TORONTO

A G20 officer who grappled with a protester, demanding to search his knapsack, violated his Charter rights and committed battery, Ontario’s highest court ruled Monday.

“It was the kind of unnecessary manhandling that, in my view, would offend the dignity of a person and serve to intimidate that person,” wrote Justice Paul Rouleau of Ontario Court of Appeal.

“I find that the elements of ... battery have been made out.”

In 2012, Paul Figueiras, an animal-rights activist who was manhandled the day after the G20 mayhem, filed a lawsuit against the Toronto Police Services Board, the York Region police services board and York region Sgt. Mark Charlebois demanding no money. All he wanted was a court declaration that his rights to liberty, freedom of expression, and peaceful assembly were violated.

The Ontario Court of Appeal gave Figueiras the ruling he sought that Charlebois committed battery and infringed Figueiras’ rights.

“This ain’t Canada right now,” Sgt. Charlebois said as he demanded to search the knapsack of Figueiras during the G20 June 2010 weekend on University Ave. near King St.

“There is no civil rights here in this area. How many times you gotta be told that?” Charlebois told Figueiras a block from the G20 perimeter fence.

“We’re in G20 land,” chimed in another officer.

Charlebois gave animal rights protester Figueiras an ultimatum : Let police search your knapsack or you can’t cross the street.

When Figueiras refused to permit the search, Charlebois — who is a foot taller than the protester — wrapped his arm around Figueiras’ shoulder, gripped him firmly by the shirt, so they were face to face and said: “You don’t get a choice.” Then, the cop pushed him and said, “Get moving.”

Figueiras and his friends then retreated northbound on University Ave. and the officers followed them closely for a half-block.

The actions — which were captured on videos now on YouTube and viewed more than 100,000 times and seen by both Ontario Appeals and Superior Court judges — formed the basis of Figueiras’ battery claim.

The appeals’ court ruling reversed a lower-court decision last year that indicated the cop’s actions were justified, no Charter rights infringed and that minimal force was used.

sam.pazzano@sunmedia.ca