CITATION: Clarke v. Toronto Police Service 43 Division, 2025 ONSC 3037
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO. 220/24
DATE: 20250523
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Sachs, Backhouse and S.T. Bale JJ.
BETWEEN:
Kevin Mark Clarke
Kevin Clarke, in person
Applicant
– and –
Toronto Police Service 43 Division and Office of the Independent Police Review Director
Morvarid Shojaei, for the respondents
Respondents
Heard on January 23, 2024, at Toronto
S.T. BALE J.
OVERVIEW
[1] Kevin Clarke complained to the Independent Police Review Director about the conduct of Constable Jason Kerr of the Toronto Police Service. He had called 911 and reported that an individual had threatened him with death, and that the same individual had assaulted a bystander. Constable Kerr attended at the scene in answer to the call.
[2] The Director referred the complaint to the chief of police of the Toronto Police Service for review and investigation. Detective Patricia Grant of the TPS Professional Standards Unit conducted the investigation. Based upon her report, Inspector Michelle Cipro concluded (on behalf of the chief of police) that Mr. Clarke’s allegations were unsubstantiated.
[3] Mr. Clarke was dissatisfied with the disposition of his complaint and requested that the Director review the decision. Following his review, the Director confirmed Inspector Cipro’s conclusion that the allegations of misconduct were unsubstantiated.
[4] On this judicial review application, Mr. Clarke requests that we conduct a “[f]ull investigation into the faulty review by TPS and OIPRD that failed to properly address [Constable Kerr’s] wrongful dismissal of [his] report of receiving a death threat”, and of [Constable Kerr’s] “false claim” that he (Constable Kerr) had spoken to the other individual who had been assaulted.
[5] Mr. Clarke’s complaint was reviewed under the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15. Effective April 1, 2024, that Act was repealed and replaced by the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 1, Sched. 1. However, because the incident date was before April 1, 2024, the provisions of the Police Services Act continue to apply to the review of the complaint.
[6] When the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 came into force, the Office of the Independent Police Review Director was renamed “Law Enforcement Complaints Agency”. LECA is headed by the Complaints Director appointed under the CSPA.
[7] For the following reasons, I would allow Mr. Clarke’s application and remit his complaint to the Complaints Director for a further review in accordance with these reasons. In my view, the Director’s decision was unreasonable because he failed to deal with a fundamental misapprehension of the evidence upon which Detective Grant’s report was, in part, based, and failed to deal with her failure to respond to Mr. Clarke’s submission that the video he provided proved that Constable Kerr had lied.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The complaint
[8] In his complaint, Mr. Clarke said:
- that Constable Kerr was disinterested in what had occurred and had disregarded his legal rights, health, safety, and well-being;
- that Constable Kerr lied when he told him that he had spoken with the other individual whom Mr. Clarke said had been assaulted; and
- that while it was sad that Constable Kerr had been required to work the day following the murder of a friend and colleague, that fact did not excuse his conduct.
[9] Pursuant to s. 61(5) of the Police Services Act, the Director referred Mr. Clarke’s complaint to the chief of the Toronto Police Service. Under s. 66 of the Act, chiefs of police are required to cause such complaints to be investigated, and the investigation to be reported on in a written report.
The investigation and report
[10] Detective Patricia Grant of the TPS Professional Standards Unit conducted the investigation on behalf of the chief of police.
[11] She characterized the complaint as involving two allegations of misconduct under the Code of Conduct contained in the Schedule to O. Reg. 268/10, under the Police Services Act:
- neglect of duty under s. 2(1)(c)(i) of the Code; and
- discreditable conduct under s. 2(1)(a)(xi) of the Code.
[12] Under s. 2(1)(c)(i) of the Code, a police officer commits misconduct if he or she, without lawful excuse, neglects or omits promptly and diligently to perform a duty as a member of the police force.
[13] Under s. 2(1)(a)(xi) of the Code, a police officer commits misconduct if he or she acts in a disorderly manner or in a manner prejudicial to discipline or likely to bring discredit upon the reputation of the police force of which the officer is a member.
