Halifax man who won human rights case against police says the officers got off easy
Human rights board says officers discriminated against Gyasi Symonds, who is Black, with jaywalking ticket
Halifax's Gyasi Symonds says he's glad he won his human rights complaint against the Halifax Regional Police — but he says the two officers who racially discriminated against him got off with "a slap on the wrist."
The Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission ruled on Wednesday that constables Paul Cadieux and Steve Logan racially profiled Symonds, who is Black, when they stopped him for jaywalking in 2017, then followed him back to his place of work to issue a $410 ticket.
The board's chair ordered the police force to pay Symonds $15,232 and give him a written apology. He also suggests all new hires complete training in policing without bias.
"I'm happy that the hearing worked out in my favour, but I don't feel like it sent the message," Symonds, who represented himself in the case, told As It Happens host Carol Off.
"These decisions are supposed to be made in a way where it deters people from wanting to behave that way again. And, you know, it was such a mild decision that it's almost worthwhile to keep discriminating if you can maintain your job and maintain your pension and you only have to take a course and apologize."
'Humiliated and I was terrified'
Symonds was first stopped by police on Jan. 24, 2017, after he crossed the road from his Gottingen Street office to grab a coffee from the Nook Espresso Bar.
He says it's common for people who work in his building to dart across the street to Nook for their caffeine fix, and that several of his white colleagues had crossed moments before him with no trouble at all.
The officers told him he'd jaywalked, and said they were only stopping him for his "own well-being and safety," he said.
After about 15 minutes, they let him go. He picked up his coffee, and says he crossed back over using the lights at the nearby intersection.
I don't want the situation to ever happen again, so I am very hesitant to go get a coffee or a doughnut or frequent some of the restaurants on the street .
- Gyasi Symonds
But it didn't end there. A short time later, Symonds was back at his office when he got a call from the front desk. Police were in the building's lobby, and they were looking for "a Black man in a toque," he said.
The same two officers were waiting for him. They told Symonds they'd watched him leave the coffee shop, and saw him jaywalk again, which he denies. They asked for his ID and threatened to arrest him, he said.
"The whole demeanour and vibe of the situation was hostile," he said. "I was humiliated and I was terrified. I thought they were going to try to arrest me, and they were completely ready to do so. One had his hand on his gun."
Symonds' story was corroborated by Carolyn Brodie, the commissionaire working on the front desk of the lobby, who testified on his behalf in front of the human rights board of inquiry.
"She stated that she was worried the police were going to hurt Mr. Symonds, and that she was in shock by what she considered to be their disproportionate response," the ruling notes.
"She characterized Const. Cadieux's demeanour as not in control, and stated that he 'lost it' in response to Mr. Symonds speaking. She said the incident left her feeling shaken."
A
Halifax Regional Police badge is pictured. The force has been ordered
to pay a fine and apologize after a human rights board ruled two of its
officers racially profiled a Black man. (Dave Laughlin/CBC)
Halifax Regional Police told As It Happens the municipality is reviewing the decision to determine next steps, and declined to comment at the moment.
During the inquiry hearing, constables Cadieux and Logan defended their actions. They said they were following the rules, and that race did not play a role in their decision to pursue Symonds after he allegedly crossed in front of a stopped bus on his way back to work.
Officers denied wrongdoing
In his ruling, board of inquiry chair Benjamin Perryman said he was concerned about the decision of the officers to remain and observe Symonds after the first encounter.
"It subjected the complainant to policing that was different from other Nova Scotians going about their day. It was disproportionate to the circumstances of an individual crossing in the middle of the road to get a coffee and receiving informal education about jaywalking," he wrote.
"I find that race was a factor in the police officers' decision to target the complainant for surveillance and investigation."
While jaywalking is an offence under the province's Motor Vehicle Act, the ruling noted that Const. Logan told the tribunal he "had never issued such a ticket in his policing career. He further advised that reports for such tickets are normally only prepared where there is an accident."
Symonds says the whole ordeal has left him more wary than ever at work, especially knowing the two officers are still on duty.
"I don't want the situation to ever happen again, so I am very hesitant to go get a coffee or a doughnut or frequent some of the restaurants on the street that I do like," he said.
"A lot of times, I'm bound to my office now because it's not worthwhile to get in a confrontation with police."
