Courts have rejected an “unprecedented” request by a Toronto-area police service to protect the identities of officers involved in the 2020 death of Ejaz Choudry.
in a Ontario Superior Court decision handed down MondayJudge Paul Perell ruled that granting a publication ban and anonymity order in the civil proceedings would have “significant negative effects” on freedom of expression and the principle of open hearing.
“All civil society has an interest in scrutinizing the administration of justice in a civil action that involves how that society is being policed,” Perell wrote in his decision. “Without knowing the names of the John Doe officers, journalists and the public have no way of knowing whether any of them may have been involved in previous incidents and whether there may be a systemic problem or an isolated incident.”
Choudry, who had schizophrenia, was shot and killed by police inside his Mississauga apartment on the night of June 20, 2020. Hours earlier, his family called the non-emergency helpline and told operators that the father of four was suffering from a mental health crisis. . After unsuccessful attempts to negotiate with Choudry to leave the residence, officers stormed the second-floor apartment. Within seconds, Choudry was Tasered, hit by rubber projectiles, and shot twice. He was pronounced dead at the scene. Two of the officers who were in the room that night later told investigators with Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit (SIU), an independent provincial agency that investigates police interactions that result in serious injury, death or allegations of assault. sexual, that Choudry had approached them. with a knife after they entered the house.
In 2021, the SIU found no reasonable grounds to charge any of the officers with criminal offenses and acquitted all five, a decision that sparked protests across the city.
Unable to pursue criminal charges, Choudry’s family filed a multimillion-dollar civil lawsuit against Peel Regional Police, its chief and five unnamed officers in 2022, alleging they turned a “direct mental health call” into a “high-risk” one. . tactical operation” that resulted in the death of the father of four children.
It was these civil proceedings, and the subsequent public court records produced, in which Judge Perell denied the motion to protect the officers’ identities.
At a hearing earlier this month, attorneys for the officers argued that their clients’ right to safety outweighed any negative effects on the open hearing principle and the public’s right to know the officers’ identities.
Ted Key, representing the officers, told the court that in some of the protests that took place after Choudry’s death, participants displayed “Wanted” posters with the image of Peel Police Chief Nishan Duraiappah , and called the officers involved in the civilian deaths murderers. .’ At another protest, a participant said they would “blow up a police station unibomber style” if anything happened to a member of his family at the hands of the police. In another case, a civilian told an officer that he was a “marked man.”
None of these incidents directly targeted the officers involved in Choudry’s death, as they had not yet been identified. But officers wrote in sworn statements that the conduct, along with the formation of community groups calling for their identity to be revealed, made them feel fearful and threatened.
Simon Beiber, a lawyer for the Choudry family, argued that the officers had not provided the necessary evidence to show that their safety would be at risk if they were identified. The author of the threat assessment reports submitted by police had not been present at any of the protests and had produced the report using “selected” accounts from others, Beiber told the court.
In his written reasoning, Judge Perell called the police request “unprecedented and atypical.”
“Based on the […] evidence and what I can infer from common sense and common knowledge, I am not convinced that the court should exercise its discretion to grant the requested orders,” Perell wrote.
“The risk to police officers is real and inherent, but in the immediate case the realization or actualization of that risk based on the evidence is speculative and remote and does not rise to the level of an erosion or invasion of the open hearing principle.” the judge continued.
Perell made no order on costs and requested written submissions from both sides on the matter.
Following Monday’s decision, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, a non-profit organization that acted as one of four intervenors in the case, praised the dismissal.
“As the CCLA argued and the Court recognized in its decision, it is vital that the public be aware of allegations of police misconduct, be able to identify repeat bad actors, and see that justice is done,” director of the CCLA Criminal Justice Program . Shakir Rahim said in a statement.
The civil process is ongoing.