[14] Detective Grant reviewed Mr. Clarke’s complaint and a video he had taken during the incident, 911 calls Mr. Clarke made on September 10 and 13, 2023, Constable Kerr’s duty report, body-worn camera footage of Constable Adam LeBlanc (who had responded to the September 10 call), and relevant statutory provisions and TPS policies. She also made multiple attempts to schedule an interview with Mr. Clarke but was unable to do so. The two did exchange emails, but Mr. Clarke provided no further information concerning the incident.
[15] Detective Grant found that the events set out below had occurred. However, as I will explain, the words I have italicized amount, in my view, to a serious misapprehension of the evidence. Importantly, Mr. Clarke did not say that the death threat and the assault of the passerby had taken place on September 10, 2022.
September 10, 2022
- Mr. Clarke called 911 to report that he was being attacked. He advised the attending officer that he was assaulted by a panhandler with a cane. The assault was investigated by the officer. Both parties were cautioned and advised not to communicate with one another.
September 13, 2022
- At 7:28 a.m., Mr. Clarke called 911 and told the dispatcher that a panhandler had threatened to kill him. He refused to answer questions and yelled: “just send the fucking police.”
- At 7:31 a.m., Mr. Clarke called 911 a second time and reported that the suspect had assaulted a passerby with a metal cane. He then advised that this occurred on Saturday, September 10, 2022, and that the police attended, and the suspect was only cautioned.
- When Constable Kerr arrived at the scene, Mr. Clarke immediately began talking about the assault as if it had just happened.
- Mr. Clarke alleged that Constable Kerr did not investigate the assault that he was reporting, however, the assault had already been investigated and dealt with by Constable LeBlanc (on September 10, 2022).
- On the way to the call, Constable Kerr pulled up to the intersection of Kingston Road and Lawrence Avenue in Scarborough and spoke with a panhandler on the median. The individual told him that he did not witness an assault but did say that Mr. Clarke had been yelling at cars and passersby, and that residents of a nearby apartment building were upset with the noise. Constable Kerr heard a female yell, “tell [Mr. Clarke] to shut up.” This contradicts Mr. Clarke’s allegation that Constable Kerr lied to him.
- Constable Kerr was very direct with Mr. Clarke and asked him to be clear and concise. However, Mr. Clarke was unable to provide any details about what had happened or that would identify the alleged assailant. It is clear from the video taken by Mr. Clarke that Constable Kerr was feeling frustrated because Mr. Clarke was yelling at him and not providing him with information. Constable Kerr told Mr. Clarke to go back to his apartment.
- The complainant was making it out as if the assault had just occurred, which was not the case.
- Constable Kerr acknowledged that he had not been as professional as he could have been when he was speaking with Mr. Clarke. He explained that a friend and colleague had been murdered the previous day and that he had been unaware of the effect of the murder on his professional conduct. He regretted that he had approached the call with such indifference.
- Constable Kerr took responsibility for his shortness and abruptness with Mr. Clarke; however, there was nothing to investigate as the alleged assault took place days prior to his dealings with Constable Kerr.
[16] With respect to the allegation of neglect of duty, Detective Grant summarized her findings to be that Constable Kerr had “attended a call that had already been investigated a couple days earlier” and that Mr. Clarke had not been forthcoming and did not provide any information to Constable Kerr. She then concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish reasonable grounds to believe that Constable Kerr had failed to investigate Mr. Clarke’s allegations of assault and threatening.
[17] With respect to the allegation of discreditable conduct, Detective Grant concluded that Constable Kerr had been “direct” with Mr. Clarke but that he had spoken to a citizen in the area and did not lie to Mr. Clarke.
[18] In the result, Detective Grant concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish reasonable grounds that misconduct had occurred. Her report was reviewed by Inspector Michelle Cipro who concurred with Detective Grant and issued a decision finding the complaint to be unsubstantiated.
Request for review
[19] Section 71(1) of the Police Services Act provides that where a complainant has been notified that their complaint is unsubstantiated, they may, within 30 days of such notification, ask the Independent Police Review Director to review the decision. Under s. 71(2) of the Act, the Director then reviews the decision, without a hearing, considering any material provided by the complainant or the chief of police. In the present case, following his review, the Director confirmed Inspector Cipro’s finding that the allegations of misconduct were unsubstantiated.
