Two senior Toronto officers have been named publicly for the first time as the issuers of a controversial 2010 G20 order to arrest people wearing bandanas.

Insp. Greg Cole and Insp. Shaun Narine, a staff sergeant at the time, told Sgt. Louis Gibb to relay a message to the rank and file that anyone wearing a bandana or other face covering should be stopped and investigated for “wearing a disguise with intent,” Gibb testified Friday.

A police tribunal hearing a wrongful arrest case against Constables Blair Begbie and Vincent Wong more than three years after the fact was the first to hear from the mysterious “Sgt. Gibb,” who was reported to have relayed the controversial order during the G20 summit in June 2010.

It’s not clear where or from whom the order actually originated.

Graphic designer Jason Wall, 27, was arrested on the Sunday of the summit in June 2010 while walking up Yonge St. near Gould St. with a bandana tied around his neck. Const. Wong told him he was under arrest for wearing a disguise with the intent to commit an indictable offence. Wall would spend more than 24 hours in the controversial Eastern Ave. detention centre before being released without charges.

In September 2011, the Office of the Independent Police Review Director, which investigated complaints from the public about policing during the G20, called Wall’s arrest “unlawful” and “unnecessary.”

At the tribunal, which began Thursday with retired judge Walter Gonet presiding, multiple officers including Wong have testified that they were briefed by Gibb that Sunday morning at the Eaton (then Delta) Chelsea Hotel.

Up until Friday afternoon, Gibb had been something of an enigma, referenced in a previous investigation by the OIPRD only as “Sergeant Gibb.”

“Wong stated prior to his shift beginning he attended a morning parade held by Sergeant Gibb,” according to an OIPRD report. “Const. Wong stated these instructions were from ‘Upper Command.’”

Friday was the first time the public had heard the names of any higher-ranking officer attached to that order. Gibb said he was instructed by Cole and Narine near police headquarters on Grenville St. and relayed the order to at least 100 officers that day on June 26.

Last month, at another G20 hearing, Const. Ryan Simpson testified that Cole and Narine visited him on patrol to give the same order in person that Sunday.

According to several officers who testified this week and had recorded the briefing in their notebooks, the order given was that anyone wearing a bandana or other face covering was “arrestable” for wearing a disguise.

Gibb said he did not recall using the word “arrestable” and his notebook from that weekend, which became waterlogged during his duties, was left at the hotel and not seen again.

Earlier this year, represented pro bono by top defence lawyer Clayton Ruby’s office, Wall brought a fight to court to unmask those in “upper command” who gave the order.

In June, divisional court justices ordered the OIPRD re-examine Wall’s original complaint — which named Chief Bill Blair — and decide whether an investigation into senior officers who knew about or gave the order is warranted.

The OIPRD asked to appeal that decision. The Court of Appeal has not decided whether it will hear their case.

On Friday, co-counsel Nader Hasan, from Ruby’s office, said it’s unlikely Cole and Narine acted alone and the order was likely passed down to them from above.

“We’re one step closer, but at the same time it remains shrouded in secrecy,” Hasan said.

In May 2012, the OIPRD released a systemic report on the G20, which condemned the bandana order.

“Many police officers ignored the basic rights citizens have under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, by stopping and searching people arbitrarily, they overstepped their authority,” the report said. “Wearing bandanas and carrying heavy backpacks are not reasonable grounds to stop and search, and police should have used much more discretion.”

Closing arguments at the tribunal Friday centred on whether, under the circumstances — in the wake of riotous protest that erupted the day before — there were reasonable grounds to arrest Wall.

“He was a perfect candidate for arrest at that time in that place,” defence lawyer Alan Gold argued.

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

Prosecutor van Niejenhuis said Wall’s face was “clearly recognizable” that day and there was no evidence he had any intention other than to return home on his way to church, as he earlier testified.

“We don’t arrest people because they are perfect candidates for arrest,” van Niejenhuis said.

Gonet will deliver his decision in writing at a later date. If found guilty of misconduct, Begbie and Wong could face discipline ranging from docked pay to dismissal.