Which cop shot me?
This lawyer wants this politician to answer this victim’s question . . .
‘It seems to be secrecy for the sake of secrecy’
The Special Investigations Unit investigator was waiting outside the door to the Brampton courtroom, minutes from taking the stand. With him was the complete investigative file on case #15OFD-046 — information that, so far, had been treated as a state secret.
Suzan Zreik’s quest for information and justice had come to this: subpoenaing the lead investigator on her case, via a drastic legal manoeuvre.
There was no other way, she felt, to know which Peel police officer shot her.
In the evening of March 20, 2015, Zreik, 22, was in the kitchen of her Mississauga home when a stray bullet pierced through her window and lodged into her back, one inch from her spine. It had to be surgically removed. Zreik’s struggle to learn the firing officer’s identity has propelled her into a legal battle against traditions of privacy, secrecy and anonymity surrounding police shootings — a battle that required a private prosecution that was arguably a shot in the dark of her own.
The bullet that flew into her back was one of 19 unloaded by three Peel Regional Police officers inside a residential complex, after police responded to a call about a woman threatening a neighbour with a knife.
When police officers had arrived to arrest the woman allegedly making the threats, her 22-yearold son, Marc Ekamba-Boekwa, came to the home’s door holding a six-inch knife, according to the SIU.
Astruggle ensued, and all three officers fired multiple rounds, shooting Ekamba-Boekwa 11 times and sending eight other bullets flying through the neighbourhood. One struck one of the officers in his bulletproof vest, causing minor injuries. Another hit Zreik.
Last November, the SIU, the civilian watchdog that investigates police incidents involving serious injury or death, ruled the unnamed officers’ conduct was legally justified. No charges would be laid in EkambaBoekwa’s death or in Zreik’s shooting.
In the words of SIU director Tony Loparco, Zreik was “in the wrong place at the wrong time through no criminal fault of anyone else.”
Michael Moon, Zreik’s lawyer, disagrees.
“There are palpable grounds to believe that my client, who was in her house, was shot by a police officer in what we allege is criminally negligent conduct. They should know the consequences when they just unleash a fusillade of bullets in a crowded residential complex.”
Days after the officers were cleared, Moon demanded a copy of the SIU director’s report, containing witness testimony, evidence from the scene and additional information to help explain the watchdog’s decision.
To determine what to do next, he and Zreik would need to know more about the SIU’s probe and the rationale for the director’s decision — particularly since none of the officers agreed to be interviewed or provide their notes, as is their legal right. And they would need to know who shot Zreik.
But SIU director’s reports are secret, sent only to Ontario’s attorney general. Not even the victim of a police shooting or that person’s family can access them.
In the face of public protest and an ongoing investigation by the Star into SIU secrecy, pressure has been mounting at Queen’s Park and across the province for the Liberal government to begin releasing these reports, something already done in other provinces.
When Moon was refused access to the director’s report and told to file a freedom of information request — “a request that goes into the darkness” — he asked the watchdog to at least afford Zreik “the dignity of knowing the identity of the police officer who shot and caused such grievous injury to her.”
The SIU refused to provide the information, citing privacy restrictions.
So Moon began a fact-finding mission, launching his own investigation by conducting interviews of witnesses and reading comment sections of news stories about the shooting, looking for clues. A break came when an anonymous tip landed at his office, suggesting Peel Const. Jennifer Whyte was the cop who shot Zreik.
Armed with his findings, earlier this month Moon took the unconventional legal step of launching a private prosecution against Whyte — an attempt on behalf of Zreik to make Whyte face the charge of criminal negligence causing bodily harm.
It is an uncommon route to criminal charges, which are usually laid by police, but Canada’s justice system allows a private citizen who has reasonable grounds to believe a person committed a crime to cause a charge to be laid.
The process is initiated when the citizen goes before a justice of the peace and swears their information under oath. That launches a gatekeeping hearing, called a pre-enquete, where the merits of the case are tested.
Moon’s private prosecution caused Whyte to be charged with criminal negligence, and a pre-enquete date was set for April 22.
During the pre-enquete, cross-examination of the complainant who caused the charge to be laid, or of key witnesses, is permitted. Moon subpoenaed the man who could shed the most light on Zreik’s shooting: lead SIU investigator John Line. Moon says he required Line to bring the full investigative file on Zreik’s case.
“He was going to be cross-examined on witnesses . . . where the witnesses were, what they said,” Moon said in an interview. “It would have aired it all out in the courtroom.”
But just as the closed-doors hearing was about to begin, the Crown prosecutor stayed the charge against Whyte. According to Moon, Crown prosecutor Philip Perlmutter told him that, while Whyte was one of the officers involved in the shooting, forensic evidence showed the bullet did not come from her gun.
Moon says he was not told, however, which officer was responsible.
“This is the other aspect of this absolutely secrecy, is that mistakes like this happen,” Moon said, of filing the charge against the wrong officer. “It seems to be secrecy for the sake of secrecy.”
Paul O’Marra, the lawyer representing Whyte, called the proceedings “completely unmeritorious and unnecessary.” O’Marra said his client was cleared by both the SIU and an internal investigation by Peel police and has been “very affected” by the shooting.
“To bring a criminal proceeding against a police officer like that, and have her name out there, I think is just wrong,” O’Marra said.
Paul Black, president of the Peel Regional Police Association, said Moon was “cavalier in his attempt to undermine the excellent work our officers do” and called the private prosecution “misguided.”
“The courts have rightfully stopped this process,” he said in an email.
Brendan Crawley, a spokesperson for the Ministry of the Attorney General, could not confirm forensic evidence was the reason the charge was stayed, but he said it was done after “a thorough review by senior Crown counsel of all relevant and available evidence.”
“As no charges were laid, we are not legally permitted to provide any details about the case and private information, including the identity of any individuals named in the Information nor the nature of the charge,” he said in an email.
Crawley added that the government is aware the public wants more transparency and accountability from the SIU. An upcoming review and public consultations on police oversight in Ontario “will guide, among other things, when and how best to release the information in these types of reports in the future,” he said.
Moon said not knowing who shot her has left Zreik with a “palpable fear and sense of powerlessness.”
Moon and Zreik are now considering next steps, including filing an application for a judicial review of the SIU’s decision.