Hearing begins in G20 civil trial
P OLICE SEARCHED BAG, TOOK GOGGLES: RARE CIVIL TRIAL STEMMING FROM G20 TO START
A man whose swimming goggles were confiscated by officers following a search of his backpack on the eve of the turbulent G20 summit in Toronto in 2010 is expected to testify today at the start of a hearing into his lawsuit against the city’s police oversight board.
Numerous legal actions, officer disciplinary hearings and criminal proceedings have flowed from the summit that saw indiscriminate mass arrests and detentions, but this may be the only such civil suit to actually go to trial, according to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
In his statement of claim initially filed in 2011, Luke Stewart, of Kitchener, Ont., argues police officers assaulted and wrongfully detained him, violating several of his constitutional rights. He wants Superior Court to award him $100,000 in damages.
The defendant police services board denies any liability, claiming police were simply doing their jobs, and blames Stewart for any problems he encountered when he went to a downtown park carrying a backpack while planning to take part in a protest.
In an incident captured on video, Stewart says he went to Allan Gardens on the Friday afternoon of the summit weekend in June 2010. He says several officers demanded to search his bag as a condition of entry into the park. When he refused and tried to get to the protest, he alleges the officers “assaulted and battered him,” illegally searched his bag, and confiscated his swimming goggles.
“The plaintiff was unlawfully detained for 12 minutes,” his claim asserts. “The officers acted with malice and bad faith.”
The statement of claim also alleges police, under orders from superiors, were planning to form a perimeter around the park with the aim of searching “every person with a bag” trying to enter the area. The plan and orders, the claim alleges, violated the charter.
“Senior police officers ... gave orders they knew were unlawful,” the claim asserts.
In response, the police services board says officers were doing their best to preserve the peace and defend public property under provincial trespassing law. What they were doing at Allan Gardens was legal, the board says in its statement of defence.