[20] The standard of review under s. 71 of the Act requires the Director to consider two issues: (1) whether the professional standards investigator adequately addressed the issues raised in the complaint; and (2) whether the findings of the chief of police were supported by the available evidence: Boua v. Office of the Independent Police Review Director, 2024 ONSC 2172, at para. 16. In correctly stating the standard of review, the Director emphasized that his role did not include a reinvestigation of the original incident.
[21] In his request for review, Mr. Clarke submitted that Inspector Cipro’s decision was “not supported by the overwhelming evidence of wrong by the officer and the Toronto police service” and noted that he had not received an apology. He said that the “officer vehicle log, dash cam, and note will prove this decision is not justified.” He argued that Detective Grant’s finding that Constable Kerr had spoken to a panhandler who told him that he did not see an assault was false; because, although the video shows the officer saying that he had spoken to “the pedestrian”, later in the same video, the pedestrian clearly states that the officer did not speak with him. Mr. Clarke said that this person was one of the people who was assaulted by the person who had assaulted him, and the officer did not assist them.
Decision of the Independent Police Review Director
[22] Following his review, the Director confirmed Inspector Cipro’s conclusion that Mr. Clarke’s allegations of misconduct were unsubstantiated. While his reasons for doing so sound plausible, they do not adequately respond to the submissions made by Mr. Clarke in his request for review.
Neglect of duty
[23] Citing Provincial Constable K.M. Soley and the Ontario Provincial Police, 1966 17303 (ONCPC), the Director noted that to establish neglect of duty, it must be shown that: (i) the officer was required to perform a duty; (ii) the officer failed to discharge the duty promptly and diligently; and (iii) the officer had no lawful excuse, good or sufficient cause, or adequate reason, to excuse the failure to do so.
[24] In the present case, based upon the evidence disclosed by the professional standards investigation, the Director concluded that it was reasonable for Inspector Cipro to find the neglect of duty allegation to be unsubstantiated. The officer had attended at the scene and spoken with the complainant and another person who indicated that he had not witnessed an assault. The officer had not observed any injuries, and in the circumstances, had not formed reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Clarke was in danger or that a criminal offence had taken place. Officers are entitled to exercise reasonable discretion in conducting their duties and are not held to a standard of perfection.
Discreditable conduct
[25] Citing Senior Constable Alexander Krug and Ottawa Police Service, 2003 75460 (ON CPC), the Director noted that the test for discreditable conduct is objective, such that the subjective perceptions of a complainant, the officer’s superiors, or the decision maker, are not determinative. To determine whether an officer committed discreditable conduct, the officer’s actions should be weighed against the “reasonable expectations of the community.”
[26] The Director found that the video evidence and Constable Kerr’s own statement confirmed that his conduct had fallen below the standard expected of a police officer. He noted that Constable Kerr had apologized “for any hurt caused to the complainant, as well as the embarrassment caused to the reputation of the Toronto Police Service, as a result of those actions.”
[27] With respect to the allegation of discreditable conduct, the Director concluded:
[I]f a reasonable member of the community were to become aware of Constable Kerr’s behaviour within its extenuating circumstances, including the tragic death of Constable Andrew Hong a day earlier, as well as the history of the call, they would not believe that Constable Kerr’s behaviour was damaging to the reputation of the police service. Accordingly, while I understand that the interaction was unpleasant for the complainant, I concur with the Chief that there is insufficient evidence to establish discreditable conduct in this instance.
Application for judicial review
[28] In his application for judicial review, Mr. Clarke requests:
Full investigation into the faulty review by TPS and OIPRD that failed to properly address the respondent officer’s wrongful dismissal of Mr. Clarke’s report of receiving a death threat, and the respondent officer’s false claim that he spoke to a male individual when that individual himself later confirmed that claim was false; as detailed in OIPRD File Number E-202303171827473953.
