Three senior Toronto police officers have launched what legal observers are calling an extraordinarily rare lawsuit against Ontario’s attorney general — a move the officers say they are making to restore their reputations, claiming they were wrongly condemned in court for police brutality.

In a statement of claim filed in Ontario Superior Court on Wednesday, Sgt. Jamie Clark and Det. Sgts. Steven Watts and Donald Belanger allege negligence on the part of Crown attorneys, the same prosecutors they worked alongside on a 2009 armed robbery case.

Instead of successful convictions in a brutal gunpoint robbery, the case produced two scathing rebukes from judges about the officers’ conduct.

The Court of Appeal tossed the convictions against one of the accused and called the officers’ behaviour akin to torture — comments that prompted an immediate defence from then police chief Bill Blair.

The claims of abuse were found to be unsubstantiated by an investigation by Toronto police professional standards, findings that were upheld by an OPP probe of that internal investigation.

The Special Investigations Unit, the civilian watchdog that investigates serious injuries involving police, also began investigating the injuries suffered by the man alleged to have been more seriously injured, but the watchdog found he had not suffered a serious injury during his interaction with the officers.

In their statement of claim, Clark, Watts and Belanger allege the judges never could have found that they beat and tortured the men if the Crown prosecutors had conducted a “reasonable and lawful prosecution.”

They allege that by the time the case arrived at the Court of Appeal, the Crown knew there was “compelling evidence” that assault allegations against the officers were a “complete lie and fabrication,” yet took no action.

If it weren’t for negligence by the Crowns, “the resulting irreparable damage to the officers’ livelihood and reputation never would have occurred,” write Michael Lacy and Lorne Honickman, the officers’ lawyers.

“I feel I have been forced to file this claim,” Clark, who now works undercover with a major crime unit, said in an interview. “I want the judges to know that they were duped.”

The officers, who were members of the hold-up squad at the time, are asking for $1.25 million in damages and a declaration that the officers did not assault the two accused, Randy Maharaj or Neil Singh.

The allegations in the statement of claim have not been proven in court. A statement of defence has not yet been filed.

All of the Crown lawyers named in this story were individually contacted for comment. Brendan Crawley, spokesperson for the Ministry of the Attorney General, provided a statement to the Star on behalf of the ministry and the Crowns, saying it would be inappropriate to comment because the matter is subject to litigation.

Reid Rusonik, the Toronto lawyer who represented Maharaj, contests the claims the officers did not assault his client. He insists that when Maharaj appeared in bail court, he was badly beaten and complaining of injuries all over his body, including where his fractured rib would be discovered.

“I suppose it’s theoretically possible some other police or custodial officers caused these injuries in the tiny interim between the hold-up squad finishing with him and the bail hearing but I would think that could only be on the same theoretical standard that makes it possible the Titanic didn’t really hit an iceberg,” Rusonik said in an email.

Anil Kapoor, a defence lawyer who represented Singh on appeal, said this week that he stands by the record that was before the Court of Appeal, including Singh’s claims that he was seriously beaten by the officers.

Lacy, one of the lawyers representing the officers, said the public has the right to be concerned about “rogue bad-apple police officers” who engage in corrupt practices. The problem is, in some cases, judges don’t have all of the relevant information.

“Officers get improperly maligned in ways that affect their psychological and emotional health, their credibility generally and their careers. This lawsuit seeks to expose one of those cases,” he said.

The officers’ lawsuit stems from a 2009 armed robbery at a warehouse for Crane Supply, a wholesale distributor of copper pipes in Toronto. Kamran Sheikh, the only employee on shift, was tied up and blindfolded at gunpoint, and $389,000 worth of product was stolen.

Watts, Clark and Belanger, all members of the hold-up squad, began investigating. Four months later, the officers arrested Singh, an employee of Crane’s, and Maharaj, believed to be one of Singh’s associates, according to the statement of claim.

As previously reported by the Star, during an interrogation by the officers, Maharaj confessed to the robbery, while Singh denied knowing Maharaj and involvement in the robbery. Both men were ultimately charged with armed robbery, forceful confinement and conspiracy to commit both offences.

Soon after their arrests, Maharaj and Singh claimed that while they were being interrogated at a Toronto police division and before giving video statements, they were punched and kicked, primarily by Clark.

At Maharaj’s first court appearance, his lawyer stated his client had bumps and scratches under his ear caused by the beating. At the preliminary hearing, Maharaj’s lawyer expanded on the allegations, saying Maharaj had been kicked on the side of the head.

The officers were called to testify and “vehemently denied the allegations under oath and were unshaken in their denials,” says the statement of claim.

The case was sent to trial, but prior to its start Rusonik, representing Maharaj, brought forward an application to stay the proceedings and exclude his confession based on allegations police had beaten him up, according to the statement of claim.

Rusonik said Maharaj had suffered a serious injury at the hands of the police and provided Sheila Cressman, the Crown lawyer on the case, with an X-ray taken at Scarborough Centenary Hospital, showing an acute fracture of one of Maharaj’s ribs. Court records indicate the X-ray was taken 17 days after Maharaj was arrested, following his release from jail on bail.

