Ontario Premier Doug Ford, then-Toronto mayor John Tory and Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown attacked the decision to grant bail to Umar Zameer back in 2021. Three years later, he’s been found not guilty.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on April 29, 2024.

OTTAWA—Toronto Police Chief Myron Demkiw should be fired.

There is no way anyone can have confidence in his impartiality after he told the world last week that he had hoped for a different outcome when Umar Zameer was found not guilty of all charges in a high-profile case involving the death of a Toronto police officer in 2021.

In her instructions to the jury before the not-guilty decision, Justice Anne Molloy said “the defence theory of what happened is consistent with the testimony of Umar Zameer, Aaida Shaikh, the Crown’s reconstruction expert, the defence reconstruction expert and the video. There is no evidence that fully supports the Crown’s theory.”

With such overwhelming unanimity on the reconstruction of the incident, one wonders how the case ever made it to trial?

Some are asking whether there was political pressure brought to bear, as three key politicians—including Ontario Premier Doug Ford, and then-Toronto mayor John Tory and Brampton Mayor Patrick Brown—weighed in to attack the decision to grant bail to Zameer back in 2021.

Ford minced no words in his tweet: “This is beyond comprehension. It’s completely unacceptable that the person charged for this heinous crime is now out on bail. Our justice system needs to get its act together and start putting victims and their families ahead of criminals.”

Demkiw refused to condemn comments by his predecessor who placed the “cop killer” label on Zameer, claiming it was not his job to criticize a former chief. However, the chief quickly walked back his own attack on the verdict after it prompted a firestorm of criticism from members of the legal profession.

Daniel Brown, past president of the Criminal Lawyers Association, told The Toronto Star that “the one thing that a chief of police isn’t supposed to say is that you were hoping for a verdict that didn’t conform with the evidence.”

Demkiw told the media at a mid-week press conference on an unrelated matter that he respected the decision of the jury. But Brown challenged that assertion. “You can’t say that you respect that jury’s decision, but that they also got it wrong.”

The judge also said that the jury should consider whether there had been collusion in the matching testimony of three police officers, though also noted that the officers had denied it. She also offered her “deepest sympathies” to Zameer following his acquittal, an apology seldom seen from the bench.

As for Zameer, he stuck to his story that he and his family were returning from a Canada Day celebration when four people starting banging on his car doors, ordering him to disembark. Zameer thought they were criminals trying to rob him, and he tried to drive away, resulting in the death of one officer who was allegedly holding on to the vehicle.

The accountant spent almost three years waiting for the outcome, and racked up legal bills in excess of $200,000, forcing his family to sell properties to pay for his defence.

Such was the public support for the defendant that within a few days, a GoFundMe page set up for his legal expenses had received $267,347 from more than 3,400 donors.

The police have already announced an external review of their actions by the Ontario Provincial Police. That review is automatic when any judicial decision involves criticism of police sworn testimony. But no review of the Crown’s decision to take this case to court, based on what we now know was flimsy or non-existent evidence, has been initiated.

Thousands of police officers attended the funeral of Constable Jeffrey Northrup, who was tragically killed in the incident. And with the public comments by high-profile politicians attacking the bail decision, one wonders whether there was political pressure exerted on the Crown to prosecute.

Demkiw has clearly shown that his interest is in protecting the actions of his police officers. That may work with the police, but it certainly undermines public confidence in the force. His statements reinforce the viewpoint of opponents who have been regularly lobbying to defund the police.

Without an external review of the judicial process in this case, too many questions remain unanswered.

Why did this case ever go to trial in the first place? Was there political pressure to lay charges, and why was the first-degree murder charge introduced, based on what did not appear to be a premeditated incident?

When a police officer dies, a first-degree murder charge is automatic. Maybe that rule also needs to be revisited.

The good news—in spite of all the questions surrounding the validity of the charges—is that justice was done.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

But it certainly has not captured the public’s imagination.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on October 31, 2022.

OTTAWA—Not too many people seem to care about the current inquiry into the government’s decision to invoke the Emergencies Act to end the trucker occupation.

Even the hero of most anti-trucker locals did not reap much benefit in the Ottawa municipal election held last week.

Most pundits were predicting a tight race between long-serving councillor Catherine McKenney and newcomer Mark Sutcliffe in the run to replace outgoing Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson.

Many believed that the appearance by McKenney in the opening days of the inquiry would give their campaign a boost. Their testimony coincided last week with the mayoral race and reminded voters of their very public stance against the occupation in the weeks when the city was under siege.

But that past did not seem to affect the city election outcome. Sutcliffe sauntered to victory, with media decision desks declaring his win within minutes of the polls closing.

McKenney is not the only one who did not reap benefits from anti-convoy visibility.

The opposition in the House of Commons has been silent on the inquiry with no questions directed at the government.

The inquiry has held a number of public hearings, but is currently entertaining secret testimony from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

The judge leading the inquiry approved the secrecy provisions sought by the government last week, acceding to the request that the CSIS information is classified.

Police testimony on multiple sides has simply left people confused.

City police appeared to be experiencing crossed communication lines and infighting. As for other levels of policing, the testimony thus far has yet to get to the bottom of the story.

The Ontario Provincial Police were highly critical of city police performance, but it remains unclear how much help they were prepared to offer.

According to inquiry testimony, even provincial ministers were misinformed about the nature and strength of the provincial participation.

We may never get to the bottom of that story because Ontario Premier Doug Ford is declining to participate in the hearing, claiming it is a federal matter to assess federal involvement and therefore the provincial politicians have no business participating.

Ford also clings to the claim that the decisions made around the provincial policing participation were strictly limited to police authorities and had nothing to do with Queen’s Park.

It appears as though Ford had little interest in breaking up the Ottawa convoy. He only got involved when the borders were shut down and automotive jobs were suspended because of the supply chain problems caused by the blockade in Windsor, Ont.

The opposition’s original narrative that the legislation was simply a “just watch me” moment for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau doesn’t seem to have gained much traction.

At the time, the prime minister and his team were criticized for not stepping in earlier to put an end to the local economic paralysis caused by the occupation.

Those who have a hate-on for Trudeau will find a way of blaming him for the occupation.

Some feel he overstepped his authority, but in the context of the occupation, it appears as though he tried hard to work with the relevant police authorities, to little avail.

What is surprising is the level of dysfunction that has been exposed during various police testimony.

For those who think that police are well-equipped to protect us, it is scary when they don’t even have the authority to compel private tow-truck operators to remove vehicles parked illegally for weeks.

It is also clear that an element of the police was sympathetic to the occupiers, determined to assist the occupation instead of breaking it up.

In the end, the inquiry has already exposed a major failure of local police leadership, and perhaps that is not surprising.

Police are constantly encouraged to work with protesters in an effort to de-escalate violence. Their hope to dialogue with the occupiers is not surprising.

They should have understood from the beginning that this was no normal occupation. The occupiers themselves were claiming they planned to take over the government.

A normal protest group arrives on Parliament Hill, spends a few hours hearing speakers and making points, and then moves on.

The Ottawa police ignored intelligence received very early on, anticipating an occupation that would last for several weeks, not several hours.

The occupation was like nothing the nation’s capital had ever witnessed. The local police force appeared woefully ill-equipped to deal with the protesters.

The post-mortem on the Emergencies Act continues apace.

But it certainly has not captured the public’s imagination.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.