witnesses.
## PRELIMINARY MATTERS
[8] At the outset of the hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment in order for the Tribunal to provide him with a lawyer. I denied the request on the basis that the Tribunal does not provide lawyers. Further, I denied the applicant’s request on the basis that he had had significant notice of the hearing and could have requested an adjournment in order to search for a lawyer well before the day of the CRC.
[9] Also, the respondent submitted that it be permitted to enter a two page Occurrence Report from Police Constable Godwin regarding the events of February 20, 2007, in contravention of the Tribunal’s disclosure rules. After giving the applicant a significant amount of time to review the document, he advised that he did not object to its admission. Since I found this evidence arguably relevant and since the applicant did not object to its admission or assert any prejudice, I entered it into the record.
## EVIDENCE
[10] In his testimony, the applicant admitted he had advised the FRO’s representative that he was suicidal. In response, he admitted, the FRO representative told the applicant that the police would have to be called. On his way to the store, he stated Police Constable (“PC”) Godwin and her partner PC Bojtos appeared and asked him to approach their cruiser. The applicant refused PC Godwin’s request.
[11] The applicant then began to converse with the police officers. After talking to PC Godwin and her partner, the applicant admitted that he looked at their guns and stated that if he could grab one he would shoot himself. He also acknowledged that PC Godwin could not have known his threat was not genuine. At some point, PC Bojtos asked him whether he was Jamaican since he had been trained on the island. In response, the applicant stated that he was not interested in “small talk” with PC Bojtos and he started to walk away.
[12] As he walked towards the store, two additional police officers arrived along with an ambulance which had been called. At some point, the applicant testified that he was frightened that he would be shot, and as a result he disrobed to his underwear, t-shirt and shoes so the police would not mistakenly believe he had a concealed gun. In cross-examination, he admitted that none of the police officers indicated that they were going to shoot him.
[13] The applicant testified that he did not threaten to kill any of the police officers, or a physician when he was eventually admitted to hospital. He stated that he only told the police that if he could grab one of their guns he would shoot himself. He further denied that he was aggressive at all during his conversation with the police. Although he admitted that he had yelled not to get “married” at the crowd which had gathered around to observe the scene. He denied threatening the police or speaking to them in an elevated voice.
[14] The applicant was eventually surrounded and swarmed by the police who hand-cuffed him and placed him in an ambulance. He testified that he was hit in the left hip before he was placed onto a stretcher. On the ride to the Hospital, he stated that he incurred further injury as a result of lying on the stretcher hand-cuffed while being physically abused by the police officers, in particular PC Kovacic, who travelled along with him. He stated Kovacic would tighten the straps on the stretcher to the point he felt like his arms were being “popped” from their sockets. In response to the severity of the pain and damage to his body inflicted upon him, the applicant stated he began to laugh hysterically as a way to prevent injury as he believes that laughing helps protect damage to muscles by sending oxygen to them. He stated PC Godwin had accompanied him in the ambulance and had witnessed the physical abuse.
[15] As a result of his injuries, the applicant states he was off work for several weeks and placed on restrictions upon his return to work. He was eventually terminated by his employer and stated that he is totally unemployable due to the pain caused by the injuries he suffered from the police.
[16] PC Godwin testified that she and her partner, PC Bojtos, approached the applicant near the store. The applicant complained about the government and how it was allowing his ex-spouse to take all his money. The applicant was asked whether he would approach her police cruiser but he refused. After trying to “reason
minicounsel