A Sudanese refugee “carded” by police in Moss Park was randomly stopped, unlawfully arrested, and twice punched in the face by a Toronto police TAVIS officer who “took the law into his own hands and administered some street justice,” a Toronto judge has ruled.

Calling the conduct of six police officers “shocking,” Ontario Superior Court Justice Frederick Myers awarded Mutaz Elmardy $27,000 in damages stemming from a January 2011 incident that began when the then 38-year-old man — an “innocent member of the public,” Myers said — was stopped by police while walking home from a mosque.

Myers found that Elmardy — who sued Const. Andrew Pak and the Toronto Police Services Board — had endured an unlawful arrest and search, an assault by Pak, and then was left handcuffed outside in -10C weather with an unzipped jacket and no gloves for up to 25 minutes, for no apparent reason.

All details in this story are from the judge’s ruling.

At the trial, Elmardy testified that he left Sudan for Canada in 2005, believing he would have rights here like everyone else. He said he came to the country “to feel the law.”

Myers wrote that he was moved by this desire and compelled to condemn the police actions that have disillusioned Elmardy.

“Perhaps one has to experience corrupt government and lawlessness to consciously feel the well-being that comes merely from being present in a country in which the rule of law matters and all are equal before and under the law,” Myers wrote in his May 7 decision.

“That police officers shattered Mr. Elmardy’s feeling of the law strikes at the rule of law itself and requires condemnation by the court.”

Const. Pak could not be reached for comment Tuesday. Mark Pugash, spokesperson for the Toronto police, said a recent probe by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director found Elmardy’s complaints against Pak were unsubstantiated.

“The legal responsibility to investigate the complaint was carried out by the OIPRD,” said Pugash, meaning no further probe was required.

The Star could not obtain the OIPRD decision. Rosemary Parker, spokesperson for the OIPRD, said that because of privacy legislation, the agency only comments on decisions that have found serious misconduct and where a hearing was held.

An investigation that finds a complaint unsubstantiated will not be made public, she said. “You won’t ever receive it from us.”

David Gourlay, who represented Pak and the police services board, said no decision has yet been made about an appeal of Myers’ ruling.

Mike McCormack, president of the Toronto Police Association, did not want to comment extensively on the ruling until an appeal decision was made, but noted the civilian probe exonerated Pak.

“We are concerned about the comments in the decision, but the OIPRD did clear this officer after a lengthy investigation,” he said.

The “carding” incident — when officers stop, question and document people not suspected of a crime — occurred on Jan. 15, 2011, as Elmardy was walking near Shuter and Parliament Sts. after evening prayers at his mosque.

Pak was then assigned to the Toronto Anti-Violence Intervention Strategy team, known as TAVIS, a provincially funded unit aimed at combating gun violence. Pak testified that he stopped Elmardy after he “seemed to follow” his police car as he was driving by.

According to the ruling, Pak thought he should speak to Elmardy and run his name through the computer because of a “hunch” that he might have bail or other conditional sentence issues.

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

The officer testified that TAVIS is responsible for self-generating work, including investigating, talking to people, showing a presence in the community, and carding people in high-risk areas. Pak said that he tried to fill out as many cards, known as 208s, as he could, to show he was interacting with people as required in his position, according to the ruling.

Elmardy claimed at the trial that Pak asked him where he was going, prompting him to ask why he needed to know. The officer testified that Elmardy was immediately uncooperative and swore at him, displaying verbal aggressiveness that the officer said typically tells him the person did something wrong.

Shortly after Pak stopped the car, a physical fight ensued. Pak claimed he believed Elmardy had a weapon, based on his stance and the fact that his hands were in his pockets, and went to arrest him. Elmardy said his hands were in his pockets because he had no gloves.

Elmardy said Pak then punched and kicked him, causing bruising and swelling to his face and injuries to his abdomen. Myers found Elmardy “exaggerated” his injuries, but ruled that Pak punched him twice in the face. Elmardy was then left lying on his back on what he claimed was an icy deck for up to 25 minutes while officers ran his name, a detention Myers said was unjustified.

“The police had no right to detain Mr. Elmardy for carding alone. Nor does the act of walking outside with one’s hands in his pockets on a cold night in Toronto in January near Moss Park provide a reasonable basis to suspect that a person is carrying a weapon.”

Though Myers defended the officers’ right to speak with members of the public, he also said Elmardy has a right to decline to speak to the police, even in a hostile manner.

“One who is not being investigated for criminality is allowed to walk down the street on a cold night with his or her hands in the pockets and to tell inquisitive police officers to get lost without being detained, searched, exposed to sub-zero temperatures, or assaulted.”

Myers lambasted Pak, his cruiser partner and four other officers on scene for apparently not knowing this.

“It is therefore important for (the Toronto Police Service) and Constable Pak to hear it from the court, and to hear it in a manner that bespeaks the court’s disapproval and shock that such conduct might be considered acceptable in 2011,” Myers wrote.

Elmardy claimed in his lawsuit that he was racially profiled, but Myers found there was no evidence that the decision to stop him was based on his race. He also said his decision made no findings on the constitutionality or wisdom of “carding.”

“Whether carding is a useful policing policy or just serves to increase the risk of hostile interactions between police and innocent members of the public, as appears to have occurred in this case, is beyond my ken.”

Andrew MacDonald, Elmardy’s lawyer, said his client showed “tremendous courage,” challenging police on a case where there were no independent witnesses and no video documenting the incident. In the end, “he got the message that the courts do care.”