Written by Sheena Goodyear with files from The Canadian Press. Interview with Gyasi Symonds produced by Chris Harbord.
Board rules ‘race was a factor’ in Halifax cops’ decision to ‘target’ Black man for jaywalking
Two Halifax Regional Police officers discriminated against a Black man when they watched him, followed him into his workplace and ticketed him for jaywalking four years ago, an independent board of inquiry of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission has ruled.
As a result, the municipality has been ordered to apologize to the complainant, boost anti-Black racism training for police and pay about $15,000 — much less than the complainant wanted.
The incident in question happened in January 2017. HRP constables Steve Logan and Pierre Paul Cadieux confronted Gyasi Symonds after he crossed Gottingen Street mid-block to get a coffee at the Nook. The two officers gave Symonds a warning for jaywalking, he asked if he was free to go, and then walked into the café.
But the encounter didn’t end there. The officers, rookie beat cops assigned to the Gottingen area, hung around the block and watched Symonds cross the street again.
As the Halifax Examiner reported following one of the three days of the board of inquiry hearing in November 2020, the officers said Symonds jaywalked again and was almost hit by a bus. Symonds said he crossed at the crosswalk.
Gyasi
Symonds was accused of jaywalking across Gottingen Street twice at this
location — between the Nook and his workplace across the street — in
January 2017. — Photo: Google Streetview
The officers then followed Symonds into his workplace at 2131 Gottingen St., also known as the MacDonald building, and told the commissionaire they were looking for “a Black man in a toque.” The commissionaire, Carolyn Brodie, testified that “One of them said, ‘He jaywalked and we’re trying to save his life.’”
Eventually Symonds came down to the lobby from his office, an argument ensued, and the officers ticketed Symonds for failing to “yield the right of way to vehicles upon the roadway,” as the Motor Vehicle Act describes it.
Symonds filed a complaint to the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission, alleging the two officers discriminated against him on the basis of his race in contravention of the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act. The commission set up an independent board of inquiry, chaired by lawyer Benjamin Perryman, to hear the complaint in November.
In his 50-page decision released Wednesday, Perryman found the two officers did in fact discriminate against Symonds.
“I find that race was a factor in the police officers’ decision to target the Complainant for surveillance and investigation. This decision resulted in a summary offence ticket and constitutes adverse treatment,” Perryman wrote.
Perryman found the initial interaction between the officers and Symonds, when they approached him on his way into the Nook, wasn’t discriminatory.
“Informal education, done properly, does not create an adverse impact in the provision of services. Even if it did, I am satisfied that race or colour played no factor in Cst. Cadieux’s decision to provide informal education in this case,” Perryman wrote.
He referred to that interaction as Interaction #1. What he calls Interaction #2 was more problematic, Perryman ruled:
What happened next is extraordinary and does constitute discrimination contrary to the Act. Instead of continuing on their patrol, Cst. Logan and Cst. Cadieux decided to target the Complainant for further investigation and surveillance. Race was a factor in this decision.
Cst. Logan admitted that the two officers decided to “wait” for the Complainant to exit the Nook. When asked by counsel for the Commission if this behaviour was normal, Cst. Logan responded that the officers “didn’t have to be anywhere.” He also added that the decision to wait was a “deescalating tactic” to deter the Complainant from jaywalking again.
…
The officers clearly decided to wait for the Complainant and to target him for further investigation and surveillance.
The only subjective ground offered for this targeting decision was Cst. Logan’s belief in further surveillance as a “deescalating tactic”. He did not state that he believed it was likely that the Complainant would commit another summary offence or that he had reasonable suspicion that this might occur or even that he had a mere hunch.
…
Objectively, the decision to target the Complainant for further investigation and surveillance was disproportionate to the circumstances. At best, the officers had observed a contravention of the Motor Vehicle Act, one they found sufficiently minor so as to warrant informal education only. The Board was not provided with any objective evidence to suggest that a person who has committed a Motor Vehicle Act violation is more likely to commit another summary offence shortly thereafter.
Cst. Logan’s and Cst. Cadieux’s decision to target the Complainant for investigation and surveillance constitutes an adverse impact in the provision of policing services. It subjected the Complainant to policing that was different from other Nova Scotians going about their day. It was disproportionate to the circumstances of an individual crossing in the middle of the road to get a coffee and receiving informal education about jaywalking.
Perryman found no other discrimination in the ensuing interactions, but went through them anyway.
On the contested issue of the second street crossing, Perryman sided with Symonds, finding the officers’ testimony didn’t match up with their notes:
Based on my assessment of the credibility and reliability of the evidence before me, I find it more likely than not that the Complainant did not jaywalk on his return trip. I do not go so far as to find that the HRP officers constructed their evidence or that they decided to ticket the Complainant out of malice or other impropriety. They may have thought they observed something that would warrant a summary offence ticket. However, on the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that there was a good basis for issuing such a ticket and there was certainly no basis whatsoever to be targeting the Complainant in the first place.
Perryman found that the officers overreacted in the lobby, Interaction #3, but didn’t find that they discriminated against Symonds there:
The evidence before me suggests that the officers, particularly Cst. Cadieux, came into the lobby of the MacDonald Building much hotter than was to be expected in the circumstances, even taking into consideration the preceding interactions they had with the Complainant. But I am not satisfied that Interaction #3 was as one-sided as the Complainant suggests. He had to be told that he could be arrested for obstruction if he did not produce his identification. He was contesting the legitimacy of the officers’ actions and threatening a complaint against them. This was not a cordial interaction.
…
Based on my assessment of the credibility and reliability of the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the Complainant has proven, on a balance of probabilities, that race or colour were factors in how he was treated in the lobby of the MacDonald Building. The interaction should not have happened because the Complainant should not have been targeted. But the Complainant was not treated differently than a White pedestrian would have been in similar circumstances.
The inquiry also identified significant gaps in HRP’s training, but Perryman didn’t find the lack of training to be discriminatory:
Staff Sgt. MacDonald also explained that neither Cst. Cadieux nor Cst. Logan had received “block training” in de-escalation or “legitimate and bias-free policing” until after the incident. The HRP’s “verbal judo” course in de-escalation was offered in 2017 after the incident. The HRP’s “legitimate and bias-free policing” course was offered in 2009 (before the officers joined the force) but was not offered again until 2018 (after the incident). The reasons for this large time gap in providing the bias-free policing course are not clear.
Based on the record before me, I find that it is more likely than not that the Respondent’s approach to training police officers contributed to the actions of Cst. Logan and Cst. Cadieux. HRM allowed the HRP to operate for almost a decade without offering the “legitimate and biasfree policing” course. As Staff Sgt. MacDonald explained: “the basic idea [of this course] was to help people examine any bias that they might have and how it might affect their actions.” I cannot say definitively that Cst. Logan and Cst. Cadieux would have acted differently if they had received more comprehensive EDI training, but I can say that their lack of EDI training contributed to their actions and to the adverse impact experienced by the complaint.
As already stated, an adverse impact alone does not constitute discrimination. Inadequate training that contributes to an adverse impact will only amount to discrimination where a protected characteristic is a factor in the inadequate training. The Board was not presented with evidence to explain the Respondent’s decisions regarding police training. Accordingly, it cannot be concluded that the inadequate training was discriminatory under the Act
Symonds, who represented himself in the hearing, sought significant damages. He requested $1,600 in wages lost attending the hearing, $400,000 to compensate for past and future lost income, and $400,000 in general damages for pain and suffering.
Along with the money, he wanted Logan and Cadieux fired, criminally prosecuted, forced to write 2,000-word essays, forced to apologize publicly and mandated to undergo anti-racism training. He also sought apologies from the municipality and police, and mandatory anti-racism training for all “high-level staff and officers” with a report to the Board of Police Commissioners confirming the details of the training.
Symonds calculated the lost wages based on his assertion that he was passed up for multiple promotions based on the incident happening at his workplace. Symonds also said he was PTSD as a result of the incident, he now fears the police, and “that the interactions were humiliating and caused lasting psychological and physiological damage.”
HRM’s lawyers argued Symonds should only get $15,000 and that the non-monetary damages were covered by HRP’s new Journey to Change training program (the one councillors added $60,000 to the budget for).
Perryman found Symonds didn’t back up his financial requests, and in total, he awarded him little more than $15,000.
First, he declined to allow any money for past and future lost income, arguing Symonds provided insufficient evidence related to the jobs he applied for.
On the general damages, Perryman compared Symonds’ situation to other cases and found “$14,000 is warranted in the circumstances.” He especially compared Symonds’ case to that of a Black mail carrier in Toronto who was carded by police while doing his job.
That man, Ronald Phipps, got the equivalent of $12,245 in current dollars. Perryman found Symonds’ case was worse both because of the circumstances in the lobby of Symonds’ workplace, and because HRP has so failed to train its officers:
For reasons that are unclear, HRM permitted the HRP to operate for close to a decade without offering its training course on legitimate and bias-free policing. In the relevant time period, HRM took no steps to ensure that new police officers received EDI [Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion] training before interfacing with the public. As a result, Cst. Logan and Cst. Cadieux did not receive this training until they had already discriminated against the Complainant. This failure to train contributed to the harm experienced by the Complainant.
Perryman also awarded Symonds $810 for lost wages to attend the hearing, calculating the figure based on Symonds’ salary, and another $413 to reimburse Symonds for the ticket, which he paid in order to renew his licence.
The total monetary award is $15,223.
On the non-monetary remedies, Perryman wrote that the human rights board of inquiry has no power to fire or prosecute Logan and Cadieux, and “Termination would also be excessive in the circumstances.”
Perryman wrote that the board could force the officers to apologize or write essays, but he was “concerned that the essay and some of the apologies requested by the Complainant are more about punishment than redress.”
He did, however, order the municipality to apologize to Symonds and provide the Journey to Change training to both officers.
Without knowing the details of what it would cost to provide that training to all officers, Perryman didn’t order HRP to provide it, but did write that all officers “should be required to successfully complete training in legitimate and bias-free policing before they commence active duty and all current police officers should be required to retake and successfully complete such training periodically.”
Perryman also wrote that the “performance metrics the HRP uses to evaluate this type of training and its EDI-related courses should be publicly available as well as the data resulting from these performance metrics.”
The Examiner asked the police and the municipality for comment on Wednesday, asking for a response to the decision, whether the officers will face further discipline, whether HRP will train all officers, and whether HRP will make the performance metrics and data public.
Neera Ritcey with HRP said the municipality, not the police, would respond “as HRM legal represented in this case.” Municipal spokesperson Maggie-Jane Spray said that response would come Thursday. The Examiner will update this story when it comes.
Update — May 6, 2021:
Spray emailed the Examiner the following statement, answering none of our questions:
The municipality is reviewing the decision from the Human Rights Commission to determine next steps. There is no further information available at this time.
Zane Woodford is the Halifax Examiner’s municipal reporter. He covers Halifax City Hall and contributes to our ongoing PRICED OUT housing series. Twitter @zwoodford
Court backs Nova Scotia Police Review Board ruling on racial profiling complaint
Black driver had requested another opinion about her 2020 arrest
The Supreme Court of Nova Scotia sided with the Nova Scotia Police Review Board in its decision to dismiss a complaint from a Black woman who says she was racially profiled when police pulled her over and arrested her in 2020.
"I find that the decision of the board was reasonable. I see no reason for it to be disturbed. This application for judicial review is dismissed," Justice Denise Boudreau noted in her decision dated Feb 7, 2024.
Kayla Borden was driving her vehicle in Dartmouth, N.S., during the early morning hours of July 27, 2020, when she was stopped, handcuffed and arrested by police.
The officers — Const. Scott Martin and Const. Jason Meisner — mistakenly believed she was a driver who fled from another police officer earlier that evening. Meisner said Borden's vehicle was the suspect's and Martin arrested her.
Borden was under arrest "for less than one minute" when another officer arrived and told Meisner and Martin they had the wrong person. Borden was then "released" from arrest, though she was detained a few more minutes for an ID check.
A
ruling from the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia dated earlier this month
dismissed an application for judicial review of a Nova Scotia Police
Review Board decision on alleged racial profiling. (Anjuli Patil/CBC)
After the incident, Borden filed a complaint alleging the stop and arrest were unlawful, that it was racially motivated or was caused by racial profiling. She wanted the two officers to be formally disciplined by the Nova Scotia Police Review Board. The board found Borden's arrest "unfortunate" but lawful. It also found there was no evidence racial profiling was a factor in her arrest.
Borden provided three reasons to the police review board on why the officers deserved disciplinary sanction:
- That they had unlawfully arrested her.
- That they had not provided her with a right to counsel.
- That racial profiling had been a factor in the initiation and continuation of her arrest.
In its decision, the board found none of these concerns "had been borne out by the evidence" and Borden's complaints were dismissed.
For the court case, Borden wanted a review of the board's decision. She says it made an error in law when it determined Martin had lawful grounds to arrest her, that there was no racial profiling at play in her detention and no violation in her right to counsel.
While reviewing Borden's application, Boudreau noted the question was whether the police review board was reasonable in both its reasoning and conclusion to not discipline Martin and Meisner.
"In my view, the board did identify the appropriate test for assessing the reasonableness of an arrest and did engage with the evidence to apply the test properly to the facts as it found them," Boudreau wrote in the decision.
"Having found that the officer did have reasonable grounds to arrest, there was no Code of Conduct violation for the board to address further."
Borden said she was not provided her right to counsel after her arrest. While this was true, Borden was only detained for under a minute and the board had said there was no time.
"I cannot find anything unreasonable about the Board's reasoning and conclusions as to this issue," Boudreau said in her decision.
On racial profiling, the board noted Martin did not know Borden's race when he was approaching the vehicle and that he had already decided to arrest her before he saw her.
"I might also note (although the board did not explicitly note this in their reasoning), Const. Martin's evidence to the effect that he arrests everyone using the same procedure," Boudreau said.
"This evidence, and these findings, led the Board to the conclusion that racism or racial bias, either conscious or unconscious, were not factors in what occurred. Given the evidence before them, and their factual findings, their conclusions were entirely reasonable."
For more stories about the experiences of Black Canadians — from anti-Black racism to success stories within the Black community — check out Being Black in Canada, a CBC project Black Canadians can be proud of. You can read more stories here.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Kayla Borden’s appeal hearing to continue after being adjourned for almost a year
A Nova Scotia Police Review Board appeal hearing for two Halifax Regional Police officers accused of racial bias continues Monday after being adjourned for nearly a year.
Halifax Regional Police Chief Dan Kinsella was expected to testify last December on the fourth day of the appeal hearing into a complaint by Kayla Borden against members of Halifax police when the hearing was suddenly adjourned. The hearing was supposed to continue in January this year.
In an interview with the Halifax Examiner on Sunday, Borden said she doesn’t believe Kinsella is scheduled to testify at the hearing this week and that he’ll likely testify at a later date.
Borden said five of the other officers who were present when she was arrested are expected to testify this week.
“I feel like these officers need to take accountability for their actions,” Borden said. “This happens to too many people, especially in the Black community where to make these wrongful arrests and there’s no accountability for it. They just get slapped on the wrist and move on with their job.”
Constables Scott Martin and Jason Meisner were the arresting officers on July 28, 2020, when Borden’s car was stopped at a Burnside intersection in the wee hours of the morning.
Borden’s grey Dodge Avenger was mistaken for a black Pontiac without a licence plate driven by a white man in a black baseball cap that Cst. Stewart McCulley had spotted earlier in Halifax.
McCulley briefly pursued the vehicle before it sped off. He was then instructed to end the pursuit.
Borden said she saw who she thinks was the first officer to initially spot her car while she was still in Halifax on her way home to Dartmouth.
“I pulled over because he had his lights on, so he passed me, so he seen who I was. I pretty sure he seen I was a Black person when he drove by,” Borden said during her interview with the Examiner on Sunday. “So, for them to say they didn’t think that I was Black before they pulled me over, but the officer that drove past me obviously seen that I was a Black female.”
Another officer spotted Borden’s car and mistook it for the car McCully described. Several officers pursued Borden from a distance before pulling her over, placing her in handcuffs and arresting her.
Borden was not read her rights and said when she asked why she was being arrested she was told, “We’ll see in a minute.”
Half a dozen police officers were on the scene when McCully pulled up, saw it was the wrong car and had a licence plate, unlike the one he described pursuing. He relayed the information to the dispatch, and drove off without speaking to Borden or the other officers.
The police took the handcuffs off Borden and told her she was no longer under arrest, but they continued to detain her while they recorded her licence and registration information into their database.