[29] In the application, he states his grounds for the application to be:
a. Mr. Clarke mentioned to the respondent officer at 0:11 of the YouTube video that an individual not only assaulted Mr. Clarke days ago, but that he more recently also uttered a threat to kill Mr. Clarke, as mentioned at 0:32 of that same YouTube video. The respondent officer negligently advised Mr. Clarke to simply “go home” without pursuing further investigation on the threat. This was not properly addressed by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director.
b. Mr. Clarke also mentioned to the respondent officer that another individual was also assaulted. At 0:20 of the YouTube video, the respondent officer claims to have spoken to the assaulted individual. This contradicts the claim of the assaulted individual at 3:15 of that same YouTube video, as that assaulted individual claims that the officer did not in fact speak with him. This is a clear inconsistency which was not properly addressed by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director.
c. Detective Grant did not do an unbiased investigation. If detective Grant had believed this officer’s claim, she would not have asked for an extension from the OIPRD, which she did. It is clear that officer Grant fabricated the investigation and took the word from the respondent officer’s statement, which were clearly untrue, and she in turn completed an investigation and she filed it with OIPRD knowing that they were not fact and truth. This in turn constitutes obstruction of justice by the investigative officer, and the officers involved. A violation of the police code of conduct.
ANALYSIS
Standard of review
[30] The standard of review of the Director’s decision is reasonableness: Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653, at para. 23; Rossi v. Ontario Independent Police Review Director, 2024 ONSC 1310 (Div. Ct.), at para. 5.
[31] In Vavilov, at para. 105, the court held that “[i]n addition to the need for internally coherent reasoning, a decision, to be reasonable, must be justified in relation to the constellation of law and facts that are relevant to the decision” (citations omitted).
[32] The legal and factual considerations that may be relevant in a particular case include: “the governing statutory scheme; other relevant statutory or common law; the principles of statutory interpretation; the evidence before the decision maker and facts of which the decision maker may take notice; the submissions of the parties; the past practices and decisions of the administrative body; and the potential impact of the decision on the individual to whom it applies”: Vavilov, at para. 106.
Allegation of neglect of duty
[33] In Vavilov, at paras. 125-126, the court notes that decision makers may assess and evaluate the evidence before them and that absent exceptional circumstances, a reviewing court will not interfere with their factual findings. The reviewing court must refrain from reweighing and reassessing the evidence. However, the reasonableness of a decision may be jeopardized where the decision maker has fundamentally misapprehended or failed to account for the evidence before it.
[34] In my view, the Director’s decision on the allegation of neglect of duty was unreasonable because he failed to identify and deal with a serious misapprehension of evidence which was key to Detective Grant’s finding that the allegation of neglect of duty was unsubstantiated.
[35] In determining that the complaint of neglect of duty was unsubstantiated, Detective Grant’s chain of analysis was as follows:
- that Mr. Clarke had called 911 on September 10, 2022 and reported that a panhandler had assaulted him with a cane. That allegation of assault was investigated by Constable LeBlanc;
- that at 7:28 a.m. on September 13, 2022, Mr. Clarke called 911 and said that a panhandler had threatened to kill him;
- that at 7:31 a.m. the same day, Mr. Clarke called back and reported that the suspect had assaulted a passerby with a metal cane;
- that Mr. Clarke then said that the assault of the passerby had taken place on September 10, 2022;
- that when Constable Kerr attended at the scene, Mr. Clarke falsely began talking about the assault as if it had just happened: “[t]he Complainant was making it out as if the assault just occurred, which was not the case”;
- that because the assault of the passerby had occurred on September 10, 2022 and had been investigated by Constable LeBlanc, there was nothing for Constable Kerr to investigate;
- that there were therefore no reasonable grounds to believe that an assault or threatening had taken place on the morning of September 13, 2022, when Mr. Clarke called 911.
[36] Rather than using Mr. Clarke’s complaints to Constable Kerr as confirming that he was alleging that an assault and threatening had occurred that day, Detective Grant went on to use her finding that they had occurred on September 10 to conclude that the complaints made by Mr. Clarke to Constable Kerr were false and that there was nothing for Constable Kerr to investigate.
[37] In his decision, the Director appears to accept Mr. Clarke’s position that on September 13, he was reporting that the person who had assaulted him on September 10 had threatened him and assaulted another person, earlier in the day on September 13, and appears to attribute this finding to Detective Grant: “[t]he professional standards investigation revealed that on September 13, 2022, Constable Kerr responded to several 911 calls by Mr. Clarke, in which he described that a man who had assaulted him on Saturday September 10, 2022, threatened to kill him and assaulted someone else again.”
[38] What Mr. Clarke actually said was, “So this morning I came out. I’m on the other side and he came [unclear] … attacked me and while I’m walking the street, he ran me down, he threatened to kill me. Then while I’m backing away from him and leaving him, he ended up [unclear] … so I turn my phone on and then he says he was gonna kill me. So, when I cross to the north side, when I crossed the street and while I was in the street, he went [unclear] and he nailed somebody else.” [Recording of 911 call, September 13, 2022, at 7:32:06.]
[39] Also of note is the fact that Constable Kerr, whose investigation is alleged to have been deficient, appears in his statement to accept that Mr. Clarke was complaining about events alleged to have taken place the same day. Although he didn’t necessarily believe Mr. Clarke, the point is that Constable Kerr did not attempt to justify the extent of his investigation by arguing that Mr. Clarke was referring to events that had taken place several days earlier.
[40] Detective Grant’s finding that there was nothing for Constable Kerr to investigate, because Mr. Clarke’s September 13, 2022 complaint concerned events that had been investigated by Constable LeBlanc on September 10, 2022, was therefore based on a fundamental misapprehension of the evidence.
[41] In these circumstances, it was, in my view, unreasonable for the Director to confirm Detective Grant’s finding that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that an assault or threatening had taken place on the morning of September 13, 2022, when Mr. Clarke called 911.
Allegation of discreditable conduct
[42] In Vavilov, at paras. 127-128, the court says that the principles of justification and transparency require that an administrative decision maker’s reasons meaningfully account for the central issues and concerns raised by the parties. “[R]easons are the primary mechanism by which decision makers demonstrate that they have actually listened to the parties” (emphasis original). “[A] decision maker’s failure to meaningfully grapple with key issues or central arguments raised by the parties may call into question whether the decision maker was actually alert and sensitive to the matter before it.”
[43] In my view, the Director’s decision on the allegation of discreditable conduct was unreasonable because he failed to identify and account for Detective Grant’s failure to deal with Mr. Clarke’s central argument on discreditable conduct – that the video he took of his conversation with the bystander proved that Constable Kerr lied when he said he had spoken with the bystander prior to interacting with Mr. Clarke.
[44] The following is an excerpt from the conversation Constable Kerr had with Mr. Clarke after arriving at the scene:
[0:11]
KC (Kevin Clarke): There’s an individual who attacked me.
JK (Constable Jason Kerr): Don’t tell me individuals. Give me names and poin-- [unintelligible, may be saying point me to them, because he makes a pointing gesture].
KC: I do not know the name. There’s a video tape of the incident.
JK: Point. Out. To the person.
KC: That I do not [unintelligible] he went into that building.
JK: So, it’s not him [pointing to the road].
KC: No, it’s not him.
JK: ‘Kay.
KC: The -- no. The individual attacked another guy on the street there with his cane.
JK: [unintelligible, may be saying “But he didn’t”] I already talked to that guy [unintelligible].
KC: Who the – no not – he attacked another individual on the street, and I also have a photo of a vehicle that w--
JK: I don’t care about that. What is your problem?
KC: My problem is that he threatened to kill me.
JK: Okay. So go home.
KC: Huh -- go home?
JK: How can he threaten to kill you if you’re at home?
[1:30]
JK: Kevin Clarke is not worth going to jail for.
KC: He attached me on Saturday.
JK: Kevin, go home. [driving away]. And stop bothering me.
[45] After Constable Kerr leaves the scene, Mr. Clarke walks along the sidewalk and approaches another person. The following dialogue ensues:
[3:15]
KC (Kevin Clarke): We – did you get hurt? Where’d he hit you?
UP (unidentified person): Right here [tapping on back with a brush].
KC: Right – where – in the side? Yeah – that’s – and – did the – did the police come and talk to you?
UP: No.
KC: The police didn’t come and talk to you?
UP: No, the guy in the car, he drove off.
KC: He drove right by?
UP: Yeah.
KC: He drove right by you.
UP: Yeah.
KC: Oh. He said he – he said he spoke to you. Ha ha.
UP: Oh yeah?
KC: That’s what he said. Unbelievable. But you – are you – you – are you all right?
UP: Yeah. I’m good.
