Hamilton women at the heart of a new G20 lawsuit say they were called “dykes,” and worse, and told to shave their legs by a Toronto police officer — claims supported by the provincial police complaints watchdog.

The officer identified the women in his notebook as protesters because of their backpacks, clothing and “hairy legs,” according to a report by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director the plaintiffs provided to the media on Wednesday.

The women are now part of a group of seven Hamilton-area residents suing the Toronto Police Services Board for $1.4 million — the latest, and final, lawsuit to emerge from the ignominious G20 summit weekend.

In their statement of claim, the group — composed of five women and two men — alleges they were unlawfully arrested during the G20 by officers who targeted them for arrest using “unreasonable criteria” and who made “profane, sexist and homophobic” comments.

One plaintiff also alleges she was sexually assaulted by a male officer who “firmly grabbed her right buttock” during a pat-down search

“The circumstances of the arrest, as outlined in the claim, are disturbing,” said their lawyer, Davin Charney, in a news conference Wednesday morning.

“The police, it’s alleged, made sexist comments about women’s bodies (and) they made homophobic comments referring to women as ‘dykes.’”

The lawsuit was filed June 26, just one day shy of the two-year deadline to commence legal action relating to the G20. On Wednesday, three of the seven plaintiffs appeared at Toronto police headquarters to serve legal notice to the police board, which they hold responsible for officers’ actions during the summit.

No statement of defence has been filed and the allegations have not been proven in court. Spokespersons for both the Toronto police and police board declined to comment on the lawsuit because it is now before the courts.

The lawsuit’s seven plaintiffs — named as Holly Driscoll, 22; Marya Folinsbee, 27; Amelia Herman, 25; Brian Jeffrey, 24; William LaPenotiere, 29; Alicia Ridge, 27; and Devon Ridge, 27 — allege they were unlawfully arrested on June 27, 2010, the second day of the weekend summit. All seven were taken to the G20 temporary jail on Eastern Ave. and released the next day without charges.

“The plaintiffs were profiled by police using discriminatory, sexist, and unreasonable criteria,” the claim states.

“In the circumstances, it was clear that the Plaintiffs had committed no offence and the officers who arrested the Plaintiffs were negligent in their investigation.”

The statement of claim said senior officers began cultivating a “climate … of hostility” on June 26, 2010, in reaction to an outbreak of violence by vandals using Black Bloc tactics.

As a result, the claim said, many frontline G20 officers began to search, detain and arrest those who fit the “protester profile” — people who wore black, had backpacks or carried bandanas, goggles and gas masks. (Prior to the G20, many activist groups and websites encouraged protesters to bring such protective gear to summit protests.)

According to the statement of claim, the seven friends from Hamilton were gathering in Allan Gardens on June 27 when they were searched by police. They left the park and went to an Amato Pizza restaurant near Yonge and Carlton Sts., where they were suddenly apprehended by between 10 and 15 officers, the claim said.

The plaintiffs were searched again and given various reasons for their arrest, including suspected gang involvement, membership in a criminal organization, and breach of peace, according to the claim.

“The plaintiffs did not understand the reason for the arrest,” the claim said. “It appeared the police did not understand the reason for arrest.”

Among the allegations are that officers invited passersby to photograph the arrestees and that one officer “searched and seized” Folinsbee’s cellphone without a warrant.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

The statement of claim also alleges a male officer conducted a pat-down of Alicia Ridge and “firmly grabbed her right buttock” while smiling and commenting on her attractiveness.

“Despite the presence of female officers on the streets of Toronto and on that location on that day, I was searched by a male officer,” Ridge told reporters Wednesday, sporting a “Challenge Sexism” button on her dress.

“And it was a fairly pathetic rendition of a search in that it was just a quick run of a hand up a leg, followed by a swift ass grab. And there were lots of sexualized comments that went along with it.”

Ridge has complained to the OIPRD about the pat-down, as well as comments made by her arresting officer. Although she identified the officer as Staff Sgt. Norman Proctor, both in her OIPRD complaint and in the lawsuit, OIPRD investigators concluded her arresting officer was actually Const. James Ure, citing police records of her arrest.

On Wednesday, Ridge maintained that her arresting officer was Proctor because she saw his nametag at the time.

In a report dated Oct. 31, 2011, the OIPRD dismissed Ridge’s allegations that the police abused their authority in searching her. The report also said Ure directed a female officer to conduct the search.

Investigators did, however, substantiate Ridge’s claim that her arresting officer called her a dyke, made obscene insults and told her to shave her legs. According to the OIPRD, Ure wrote observations in his notebook that led him to believe the group was protesters.

“All parties appear to be protestors,” the OIPRD report quotes him as writing. “Back packs; clothing and females all have hairy legs.”

When questioned by OIPRD investigators, Ure explained that women with leg hair was “one indicator that I associated with protesters down at the G20 that weekend.”

“The OIPRD investigators find it difficult to understand the rationale of the explanation by Constable Ure in regards to his ‘hairy legs’ comment,” the report concluded. “The fact that Constable Ure makes notations of ‘hairy legs’ in his memo book leads the OIPRD investigators to reasonable (sic) believe the comments alleged by the complainant to have been made.”

According to the lawsuit’s claim, the seven plaintiffs were all taken to prisoner processing centre on Eastern Ave., where they were held for about 26 hours before being released without charge. Six of the seven plaintiffs were strip-searched and all were held under deplorable conditions, Charney said.