DEAF BLACK MAN CHALLENGES POLICE ETHICS TRIBUNAL'S VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
Montreal, March 15, 2011 --- A deaf and indigent Black man in his sixties has, with CRARR's help, filed for judicial review of a Police Ethics Committee's decision that resulted in the violation of his constitutional rights when the tribunal heard his case without an interpreter.
On October 21, 2008, a police intervention took place in his social housing building and his door was broken. He witnessed the arrest of his neighbor R.B. and didn't receive any explanation from the police officers.
The next day, his community worker, Ms. J.D., was shown the damages to his door. Mr. Chérilus then wrote a complaint to the Police Ethics.Commissioner. On August 30, 2010, his complaint was rejected. In his investigation, the Commissioner did not gather neither the testimony of R.B. nor that of J.D., and did not mention the police intervention leading to the arrest of R.B.
On September 10, 2010, Mr. Chérilus submits an application for review to the Police Ethics Committee. The eve of the hearing on December 14, 2010, the petitioner presents himself to the office of the Committee to inform a secretary that he is deaf and that he will be attending without counsel. At the hearing on the next day, he informs the administrative judge of this fact. The judge then communicates with him by writing and explains to him the process. At that moment, Mr. S.P., a community worker at the agency that manages the building, presents himself as a colleague of Ms. J.D.
Mr. Chérilus contests the presence of Mr. S.P. since the latter is neither his social worker nor a witness. Some exchanges between the judge and Mr. S.P. take place but are not fully "translated" in writing. Mr. Chérilus objects and leaves the hearing.
On February 7, 2011, the Committee rejects the review requested by Mr. Chérilus. It specifically mentions in its decision that Mr. S.P. was a social worker accompanying Mr. Chérilus but that he was not questioned by the Committee and did not intervene in the exchanges with Mr. Chérilus.
With CRARR’s help, Mr. Chérilus files for judicial review of that decision in the Superior Court of Québec, invoking the violation of his constitutional rights as protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In his petition, he submits that the Committee has committed the following errors:
Aymar Missakila, CRARR’s lawyer, represents Mr. Chérilus. The Police Ethics Commissioner is also cited as a respondent in the judicial review.