[46] Mr. Clarke made it clear in his original complaint that he relied on the video to prove that Constable Kerr lied to him. He argued that the video showed Constable Kerr saying that he had already spoken to the person across the street, and showed the person across the street saying that Constable Kerr had not spoken to him:
What makes this very disturbing is that the officer not only ignored my rights, he also lied when he stated that he had spoken to the other individual across the street, who was assaulted and a witness. Officer Kerr, as you can clearly hear in the video, said he spoke to the other individual. Yet also in the video, the individual told us that the officer did not speak to him. We cannot have law enforcement officers ignoring serious criminal acts of violence, due to their likes or dislikes of the victims. But most importantly, we cannot have officers lying, and that's what this officer did.
[47] In his statement, Constable Kerr said that while attending at the scene, he was stopped at a red light westbound on Lawrence Avenue. He said that he spoke with a male on the median who said that he didn’t see anyone being assaulted, but that Mr. Clarke had been yelling at cars and passersby, and that tenants in a building nearby were upset with the noise. Based upon this statement, Detective Grant concluded that Constable Kerr “had spoke to a citizen in the area and did not lie to [Mr. Clarke].” She reached this conclusion without any reference to the video upon which Mr. Clarke relied as proving that Constable Kerr had lied. Nowhere in her report does Detective Grant refer to Mr. Clarke’s central argument on the discreditable conduct issue.
[48] Mr. Clarke’s argument that Constable Kerr lied was also central to his request to the Director for a review of Detective Grant’s report. He said: “[t]his is false, because although the video … at 0:25 shows the officer claiming to have spoken to the pedestrian, at 3:22 in the video, the pedestrian clearly states that the officer did NOT in fact speak with him. He was one of the people who was also assaulted by the same man who assaulted me, and we were not assisted in our plight.”
[49] In his reasons relating to discreditable conduct, the Director says that the video shows Constable Kerr to be dismissive of Mr. Clarke’s concerns but makes no mention of his argument that the video proves that Constable Kerr lied. Similarly, he makes no mention of the fact that Detective Grant failed to respond to the same argument in her report.
[50] The reasons of both Detective Grant and the Director fail to meaningfully grapple with the central argument raised by Mr. Clarke. In the result, I find that the Director’s decision to confirm Detective Grant’s finding that the allegation of discreditable conduct was unsubstantiated was unreasonable.
Allegation of bias
[51] Mr. Clarke’s allegation that Detective Grant was biased is as follows:
Detective Grant did not do an unbiased investigation. If detective Grant had believed this officer's claim, she would not have asked for an extension from the OIPRD, which she did. It is clear that officer Grant fabricated the investigation and took the word from the respondent officer's statement, which were clearly untrue, and she in turn completed an investigation and she filed it with OIPRD knowing that they were not fact and truth.
[52] The fact that Detective Grant requested an extension of time for the completion of her report is not, in itself, evidence that she disbelieved Constable Kerr, but fabricated her report based on his statement. I note, however, that had either Detective Grant or the Director dealt squarely with Mr. Clarke’s argument that his video proved that Constable Kerr had lied (rather than simply relying on Kerr’s statement that he had spoken to someone in the intersection), the allegation of bias might have been avoided.
[53] In any event, Mr. Clarke’s allegation of bias was not raised in his request for a review of Detective Grant’s decision. Accordingly, it was not dealt with by the Director and is not properly the subject of this judicial review.
Disposition
[54] For the reasons given, I would remit Kevin Clarke’s request for review to the Complaints Director of the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency, for a further review of the decision of Toronto Police Force Inspector Michelle Cipro in which she found Mr. Clarke’s complaint against Constable Kerr to be unsubstantiated. The review shall be conducted in accordance with these reasons.
“S.T. Bale J.”
“I agree Sachs J.”
“I agree Backhouse J.”
Released: May 23 2025
CITATION: Clarke v. Toronto Police Service 43 Division, 2025 ONSC 3037
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO. 220/24
DATE: 20250523
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
Sachs, Backhouse and Bale JJ.
BETWEEN:
Kevin Mark Clarke
Applicant
– and –
Toronto Police Service 43 Division and Office of the Independent Police Review Director
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
S.T. Bale J.
Released: May 23, 2025