In a decision released today, Mr. Justice Tysoe of the Supreme Court of British Columbia has declared that Mr. Ward’s constitutional Charter rights were violated when he was imprisoned and strip-searched and when his car was seized on August 1, 2004. The judge awarded damages totalling $10,100 against the defendants, the City of Vancouver and the Province of British Columbia.

The incident occurred on Vancouver’s east side, near an event attended by former Prime Minister Chretien. The police apparently believed that Mr. Ward, a Vancouver lawyer with an unblemished record, might somehow have been plotting to throw a cream pie at the Prime Minister. That of course was false, and despite conducting a lengthy further investigation, the Vancouver police have never been able to produce a shred of evidence to support such a ridiculous assertion.

Mr. Ward’s offers to accept an explanation and an apology from the authorities were rejected, as was his attempt to resolve the civil court case summarily. It is unknown how much taxpayer money the Defendants spent in the four and one half years that culminated in a six day trial. The Province of British Columbia was represented by three lawyers at trial, suggesting that it must have been an expensive exercise indeed.

Read the decision: 2007 BCSC 3 Ward v. City of Vancouver

This case highlights the inadequacies of the British Columbia police complaint process. After failing to obtain an apology, Mr. Ward lodged a formal complaint in 2002 with the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner. The OPCC assigned the investigation to the Abbotsford Police Department, a nearby police force, which found all the complaints about Vancouver Police conduct to be unsubstantiated. So, an impartial judge finds three complaints made out and finds that the police acted unlawfully, while police investigators had somehow reached an opposite conclusion! What’s wrong with this picture?

CTV news report

Kevin St. Arnaud

A coroner’s inquest into the death of Kevin St. Arnaud, 29, is finally scheduled to commence January 18, 2007 in Vanderhoof, B.C., more than two years after the young man was killed by police.

On December 19, 2004, Cst. Sheremetta of the Vanderhoof RCMP was pursuing Mr. St. Arnaud on foot across a soccer field because Mr. St. Arnaud was suspected to have recently committed a break and enter in a local shopping mall. According to a letter from Crown Counsel explaining that no charges would be laid against Sheremetta, Mr. St. Arnaud “came to a stop and put his arms in the air” when “Cst. Sheremetta was approximately fifteen to twenty feet from Mr. St. Arnaud.” When Mr. St. Arnaud “advanced” toward the officer, Cst. Sheremetta fired three bullets into Mr. St. Arnaud’s chest, killing him. Cst. Sheremetta’s female partner was nearby, watching this happen.

According to the letter from Crown Counsel, “no weapons were found on Mr. St. Arnaud.” There is no suggestion in the letter that Mr. St. Arnaud had anything in his possession that could be mistaken for a weapon: no penknife, no TV remote, no portable CD player…just some plastic pill containers. The letter does not explain how a person brandishing pill bottles can cause two police officers to fear for their lives and thereby justify such a shooting.

The inquest is expected to run until the end of the month.

RCMP Commissioner Zaccardelli has resigned, a day after his embarrassing testimony before a parliamentary committee about the Arar affair. The RCMP has some fundamental problems, and what it really needs is a good housecleaning and stronger accountability. Time will tell whether the appointment of a new Commissioner is anything more than a band-aid solution.

After presiding over a week long civil trial, the Honourable Mr. Justice Tysoe has reserved judgment in Ward v. City of Vancouver et al, SCBC Action No. S030038, Vancouver Registry.

Some of the background to this curious case can be found in the interlocutory judgment of Romilly, J.:

Click here to read the document.

October 5 update: Betty Krawczyk appeared before the Court today to learn that her criminal contempt of court trial has been adjourned to January 29, 2007. Mr. Ward withdrew as counsel, stating “Mrs. Krawczyk has instructed me to advise the Court that she perceives this prosecution to be unfair and an officially induced abuse of process. As a result of the ruling [that evidence of abuse of process is irrelevant and inadmissible] she feels she has no further need or desire for legal counsel and will defend herself when the trial resumes.”

September 29 update: Madam Justice Brown delivered oral reasons for judgment today, concluding that evidence intended to support an application for a stay of the prosecution as an abuse of process is irrelevant and inadmissible. The Crown then closed its case, after some eight days of testimony and argument. Ms. Krawczyk is scheduled to appear in BC Supreme Court on October 5, 2006, when dates for the criminal contempt trial’s continuation will be discussed.

September 25 update: The criminal trial of Betty Krawczyk resumes Tuesday, September 26th with legal argument on whether she can adduce evidence intended to establish that her prosecution for criminal contempt of court is an abuse of the court process. She seeks to call the Attorney General of BC or his delegate to explain why the police did not simply enforce the law, rendering an injunction order, an enforcement order and contempt proceedings unnecessary. The trial enters its sixth day, with more Crown evidence scheduled.

Renowned author, activist and environmentalist Betty Krawczyk faces trial this week on allegations that she disobeyed a court order pronounced in a civil action brought by the companies engaged in the Sea to Sky Highway improvement project. The Attorney General of BC has alleged that the symbolic actions of Krawczyk, 78, in putting herself in the path of excavation equipment to protest the destruction of Eagleridge Bluffs constitute criminal contempt of court.

Earlier, Madam Justice Brenda Brown rejected Krawczyk’s assertion that she had a constitutional right to trial by jury and is hearing the criminal case alone, without a jury. It is unclear what punishment “Betty K” will face if convicted. The trial is being conducted in the high security, multi-million dollar Vancouver courtroom built for the Air India trial.