According to the statement of claim, Cressman consulted with Dr. Farley Moss, a doctor at the Scarborough hospital, who confirmed it was possible the injury could have been caused on the day Maharaj was arrested. Cressman, after consulting with fellow Crown Frank Armstrong, stayed the charges against Maharaj.

But in their statement of claim, the officers accuse Cressman of withholding vital information from the doctor about Maharaj’s behaviour in the interrogation video. Moss had told Cressman that anyone with this type of injury would be in excruciating pain if he made any movements with his arms or upper body, but Cressman did not tell Moss that Maharaj does this in the video, according to the statement of claim.

She also did not ask the doctor any questions about other potential time periods of when the injury could have occurred, according to the statement of claim.

Moss was later shown the video — after the charges against Maharaj were stayed — and said that, while it was still possible for the injury to have occurred on the arrest date, he believed it was older and had already healed at the time of the videotaped interview, according to the officers’ claim.

The statement of claim also criticizes Cressman for failing to bring forward Maharaj’s medical records from Maplehurst Detention Centre “clearly showing that Mr. Maharaj never complained of a rib injury while he was incarcerated.”

The trial against Singh went ahead, where both he and Maharaj — who was called as a witness — testified. Singh said he was beaten up by Clark and that Watts did not intervene, and Maharaj testified that he was assaulted by Belanger and Clark.

The statement of claim alleges Cressman “called no evidence to challenge or contradict this false testimony.” She did not bring in the officers to testify, which “came as a shock” to them, the claim states, since Cressman had stated they would be called as witnesses in the days leading up to the trial.

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

A jury convicted Singh of armed robbery and forcible confinement, but Superior Court Justice Julie Thorburn reduced his sentence because of the “police brutality” in the case. The statement of claim alleges Thorburn based that finding solely on the testimony of the accused, and only because Cressman made no effort to challenge their accounts.

Following Singh’s conviction, the SIU launched an investigation into the allegations of police brutality, but Maharaj refused to participate and the watchdog closed the case.

Meanwhile, then police chief Blair ordered an internal probe by the force’s professional standards, which concluded after interviews and reviewing audio and video statements that the beating allegations could not be substantiated — though it did not include interviews with the officers.

In 2013, Singh appealed his conviction. According to the claim, Watts attempted to tell the new Crown, Amy Alyea, that “an egregious mistake had occurred,” but “she took no steps to investigate further.”

Alyea’s alleged wrongdoing included a failure to provide the court with any details about the findings of the Toronto police internal investigation — even though Justice David Doherty questioned her about whether disciplinary action was taken against the officers, according to the statement of claim.

Alyea never advised Doherty about the findings, the officers say.

“As such, the Crown, either negligently or deliberately, attempted to protect its own agents’ conduct, rather than respecting their duty of care and responsibility to the officers and the administration of justice,” the statement alleges.

In December 2013, the Court of Appeal threw out the conviction against Singh and harshly denounced the officers for using beatings and threats to get confessions out of suspects

As previously reported by the Star, the testimony given by two men alleging abuse was not contested in court by the Crown, at trial or on appeal, so the appeal court took their testimony as the “factual framework for what actually happened.”

In an interview with the Star, Clark and Watts said the appeal hearing was their greatest source of frustration.

“The Crown made a mistake (at trial) and then it progresses. We are not expecting perfection. But at the Court of Appeal, that was their chance to step up,” said Clark.

Immediately after the Court of Appeal decision, Blair spoke out in defence of the officers, saying Ontario’s top court only got one side of the story.

“Quite frankly, I don’t understand why that decision was made. The officers were anxious to testify but were not afforded the opportunity to do that by the Crown attorney,” Blair told the Star in 2013.

Blair asked the OPP to review the Toronto police internal investigation. The OPP ultimately agreed with the conclusions of the professional standards investigation, but noted the officers should have been interviewed during the professional standards investigation.

That is something that both Clark and Watts said they have always been willing to do, but no one took them up on the offer. (Belanger declined to be interviewed for this story).

“The one time I don’t get to testify, I have no credibility,” said Watts.

Following the Court of Appeal decision, the SIU launched a second investigation into the allegations of wrongdoing by the officers against Maharaj. Jason Gennaro, a spokesperson for the watchdog, said the SIU “determined that the man had not suffered a serious injury in his interaction with police.”

Watts said he wondered why the suspects have not filed a lawsuit against the Toronto police for brutality. “You have a court saying there was torture. But since then, crickets.”

Trevor Farrow, associate dean at Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto, said legal actions against the Crown are normally filed by defendants who allege they have been wrongfully convicted.

“A civil suit brought by potential witnesses, in this case police officers, is certainly unusual,” said Farrow, whose research and teaching includes a focus on legal and judicial ethics.

Farrow added that anyone suing the Crown has a high legal bar to overcome to be successful in court.

“The justice system seeks to be fair to all participants, including all witnesses. Equally important, is the wide latitude the system gives to prosecutorial discretion, in the way Crowns pursue cases,” he said. “What is usually required is to show purposeful conduct or malice that is something more than negligence.”

Read more about: