‘WorkComp is code name for the 21st
Century “Nouveau Holocaust Centers” ?!?’
“…Dr. Richard Dumais, head of the
Dr.-Georges-L-Dumont University Hospital’s pain clinic, says the chronic denial
of medical services has become a human rights issue and he’s calling for
political action…. "
WCB AND CANADIAN REGIME BEASTS... BEASTS... AND BEASTS
A
HERNIATED AND TWO BULGING DISKS!!!
BLAME TO THE MIND - BLAME TO INDIA – BLAME TO
HITLER?
WE, The People know this!
When will American doctors speak up
and speak out?
Too many American doctors just shrug
and quietly walk away—-leaving primarily “monsters” to evaluate with intent to
deny medical care.
As one US doctor once said:
‘If they have human rights complaints, tell them to TAKE IT TO THE HAGUE’
Something is terribly wrong with
Workers Compensation, isn’t it?
Toronto Star:SIU boss warned chief: ‘Educate’ your
officers
Director
says cops made ‘incorrect decision’ in not reporting 2015 incident to watchdog
SIU director Tony Loparco says
officers need to know when they must notify the watchdog.
Six months before an alleged assault
by an off-duty Toronto officer on teen Dafonte Miller, the director of
Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit asked police Chief Mark Saunders to
“educate” his officers on their duties to notify the watchdog when a civilian
is seriously hurt by police, according to correspondence obtained by the Star.
SIU director Tony Loparco’s request
to Saunders was spurred by a 2015 case in which the watchdog alleges Toronto
po- lice neglected to notify the civilian agency about an incident warranting
an SIU investigation, specifically the injuries of a man sent to hospital while
bleeding out of his ears following a police raid.
“A decision was made not to contact
the SIU,” Loparco wrote in the June 2016 letter, obtained by the Star through a
freedom-of-information request. “This was the incorrect decision.”
Ontario’s Police Service Act states
the SIU must be notified “immediately” of any incident that would reasonably be
considered a serious injury, including when someone is admitted to the
hospital. But the watchdog, which investigates serious injuries and deaths involving
police, learned of the man’s injuries only two and a half months later — and
only after receiving a letter of complaint about the incident. The man was
diagnosed with a perforated eardrum.
Meanwhile, the delay “deprived” SIU
investigators of important evidence, Loparco told Saunders.
“It is my hope that you will
implement appropriate educational requirements for your officers so that
similar problems do not arise in the future.”
Asked if any action was taken on
Loparco’s request to educate officers on notification requirements, Mark
Pugash, a spokesperson for the Toronto police, said he would not discuss the
specifics of the case.
Toronto police take Loparco’s
comments seriously, Pugash said, but is accountable to the Toronto police
board.
Toronto police have come under fire
in recent weeks for failing to notify the SIU of serious injuries incurred by
civilians in encounters with police, chief among them the severe alleged
assault on Miller.
The 19-year-old Black man suffered a
broken orbital bone and broken nose and will lose an eye because of the
December 2016 incident. The injuries were allegedly caused by an off-duty
Toronto police officer, Michael Theriault, and his brother, Christian
Theriault. Last month, both men were charged with aggravated assault, assault
with a weapon and public mischief following an investigation by the SIU.
But the watchdog did not even know
about Miller’s injuries until months after the alleged attack, and only then
because Miller’s lawyer contacted the SIU. The delay has prompted accusations
by Miller’s lawyer, Julian Falconer, of a deliberate coverup by police to
protect the Theriault brothers, whose father is a veteran Toronto police
officer working in the Professional Standards unit, which was the division that
decided not to contact the SIU about Miller’s injuries.
Saunders has denied allegations of a
coverup, saying the SIU was not told because, based on the information his
officers had at the time, notification was not required.
Last week, the SIU announced it was
charging Toronto police Const. Joseph Dropuljic with assault in a separate case
involving injuries incurred by a young Black man. In that case, the SIU was not
notified for 11months after the incident, and only after the victim came
forward to lodge a complaint.
The repeated delays underscore what
critics say is a need for stronger police oversight, including consequences for
officers who don’t follow laws around the SIU.
