Skip to content

Posts tagged ‘Toronto Police Service’

Racial profiling: Does Marci Ien at CTV News have any credibility?

Marci Ien recently wrote an essay in the Globe & Mail, claiming she had been racially profiled during a traffic stop by the Toronto Police. Her key allegations are:

  • It was Sunday evening and she was driving home
  • A police officer pulled her over just as she arrived at her house
  • She got out of her car to approach the officer and ask what he was doing
  • He told her to get back in her car (twice)
  • The officer approached her vehicle and she opened her door
  • He told her to close the door and roll down the window
  • The police officer told her she was being recorded
  • The police officer told her she had rolled through a flashing red light
  • The officer went back to his cruiser with her driver’s license & registration
  • She felt powerless and frustrated
  • When the officer returned he gave her a warning
  • She demanded he take specific enforcement action: “If I’ve done something wrong give me the ticket. I’m prepared to pay it.”
  • She told him this was the third time she had been pulled over in eight months
  • She attempted to engage him in conversation about racial profiling
  • The police officer politely bid her goodnight and left.

What Marci fails to disclose is that she has a history of manipulative behaviour, road rage, poor driving, speeding and getting pulled over. Here is an excerpt from an interview with Marci Ien. It was published by the Globe & Mail on December 29, 2005:

Ien confesses she likes speed sometimes. She has been stopped by police a few times, but nailed only once. Her secret: “I flash them a smile. I don’t know if it’s the Marci Ien thing, but it’s like, ‘Did you know you were going . . .?’ Yes, I did. I won’t do it again. ‘Okay, that’s fine.’

“My husband always makes fun of me because he goes, ‘I can’t get away with that. Guys don’t get away with that!’ But women, you know, sometimes you have to do what you have to do,” she says, flashing her trademark pearly whites.

After Blaize was born, Ien temporarily adopted a new driving style.

“I was travelling with my little girl and she was in her car seat and I was coming out of a strip mall and waiting to make a left turn. There was a car behind me and I was being extra cautious. I had a newborn in the car. Traffic was heavy and I was probably waiting a good two minutes.

“The person behind me started to get upset, thinking I should have gone a long time ago so they started to honk. I was so upset. I literally turned off the ignition, holding the keys in a rage, I went up to her and then told her off. ” ‘I have a newborn in the car so I’m being a little extra cautious, if you don’t mind!’ ” she says, the tone of her voice escalating. “The poor woman looked so scared. And then she said to me, ‘I’m so sorry, of course you should.’ And then said, ‘Aren’t you Marci Ien? I watch you every morning.’

“It was awful. I was so upset. It was really embarrassing,”

Marci was 36 years old when this interview was published. Old enough to know better. She is now 48 years old. As an award-winning journalist with CTV News, Marci Ien wields a national megaphone. This week she used that megaphone to make serious accusations of racial profiling against the Toronto Police Service.

There is a credibility gap between her claims in the Globe & Mail this week, and the insights she provided into her temperament and behaviour in the same newspaper twelve years ago. The woman who accosted another driver in a rage is now surprised that a police officer, witnessing similar behaviour, would direct her back into her vehicle. The woman who boasted about speeding now claims she doesn’t understand why she keeps getting pulled over.  The journalist who bragged about using her looks to get out of traffic tickets now claims that not getting a ticket is a sign of racism.

I feel awful for the Toronto police officer who has been victimized by her attention-seeking behaviour.

UPDATE – Toronto Police Staff Superintendent Mario Di Tommaso has now publicly contradicted Marci Ien’s misleading claims:

Note: The opinions expressed on this blog are my own, and do not represent the views of my employer or any other organization.

Testifying by video conference

This is a post that I’m going to try to update over time with new case law.

I saw this article on the Toronto Star – Prosecutor blames Toronto police vacation plans as impaired driving case collapses:

She explained in court that a trial notification for next month’s trial had been sent to Toronto police on June 23, 2016, but it was only in January that the officer in charge of the case emailed Kromm to say he didn’t believe many of the officers requested to testify were necessary.

“I told him there was a charter application before the court and it was my opinion that those officers were necessary and I required them to be here for trial,” Kromm told Horkins, according to a court recording obtained by the Star.

She said she then received a further email informing her that two of the officers were “unavailable for trial because they were going on vacation to Florida.”

One point that could have saved these charges from being stayed was Section 714.2(1) of the Criminal Code:

714.2 (1) A court shall receive evidence given by a witness outside Canada by means of technology that permits the witness to testify in the virtual presence of the parties and the court unless one of the parties satisfies the court that the reception of such testimony would be contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.

This section mandates the Court to receive testimony from an out-of-country witness, unless Defence or Crown can show it is contrary to the principles of fundamental justice (ie. unfair). This appears to have been an option for the prosecutor and the judge in the case above. Or, if you give 714.2(1) a strict interpretation, it was not an option but a requirement.

Here are some cases where the witness was permitted to testify pursuant to 714.2(1) of the Criminal Code. It’s worth noting that, in every case I could find, out of country witnesses were  allowed to testify pursuant to 714.2(1) of the Code:

Witness allowed – R. v. Galandie, 2008 BCPC 6

Witness allowed – R. v. D’Entremont, 2009 ABPC 374

Witness allowed – R. v. Turner, 2002 BCSC 1135

Witness allowed – R. v Al-Enzi, 2017 ONSC 304

Witness allowed – R. v. Schertzer, 2010 ONSC 6686

Witness allowed – R v Nguyen, 2015 SKQB 382

Witness allowed – R v Singh, 2015 ONSC 6823

Witness allowed – R. v. M.M., 2012 ABPC 73

Witness allowed – R. v. Stevenson, 2012 BCSC 800

If the witness is located inside Canada, but away from the location of where court proceedings are being held, then 714.1 of the Criminal Code allows for a witness to testify by video conference:

714.1 A court may order that a witness in Canada give evidence by means of technology that permits the witness to testify elsewhere in Canada in the virtual presence of the parties and the court, if the court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate in all the circumstances, including

(a) the location and personal circumstances of the witness;

(b) the costs that would be incurred if the witness had to be physically present; and

(c) the nature of the witness’ anticipated evidence.

Under this section, the courts have been generally open to some witnesses testifying by video conference, where there is a good reason for it. But they have not been inclined to allow police officers or correctional officers inside Canada to testify remotely. Here are a few cases. I hope to update these over time:

Officer denied – R. v. Munro, 2009 YKTC 125 (CanLII)

Officer denied – R. v. Fleury, 2004 SKPC 53 (CanLII)

Officer denied – R. v. Ross, 2007 BCPC 244 (CanLII)

Officer denied – R. v. Munro, 2009 YKTC 125 (CanLII)

Officers allowed – R. v. Kim MacNearney and Craig MacNearney, 2010 NWTSC 77 (CanLII)

Videoconference capabilities have improved since these sections of the Criminal Code were introduced in 1999. It is likely they will get even better in the future.

For baseball fans, an interesting police synopsis…

Judging from the public reaction, this police report is a home run. 🙂