An Accountability Reality Check: Evaluating Key Review Mechanisms for Policing and Demonstrations by Basil Shea Alexander A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Laws Faculty of Law University of Toronto © Copyright by Basil Shea Alexander (2014) An Accountability Reality Check: Evaluating Key Review Mechanisms for Policing and Demonstrations Basil Shea Alexander Master of Laws Faculty of Law University of Toronto 2014 Abstract When a major incident occurs between police and demonstrators where there are questionable police and state actions, there are regularly calls for corresponding accountability. This thesis analyzes the realities of potentially using civil litigation and other non-court mechanisms to achieve such accountability, especially regarding how the mechanisms reinforce “conflict- solving” or “policy-implementing” tendencies. Injunctions are also specifically examined as they commonly occur in the context of demonstrations. It is suggested that property “rights” (as defined by Hohfeld) repeatedly trump the demonstrators’ “privilege” of freedom of expression. As a result of the analysis, three solutions are proposed: 1) an independent body who can initiate comprehensive reviews for a major incident when needed; 2) incorporating an independent legal advisor into the planning and incident command structure for major events to help prevent the concerns from arising; and 3) courts conducting inquiry-like hearings that incorporate the best aspects of both “conflict-solving” and “policy-implementing” approaches. ii Acknowledgments It truly “takes a village” for a sizeable thesis and a Master of Laws to come to fruition in a single year, and there are several people I would like to particularly thank: Kent Roach, who was an outstanding supervisor. He always provided thoughtful, frank, and thorough advice and feedback throughout the process (as well as generally), which constantly made me think and made both the final product and myself better. His turnaround was also lightning fast, and I learned a lot from him and his example, which I hope to carry forward in my own career. Kerry Rittich (who graciously agreed to be the thesis’s second reader) and Jutta Brunnée, who both helped me to better understand different perspectives and theories of the law, which complemented my previous practical experience and showed me potential opportunities for doctoral work. Their frank advice regarding future considerations also proved to be prescient and first-rate. All those affiliated with Klippensteins over the years I worked there, including Murray Klippenstein, Rosie Lewis, Vilko Zbogar, Kent Elson, Cory Wanless, and all the exceptional clients I had the privilege of working with (e.g. Maynard “Sam” George and his family, the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, etc.). It was there that I had the opportunity to work on both the Ipperwash Inquiry and the proposed class action for the Toronto G20 Summit as well as various other public interest and social justice work. That experience provided the basis and impetus for this thesis and my future work, and I would not be the person I am today without that experience. Those who run the Graduate Program Office and make it work (i.e. Associate Deans Jutta Brunnée and Mariana Moto Prado; Assistant Dean Judith McCormick; and Program Coordinators Julia Hall and Whittney Ambeault). They are the ones who answered all of my questions, helped whenever they could, and made my life generally easier when it was time to deal with administrative matters. iii Everyone that I had the privilege of meeting, getting to know, and working with over the past year, both inside and outside the classroom. Those interactions and discussions made the year much more enjoyable, particularly after many years of working in a small firm. I particularly want to acknowledge Dustin Gumpinger, my long-thesis compatriot, and those I regularly worked with and saw this past summer (i.e. Maria José (Majo) Rivas Vera, Ksenia Polonskaya, Michael Moll, and Aylin Yildiz), who all made my work much more effective and bearable. Finally, my parents, Mercy and Philip Alexander, who completely supported me when I decided to make a significant career change and pursue my Master of Laws as well as my doctorate (which starts this fall with the Faculty of Law at Queen’s University). In short, I would not be here without them. iv Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ v Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1 – The Realities of Using Civil Litigation for Accountability ...................................... 10 A. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 10 B. Initial Context of Civil Litigation................................................................................ 12 1. The “Conflict-Solving” Nature of Civil Litigation .......................................... 12 2. The Litigation Forums ..................................................................................... 15 3. The Different Kinds of Plaintiffs That Bring Litigation .................................. 19 C. The Disconnect Between Civil Litigation Principles and Lawyers’ Duties ................ 22 D. The Realities of Court Funding and Cost Incentives: Civil Litigation’s Liberal Assumptions ...................................................................................................................... 26 1. (Very Limited) Advanced Funding Through Court Processes ........................ 26 2. Adverse Cost Incentives and Their Implications ............................................. 32 a. The Flawed Equality/Rationality Assumption ..................................... 34 b. The Flawed Accessibility Assumption ................................................ 36 E. A Reality Check on Other Key Aspects of Civil Litigation ........................................ 40 1. Plaintiff(s) Limited to One Set of Counsel Whereas Defendants Not ............. 40 v 2. The Benefits and Limitations of Discovery and Settlements........................... 43 3. Other Procedural Requirements, Evidentiary Requirements, Causes of Action, and Remedies ........................................................................................................ 47 F. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 51 Chapter 2 – The Uphill Battle Demonstrators Face With Interlocutory Injunctions .................... 53 A. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 53 B. A Hohfeldian Explanation of the Demonstrator Injunction Decisions – Property “Rights” Prevail Over Freedom of Expression “Privileges” ............................................ 55 C. The General Injunction Tests ...................................................................................... 60 D. The Rare Circumstances When Demonstrators Can Successfully Use Injunctions ... 65 1. The Details of the CCLA LRAD Case ............................................................ 66 2. Further Analysis of the CCLA LRAD Case .................................................... 70 E. The Successful and Regular Use of Injunctions Against Indigenous Demonstrators . 73 F. The Successful Use of Court Proceedings Against the Occupy Movement ................ 79 G. Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 80 Chapter 3 – The Realities of Other Non-Court Options As Accountability Mechanisms ............ 85 A. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 85 B. Key Conceptual Frameworks ...................................................................................... 91 1. Types of Accountability ................................................................................... 91 2. Psychological Responses to Accountability .................................................... 93 3. The Increased “Policy-Implementing” Nature of Many Non-Court Mechanisms .......................................................................................................... 94 C. The Mechanisms and Their Issues/Limitations ........................................................... 95 vi 1. Coroner’s Inquests ........................................................................................... 96 2. Public Inquiries / Royal Commissions ........................................................... 101 3. Office of the Independent Police Review Director ........................................ 113 4. The Ombudsman ............................................................................................ 118 5. Other Police Reviews ..................................................................................... 121 a. RCMP Complaints Commission