After initially being told there was no record of her arrest, Borden filed a complaint.
See also:
- Kayla Borden testifies in first day of Nova Scotia Police Board appeal
- “Epic failure” and “cancel culture”: It’s been quite a week for Halifax policing
- After three days of testimony, Kayla Borden’s appeal hearing adjourned until January
Borden said it was not her wish to limit the scope of her complaint to just constables Martin and Meisner, but that the decision was made unilaterally by Sgt. Jonathan Jefferies, who investigated the complaint.
The complaint was dismissed by Insp. Derrick Boyd in his former role as officer-in-charge of the Professional Standards Division.
Borden appealed that decision.
Borden, Martin, and Meisner were present with their lawyers and a city lawyer representing the Halifax Regional Police during the first days of the appeal hearing last December.
The hearing heard testimony from Borden, McCully, and constables Andrew Nicholson, Jeffery Pulsifer, and Andrew Joudrey, who were present when Borden was arrested.
Police lawyer Andrew Gough attempted to get subpoenas quashed for then inspector, now superintendent, Boyd, and Halifax Police Chief Dan Kinsella to testify at the hearing.
The review board agreed to quash Boyd’s subpoena but upheld Kinsella’s.
The hearing is scheduled for four days, starting today at 9:30am at Best Western Plus Dartmouth.
Halifax police officer returns to work after sexual assault charge stayed
Const. Pierre Paul Cadieux was charged with sexual assault in June 2018
A Halifax police officer has returned to work after a sexual assault charge against him was stayed.
Crown prosecution determined a conviction against Const. Pierre Paul Cadieux was unlikely.
"At this time and as the case evolved, it was clear to us that there was no realistic prospect of conviction," Chris Hansen, spokesperson for the Public Prosecution Service, said Wednesday.
A stayed charge means the Crown can reinstate the charge within one year.
Cadieux was charged with sexual assault in June 2018. It was alleged that he sexually assaulted another employee of the police department in 2016.
Police said Cadieux was not a member of the force at the time of the alleged assault, but was training at the Atlantic Police Academy.
Cadieux was suspended with pay and was expected to appear in Nova Scotia Supreme Court in March.
At the time of his arrest, police said the alleged incident was not random and Cadieux and the complainant knew one another. Police would not reveal the gender of the complainant or whether that person was also an officer.
Cadieux told CBC News he returned to work on Monday to continue training to be an officer.
He said he hopes to rejoin the volunteer fire department where he was working before the allegation.
With files from Blair Rhodes
Halifax police officer charged with sexual assault
Pierre Paul Cadieux was training to be a Halifax Regional Police officer at time of alleged incident
Update, July 22, 2020: The Public Prosecution Service of Nova Scotia has stayed sexual assault charge against Cadieux and he has returned to work.
A Halifax police officer has been charged with sexual assaulting a fellow Halifax Regional Police employee somewhere in the municipality in mid-2016.
Const. Pierre Paul Cadieux was arrested by Halifax Regional Police Tuesday morning and was released in the afternoon with conditions.
Police say Cadieux was not a Halifax Regional Police employee at the time of the alleged incident, but he was training at the Atlantic Police Academy to become an officer with the force.
Police said the alleged assault was not random, stating Cadieux and his accuser knew one another.
Cadieux has been suspended with pay in accordance with the Nova Scotia Police Act, Halifax Regional Police said. (Robert Short/CBC)
Supt. Jim Perrin wouldn't reveal the gender of the complainant or whether she or he was an officer or not.
"Our employees' conduct is critical to building and maintaining the public's trust. Any instance of an HRP employee being charged is one too many. We take these matters very seriously," said Perrin.
"Obviously the public deserves to expect that their police officers will perform and act with the highest of integrity, and although we don't expect the public to judge us on isolated incidents, we also … recognize that when a police officer is charged, it's troubling. It's troubling for the community, it's troubling for the organization."
Perrin said although the incident occurred in 2016, the complaint was not filed until May 25, 2018.
"The whole experience of sexual assault for the victims, it's complex.… We recognize the victim's power to report it to the police when the time is right for them."
Supt. Jim Perrin is the officer in charge of the criminal investigation division. (Dave Laughlin/CBC)
Cadieux is scheduled to appear at Dartmouth provincial court July 31. He has been suspended with pay for a minimum of 60 days, at which point the police chief will decide whether to continue the payments, Perrin said.
