Does s2 Charter open court and UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination Article 4 “positive measures” require all levels of the Canadian government to implement an online public searchable database for officer identified sustained or de-identified un-sustained police complaint records with or without an investigation ?

These questions will be discussed at a Transparency Institute Webinar https://transparencyresearch.org/events/ . It is also an opportunity for federal, state & municipal governments and police forces to learn how to increase their ranking on a Transparency Research “TR” Police Complaint & Compliment Ranking Sheet for 228 police complaints best practices.

Question 1 Re De-identified Police Complaints Internet Summaries

Complaint information management systems are often for identified information, with exception of organizations like privacy commissioners and the CRTC, few organizations in Canada have de-identified internet summaries of complaint information. The Ontario Comprehensive Police Services Act de-identified internet summary which is yet to be proclaimed, does not include complaints dismissed without an investigation, however the Alberta LERB posts identified summaries on CANLII for appeals related to complaints dismissed without an investigation:

– Are administrative tribunals’ adjudicative records s2 Charter Rights open court positive obligation to implement an OCPA “de-identified summary … on the internet” for all completed police misconduct investigations which do not lead to a public disciplinary hearing?
– Is there a “de-identified summary … on the internet” obligation for misconduct complaints that are dismissed without an investigation?
– Is there a “de-identified summary … on the internet” obligation for service, policy, internal, or informal complaints?
– Are there different tests for misconduct, service, policy, internal, or informal complaints?
– Are there any prescribed by law reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society s1 Charter tests for a complete publication ban and or redactions of de-identified records?

Question 2 Re Privacy Acts And Administrative Tribunals Adjudicative Records S2 Charter Open Court Principle

How do privacy act discretionary law enforcement exemptions interact with police act discretionary tests for disclosure of personal information, administrative tribunal acts, statutory procedures acts, adjudicative records acts?

Upon privacy acts access requests to records from completed police complaint investigations, other than narrow tests for publication bans;

are there other tests that can satisfy an s1 Charter exception to administrative tribunal s2 Charter open court principles?
– If yes, is there a pressing and substantial objective for an overbroad redaction test that exceeds the Canadian courts’ case law test for publication bans?
– If yes, is the overbroad redaction test proportional to that objective?
– Is there a causal link between the objective sought and the overbroad redaction test?
– Does the overbroad redaction criteria meet the test for minimal impairment of s2 Charter freedom of the press and expression or arbitrary (contrary to the objects of police complaints legislation) or grossly disproportionate effects?
– Do the salutary effects of the benefits sought from an overbroad redaction test outweigh the deleterious effects on s2 Charter or arbitrary or grossly disproportionate effects?

Question 3 Re Guidance Document Called Electronic Disclosure of Personal Information In the Decisions of Administrative Tribunals AND s15 Charter Rights to equal protection of racialized communities and female policers?

In light of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14 “fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part … for reasons of morals, public order … or national security …or … private lives … or … strictly necessary … where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice” “judgement … shall be made public except where … juvenile persons otherwise requires or … matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children”,
Access To Information “ATIP” academic research,
Ontario Superior Court s2 Charter freedom of the press and expression application to administrative tribunals,
Alberta Privacy Commissioner recommendation for Canada and other Office of the Privacy Commissioners “OPC”;
should OPCs update any “guidance document called Electronic Disclosure of Personal Information in the Decisions of Administrative Tribunals”?

In light of frequent USA, UK, Canada media court challenges to obtain police complaints court records;

should all federal, state and municipal OPCs include a separate “guidance document” for freedom of the press to express public interest reporting on constitutional equal protection police complaint administrative tribunals?

Due to Indigenous people, visible minorities, female police or military officers pre-existing disadvantages;

is there an s2,s15 Charter constitutional positive obligation for governments to legislate a publicly available internet portal for officer identified sustained police complaints AND de-identified unsustained police complaints?

Question 4 Re Positive Obligation For Online Police Complaints Misconducts Databases

Due to s2 Charter freedom of the press & expression, s15 Charter equal protection re Canada, UK, USA media reports of a police misconduct disproportionate effect on visible minorities, police and military female officers, New Brunswick and NewFoundland legislated 60 days and 90 days (no possibility of extension) maximum time for investigations, Ontario created a 120 days benchmark;

– is there a positive obligation for a public online database or on request (officer identified information for sustained complaints and de-identified unsustained complaints information) with redactions that do not exceed the test for a court publication ban?

– are police misconduct complaint investigations that exceed 120 days an adjudicated decision re international treaty rights to “reasonable time” “fair” “independent and impartial” “effective remedy”; which are subject to s2 Charter open court, s24 Charter just remedy and UN “positive measures” (public online database)?