In February 2023, the board imposed a one-hour time limit on public delegations and required presenters to submit comments in writing ahead of the meeting
A lawsuit arguing that the Ottawa Police Services Board’s public delegations policy infringes on freedom of expression is headed to small claims court.
The lawsuit, which is seeking $27,500 in damages and changes to the policy, originally included six community groups and four individuals. The amended lawsuit has two individual plaintiffs — Robin Browne and Jeffrey Bradley — and one community group, 613-819 Black Hub.
Yavar Hameed, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the police services board had sought to have the lawsuit dismissed as “inflammatory, a waste of time or a nuisance,” but the case is now headed to court with amendments.
In November 2022, activists disrupted a board meeting in what they called an act of civil disobedience.
In February 2023, the board imposed a one-hour time limit on all public delegations at its monthly meetings. The new rules required presenters to submit their comments in writing ahead of the meeting. The board also said it would give priority to speakers who had not appeared in the previous three months.
The original lawsuit was filed in August 2023. The statement of claim alleged that before Feb. 27, 2023, public delegations were not required to submit the text of their submission in advance.
“The new requirement accordingly acts as a means of screening the message of public delegates and/or censoring their input,” said the statement of claim. “The plaintiffs feel chilled in their expression should they raise criticism of the board of the OPS.”
None of the allegations have been proven in court.
Evening Update
The statement of claim argues that board practices violate the plaintiffs’ rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the restrictions “constitute substantial interference with expression.”
“The board exercises its participation restrictions selectively, by imposing strict time limits, standing and other restrictions on the plaintiffs. However, these same restrictions are not placed on others who may seek to make submissions before the board, including city councillors who support a multi-million dollar investment in the Ottawa Police Services’s new South Facility,” said the statement of claim.
The plaintiffs argue that the mandate of the police services board requires public consultation.
“The board has developed a custom of allowing public participation that has become a normal part of its democratic function in its administration of oversight and governance of police service,” said the statement of claim.
Browne, the co-ordinator of 613-819 Black Hub, an advocacy group for people of African descent, said the board imposed restrictions on public participation that the city would never have dared to try to impose on other committees.
When there are important decisions to be made, some city committees listen to delegations for hours, he said.
“But for the police board, that is too many. Now the police services board will have to defend those restrictions in court,” said Browne, who was among those who participated in the November 2022 civil disobedience incident.
“We recognize that there are limits,” said Hameed. “But when the board is censoring individuals and groups, that is protected under the charter. This is essentially a freedom of expression matter.”
Governments don’t have to offer a platform for freedom of expression. But Hameed argues that in this case there is “differentiated treatment” for some individuals and groups who want to address the police board.
“For these plaintiffs, it’s a fundamental matter of public concern,” he said. “Is the board beyond review or reproach? The issue that the court has to grapple with is whether it is fair to have this ‘vetting’ going on.”
Bradley said the restrictions placed on delegations have been arbitrary. When the late Diane Deans was chair of the police board — she was ousted from the board in February 2022 during the convoy protest — making a presentation was a matter of sending a message to the board administrator. Under the new rules, those who wish to address the board must submit a written version of their presentation in advance. Some community members find that daunting, he said.
“It’s not really about the money. It’s more about making sure they’re properly consulting with the public. We’re not asking for that much. We’re asking for a policy change. The fact that it has to go to court is unfortunate,” said Bradley, a PhD student in legal studies at Carleton University and a member of the Criminalization and Punishment Education Project, an advocacy group that includes criminologists, researchers, students, frontline workers and people in the community.
“The main purpose is to go back to the previous policy, so members of the public that have a critical perspective can make their voices heard.”
In a statement released Monday, police services board chair Salim Fakirani said the board does not comment on ongoing judicial matters so as not to prejudice any ongoing proceedings.
“However, I wish to highlight that to effectively undertake its oversight responsibilities, the Ottawa Police Service Board must understand the needs, concerns and priorities of the community,” said Fakirani.
“It gathers that kind of input through several mechanisms, one of which is through hearing delegations at board meetings. We want to continually improve police services in our city, and to do that, we need residents to share their concerns or innovative ideas. The board entertains public delegations at its regular monthly meetings. As these are business meetings, the topic of these delegations must be within the board’s mandate.”
Our website is your destination for up-to-the-minute news, so make sure to bookmark our homepage and sign up for our newsletters so we can keep you informed.
