The Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) opened and began receiving complaints from Ontarians on 19 October, 2009. It initially did not receive many complaints in its first fiscal year but the complaints have since then increased. There was also an uptick following the G20 fiasco in 2010 – which resulted in the OIPRD producing its first systemic report.
The office receives about 3,500 complaints per fiscal year. The OIPRD decides to screen out about half of those complaints every year, which is an enormous amount of complaints that don’t even get investigated at all.
Some of the reasons for screening out complaints include the following: “frivolous”, “no breach”, “over six months”, “vexatious”, “no jurisdiction”, “better dealt with under another act”, and “not in the public interest”.
Of the complaints the OIPRD actually accepts, it decides that 93% of those complaints are to be sent to the police service the complaint is about. The rest, the very tiny percentage, are retained by the OIPRD to investigate. The cases the OIPRD chooses to investigate themselves are arbitrarily chosen, although they do claim that it is often the more “complex” cases that are retained. They do not define what “complex” means exactly. They do say that these particular cases often times involve more serious allegations.
The OIPRD also notes that they retain cases for investigation “if there is a possibility of conflict of interest issues at the local level”. I find this line particularly comical because ALL complaints sent to the police to investigate have a possibility of conflict of interest! What purpose is there in having a so-called independent body investigate police complaints when the vast majority is sent back to the police to do the work? It’s highly misleading and undermines the legitimacy of the whole process. Hello! Newsflash!
But to ease our concerns the OIPRD has come up with a plan! Wait for it…
They claim that when an investigation is sent to the police, the OIPRD “manages and oversees the complaint”. They write in their 2012-2013 annual report (p.20):
“Case coordinators track the referred investigation as it progresses and coordinate with police service liaison officers as well as complainants to ensure that all directions, timelines and notice requirements are met. Case coordinators also receive and review interim investigative updates from the police service and work together with our Legal Services Unit and Director if issues arise”
This might read very well but it doesn’t actually translate to real results. Here’s the reality on ground and not just some lofty ideal that they often speak about. The reality is that they give the police a template of how an investigative report should look like and what it should contain. It must contain a statement from the complainant, a statement from the police officer, statements from witnesses, description of the actual investigation, what laws are applicable for the case, analysis, and conclusion. My investigative report, completed by the Toronto Police Service, ended up being a mere 10-page report (4 of those pages is a verbatim copy of my statement of facts).
The OIPRD also expects an update or progress report from the police 45 days into the investigation of a conduct complaint (60 days for policy and service complaints) – this update is also given to the complainant.
The OIPRD expects the investigation to be completed within 120 days because the Police Services Act specifies that a police officer needs to be given notice of the decision made by the OIPRD 6 months after an investigation is started – otherwise the officer cannot be subjected to a disciplinary hearing (which is basically a police court and the OIPRD is not involved in hearings).
If the police do not comply with these timelines, this can be escalated to the Director of the OIPRD, Gerry McNeilly.
Um…it never does.
And according to the Performance Measures Chart in their 2011-2012 and their 2012-2013 reports, the OIPRD makes it known that the police hardly ever achieve the expected targets. Majority of progress reports are not produced 45 days into an investigation (if at all), and only just over half achieve the target of having the investigative reports completed within 120 days.
For example, in my case, I never received a progress report at all. And my investigative report took 8 months to be completed!
The OIPRD claims to have a secure case management system that tracks all complaints from beginning to the end. Their computerized system is supposed to flag any noncompliance to the caseworker assigned to your file and notify the police immediately for noncompliance. Of course, this doesn’t happen. Their computer system is flawed. It never happened for me. It had to take me to actually call them up myself to flag the noncompliance.
So it actually turns out that they OIPRD does NOT oversee and manage the police in their investigations. Why even bother to “oversee” the police when you can ultimately do it yourself anyway? This is often the case with the OIPRD, it looks official and everything but it really isn’t. It’s a toothless paper tiger masquerading as a legitimate agency made up of ordinary people and is there for the public. They also have a tendency do sloppy work as I found some numbers don’t add up in their reports.
Anyway, if your complaint is “unsubstantiated” (the vast majority are) by the police, then the only other option left is to ask for a “Review” by the OIPRD. The OIPRD accepts all Reviews requested within 30 days of the complainant receiving the investigative report from the police. This is the last option you get.
Yet again, (it is very formulaic) the vast majority of Reviews by the OIPRD only result in confirming the police’s decision. It’s as if they have a quota system in place – as if the OIPRD received a directive from the Attorney General’s Office to limit the number they have to accept. It’s ludicrous how tiny the numbers are that work in the public’s favour. It’s like winning the lottery.
Once the OIPRD decides your fate – it’s over for you. There are no more options left for you, at least not with the OIPRD. The next thing to do (I think the best thing to do) is to sue in a court of law, where evidence is heard and tested. Though, this is a very expensive option. In addition, you may contact the Attorney General’s Office, because the OIPRD is, after all, a government agency to complain about the OIPRD. You may also feel free to get in contact with the Ontario Ombudsman (who’s actually an officer of the Legislature so he can claim independence with a lot more confidence!). However, please note that the Ontario Ombudsman cannot, by law, investigate the OIPRD at this time. It doesn’t hurt to try and register your complaint nevertheless.
In fact, people have already been contacting the Ontario Ombudsman. In a Toronto Star article, published in June 2012, it notes that the Ombudsman received 60 complaints about the OIPRD since its inception. The complaints capture exactly what I have gone through myself about a year after the article was published – so little as changed:
“These complaints generally raise allegations about flawed investigations, failure to respond or communicate with complainants, lack of transparency, customer-service issues and questions about how decisions on certain cases were made.”
Quite honestly, I would dismantle this government agency. They’re useless! In fact, I rather have the police investigate the police – this removes the façade we are currently dealing with. The public is being misled to think that they have a legitimate oversight body to adequately address complaints, this is not true!! Let it be known exactly for what it is and what it does.
In that same Toronto Star article Gerry McNeilly claims that it was the worst day of his life when he had to produce a report on the G20 debacle. Just further highlights how toothless he and his office are. This man has no passion for what he does, instead he has to be dragged kicking and screaming to produce lackluster results. Ridiculous!
Move aside, sir, and let somebody else complete the work properly with vigour and competency.
Abused & Depressed 