On Friday, Udhbirprasaud “Joe” Bhikram served a $12,500 small claims lawsuit to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, the latest government organization to throw up a roadblock in his three-year fight to obtain the video, he alleges.
Toronto police have handed over surveillance footage to Bhikram but nearly three hours of video is missing, during which time he alleges the urination incident took place.
“In spite of repeated requests for full video disclosure, beginning within a month of the incident, Toronto police and the attorney general have refused to make the video available,” Bhikram, 60, writes in his claim.
None of the allegations have been proven in court. The attorney general’s office directed questions about Bhikram’s lawsuit to the privacy commissioner.
Bhikram was arrested on Jan. 28, 2009, and charged with uttering a death threat to a police officer. The charge was dismissed that year.
Following his arrest, Bhikram — who cannot move the right side of his body due to a stroke — was taken to 52 Division and placed in a jail cell with his wheelchair. He wore only underpants because he refused to get dressed when police arrested him at home.
Bhikram said he had accidentally fallen to the ground when an officer entered the cell. In his claim, he alleges the officer urinated in a toilet in the corner of the cell and then “shook the remaining urine from his penis on my face and neck.”
According to Bhikram, his lawyer was only given a DVD with partial footage as a part of the disclosure process during his trial in 2009. It is unclear why portions are missing. His defence lawyer, who Bhikram ultimately fired, could not be reached for comment Friday.
There are two clips on the DVD: the first shows Bhikram, shirtless under a blanket, being processed by police in the booking area. The video ends at 6:50 p.m. The second clip starts at 9:42 p.m. and shows a wailing Bhikram — now apparently clothed — sitting on his wheelchair inside the jail cell.
The video does not show Bhikram lying on the ground at any point, although this was mentioned in a police officer’s memo notes.
“He (is) lying on floor in his underwear wearing a face mask and cuffs,” Det. Paul Ward wrote in his notes at 7:02 p.m. “Says he (is) trying to transfer to the seat.”
Ward makes no mention of the alleged incident. Bhikram said Ward was not the officer who he claims to have flicked urine on him.
Prone to emotional outbursts, Bhikram is no stranger to filing complaints, and sometimes stirring up controversy in the process. Following a protracted eviction battle in 2003, he complained to the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The complaint was denied and he appealed. Bhikram was then charged with threatening a receptionist at the commission over the phone.
In his quest to obtain the police video, Bhikram has filed at least five complaints with various government agencies — including the Toronto police's professional standard's unit — and has even called Mayor Rob Ford’s office, he said in his claim.
Toronto police spokesman Mark Pugash told the Star, however, that police have no record of a complaint filed by Bhikram on the date he claimed. “If he wants to come back with further information, we’ll look into those allegations,” he said.
But Bhikram's legal filing does include a photocopy of a response letter from Insp. Peter Yuen with the Toronto police's professional standards unit, confirming they received his “complaint regarding the conduct of members of the Toronto Police Service” on Feb. 19, 2009. Yuen said Bhikram's complaint “fail(ed) to outline any manner of conduct which might lead me to believe that an investigation into this matter is warranted.”
In February, he filed a freedom of information request but was only provided with the footage he already has.
“The retention period for recordings taken of the cell area is four months,” wrote Katie Watts, co-ordinator with the Toronto police’s access and privacy unit, in a letter dated March 12, 2012. “Therefore access to a video record January 28, 2009 would no longer be available.”
Bhikram appealed to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner, which found the Toronto police’s decision to be reasonable and denied his appeal. It said Bhikram failed to present a reasonable basis for concluding the video still exists.
Bhikram said he decided to sue because he believes the privacy commissioner’s office erred in its decision. In an emailed statement, however, a spokesperson said that “as a general rule,” people who are unsatisfied with appeal decisions are required to seek judicial review in Ontario Divisional Court, not remedies through the small claims court.
Original Article
Source: the star
Author: Jennifer Yang
No comments:
Post a Comment