A court has ruled Ontario’s police watchdog must re-examine a complaint about orders given during the G20 summit by the upper command of Toronto police — allegedly including Chief Bill Blair — to arrest anyone wearing bandanas or masks.

Jason Wall, who filed the complaint, was wearing a brown bandana around his neck when he was arrested on June 27, 2010, while walking on Yonge St. near Gerrard St.

Wall, 26, was charged with wearing a disguise with intent and held for 28 hours in the Eastern Ave. prisoner processing centre.

After the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) — a civilian watchdog at arm’s length from Ontario’s Attorney General — found Wall’s arrest was “unlawful” and “unnecessary,” he filed a follow-up complaint seeking answers as to who gave the command to arrest those wearing masks, gas masks or bandanas.

Wall’s follow-up complaint was against Blair and any other senior officers with knowledge of the incident.

The OIPRD did not start an investigation into that complaint, saying a time limit of more than six months had already passed since Wall’s arrest.

A Divisional Court decision released Thursday found director Gerry McNeilly erred in refusing to examine Wall’s second complaint and “breached fundamental principles of fairness and natural justice.”

The court quashed McNeilly’s decision not to review the follow-up complaint, and ordered him to reconsider whether it warrants investigation.

The judges also agreed with Wall’s counsel that the director had a “closed mind” and “intransigence” in reviewing the case.

“I think it’s a better remedy because the court made it very clear what he has to look at,” said prominent Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby, who took on Wall’s case for free. “They spelled it out like for a 3-year-old.”

Ruby said it’s still possible the director will choose not to investigate, but he must give reasons for his decision, as ordered by the court.

The lawyer said they would return to court if an investigation is refused again.

“They made it clear that if his decision is unreasonable, we can come back again,” Ruby said. “If he does it, we will be back in front of a court.”

Ruby said investigating the chain of upper command in this case is a necessary next step.

Two officers, Const. Blair Begbie and Const. Vincent Wong, currently face Police Act charges as a result of Wall’s arrest.

A $25,000 lawsuit that Wall launched against the police was settled out of court. Details of the settlement have not been released.

“He’s prosecuting those two cops who followed the orders, but making no attempt to investigate those who gave the orders,” Ruby said McNeilly. “That’s shameful.”

According to the OIPRD’s original decision in Wall’s case, Const. Begbie said his superior officer had told them he had just come from a meeting with Chief Blair and command had given the arrest directive.

The director is mandated to examine all complaints made by the public. He has several options as to what to do with a complaint: forward it for investigation at the OIPRD, refer it to the chief of police for investigation, refer it to the chief of a different police force, or dismiss the complaint.

Grounds for dismissal include a complaint that isn’t directly related to the person making it, or a complaint made in bad faith. The complaint can also be dismissed if the director finds pursuing it is not in the public interest. Wall’s lawyers adamantly argued it is indeed in the public interest.

Though the OIPRD’s counsel told the court there has already been an exhaustive investigation into police conduct during the summit, the court found OIPRD reports did not cover the specific concerns related to Chief Blair and upper command in this case.

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

Spokesperson Mark Pugash said the Toronto Police Service would not comment on decisions related to other agencies.

Rosemary Parker, spokesperson for the OIPRD, said the director has received the decision and is “studying” it for next steps.

“The court has given a clear order to rescreen the matter and we respect that decision,” she said.