“This is what raises suspicions in
people’s minds because they ask, ‘ Well, why didn’t they not notify the SIU?’ ”
said Howard Morton, former director of the SIU and now a criminal defence
lawyer.
This month, Morton joined a
coalition of rights groups, including the Ontario Human Rights Commission, in
calling for the immediate implementation of the recent report by Ontario Court
of Appeal Justice Michael Tulloch.
That report made a series of
recommendations aimed at stronger police oversight, including clarifying the
rules around when police services must notify the SIU and officers’ duty to co-operate
with investigations.
POLICE BRUTALITY: Toronto Cops Tackle & Kill
Mentally Disabled Man For Nothing
At the completion of every SIU
investigation involving Toronto police, the SIU director writes a letter to the
chief with basic details of the investigation and its conclusion.
Unlike the two recent cases
involving Black men, the May 2015 incident prompting Loparco’s letter to
Saunders did not result in a criminal charge against any Toronto police
officer.
According to the letter, the
incident started with an attempted knifepoint robbery which led to an
investigation involving Toronto’s Emergency Task Force. On May 30, 2015, the
ETF executed a search warrant in the case.
The location of the search warrant
execution, and any identifying information about the injured man or officers
involved, was redacted in the letter obtained by the Star.
The letter also did not state who
sent the complaint letter notifying the watchdog of the man’s injuries. Jason
Gennaro, a spokesperson for the SIU, said he could not say who wrote the letter
due to confidentiality requirements.
A team of seven ETF officers arrived
at the home, found it unlocked then called out for the man wanted by police to
exit the home. When he didn’t, the team went inside and found the man sleeping
in the basement. The man refused the officers’ orders to show his hands then to
get on the ground. One of the officers, spotting a knife beside the man’s bed,
then deployed a Taser.
The man fell to the ground but
continued to thrash, according to the letter, so one of the officers pressed
his ballistic shield onto the man’s back to immobilize him, allowing him to be
handcuffed. When the man was brought outside, there was blood coming from his
ears and he had a small cut above his eyebrow. He was taken to the hospital,
where his cut was sutured and he was diagnosed with a perforated eardrum, an
injury typically seen in people who encounter a deafeningly loud sound.
Loparco had to determine whether the
man’s injuries were caused by the officers and wondered if a loud police
distraction device called a “flash bang” has been used in their entry into the
home. Citing witness and officer accounts, Loparco concluded it hadn’t been
used and stated that the perforated eardrum was not attributable to police. He
also said the force used by police was reasonable.
However, Loparco noted that because
the SIU was not immediately notified, the watchdog’s investigators could not go
to the residence to conduct a probe to independently determine whether the loud
distraction device had been used.
According to Ontario’s Police
Services Act, the SIU must be notified immediately of any incident “that may
reasonably be considered to fall within its mandate.”
The SIU uses what’s called the Osler
definition of serious injury, which states it must be presumed someone is
seriously injured when they, among other types of injuries, are admitted to
hospital and suffering hearing loss.
The man’s injuries “satisfied two
separate presumptions contained within the definition. Thus, the SIU should
have been notified,” Loparco wrote Saunders. Among Tulloch’s recommendations is
to set out in law the Osler definition of serious injury. As it stands, serious
injury is not defined in the Police Services Act.
As reported by the Star this year,
Loparco has issued several complaints about Toronto police co-operation with
SIU investigations within the past few years, including failures to notify the
watchdog of serious injuries. In some cases, Loparco will ask the chief to
investigate an alleged incident of non-co-operation and report back.
But police chiefs are not legally
obligated to respond to these letters because the SIU has no authority under
the Police Services Act to demand chiefs look into officer conduct.
Morton said the provincial
government must step in to enforce the laws outlining what’s expected of police
when it comes to SIU co-operation. It’s not enough “to simply have a director
out there in isolation hoping that if he writes to the chief there will be some
education,” Morton said.
Attorney General Yasir Naqvi said
this month he would introduce a bill in the fall session of the legislature
that will “transform Ontario’s police oversight system.” Wendy Gillis can be
reached at wgillis@thestar.ca