Police said Cadieux has less than two years of service with Halifax Regional Police. He's also listed as station chief for Lake Echo's volunteer fire department.
Halifax police consulted with Nova Scotia's police watchdog, the Serious Incident Response Team (SIRT), about the case, but since Cadieux was not an officer at the time of the alleged assault, it was deemed not to fit SIRT's mandate.
Officer Peeping Pierre-Paul Cadieux
Retired Mountie backs ex-colleague's analysis in Assoun wrongful conviction case
'I looked at what he did because I could see his worksheets and I thought it was pretty sound'
At least two RCMP analysts concluded that Glen Assoun didn't kill Brenda Way.
Since documents relating to Assoun's wrongful murder conviction were released on July 12, the role of retired RCMP Const. Dave Moore has been widely reported.
It was Moore, using the RCMP's Violent Crimes Analysis Linkage System, or ViCLAS, who first identified serial killer Michael McGray as a more likely suspect.
Moore's information was not passed on to Assoun's defence team. When he returned from a two-week vacation, Moore had been transferred out of the ViCLAS unit and his files were destroyed.
Fellow retired Mountie Giles Blinn, who supported some of Moore's conclusions, finds that extremely unusual.
"Only people with certain rights can delete worksheets," Blinn said Thursday. "It could only be a supervisor or someone else working on the file."
Following the release of the Assoun files, the RCMP acknowledged that information had been deleted.
"The deletions were contrary to policy and shouldn't have happened," an RCMP statement issued on July 12 read.
"They were not done, however, with malicious intent," the statement added.
RCMP says policy has been changed
In response to an inquiry from CBC, the RCMP issued a further statement on July 15, which said a policy change means one ViCLAS user can no longer delete another user's files.
"It falls somewhat short of explaining what actually happened," Blinn said from his home in New Brunswick.
He retired last year with the rank of staff sergeant after 31 years in the RCMP.
In the early 2000s, Blinn was a ViCLAS analyst in New Brunswick. He reviewed Moore's work.
"I looked at what he did because I could see his worksheets and I thought it was pretty sound," Blinn said. "It was good."
Blinn did his own analysis of McGray's cases and found a possible link to the Way murder. But Blinn didn't pursue it further.
He said ViCLAS analysts didn't always hear what police forces did with the information they provided.
ViCLAS was created in the aftermath of the case of Paul Bernardo, the notorious murderer and serial rapist who preyed on women in southern Ontario. He was eventually declared a dangerous offender and is locked up indefinitely.
Moore praised for going beyond the basics
But police at the time recognized that they didn't always see similarities or connections in cases. ViCLAS was meant to fill that gap with analysts in every part of the country.
Blinn said Moore was very good at his job and would go beyond the basic work of an analyst. Blinn said he would do that as well, but he said there was one critical difference. "I had the support of my superiors."
It is no secret that Moore clashed with others in the RCMP.
Dave Moore's information was not passed on to Assoun's defence team. (Dave Moore/Twitter)
In February 1989, while he was stationed in Prince Edward Island, Moore was charged with forcible confinement for his treatment of an accused man.
He hired famed defence attorney Edward Greenspan to represent him. Greenspan described the charge as "BS" and "a joke" and said he had the sense that if Moore had offered to resign, the charge would have been withdrawn.
Moore also faced internal disciplinary charges but was found not guilty. The criminal charge against him was eventually stayed.
By then, he had transferred to Nova Scotia, where he initially received glowing performance assessments for his work. But, in 1998, Moore clashed with a superior officer, accusing him of failing to assist in an arrest and even concealing evidence.
Blinn backs ex-colleague's work
Moore said by the time he was examining the Assoun file, he believed others in the RCMP were out to get him.
Blinn acknowledged that his friend and former colleague was outspoken, but he said his work in this case was correct.
Moore's research on the Assoun case was done in 2004. It never made it to Assoun's lawyer, who in 2006 was unsuccessful in appealing the murder conviction.
It wasn't until 2014 that Assoun was released on strict bail conditions while an investigator from the federal Justice Department reviewed his case. He was only exonerated in March of this year.
No comments:
Post a Comment