More than 100 letters sent by former Special Investigations Unit director Ian Scott to Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair allege that officers repeatedly violated their legal duty to co-operate with the provincial watchdog.

But a spokesperson says the police chief investigated “every single one” of the issues raised in Scott’s letters and sent the findings to the Toronto Police Services Board, where they are kept secret under the law.

“All of the points he raised were dealt with,” said Mark Pugash, speaking for Blair Wednesday. “But it doesn’t get reported to Scott, because that’s not what the law says.”

The letters, obtained by the Star through a freedom of information request, shed light on the issues that ignited a public spat between Blair and Scott in August.

At the time, the SIU head blasted the chief for never providing a single “substantive” response. Pugash shot back, saying Scott was overstepping his authority by demanding that Blair report to him.

A closer look at the nearly 125 letters reveals that Scott outlined scores of apparent examples of officers failing to co-operate with the SIU — including after deaths of people in custody and sexual assault allegations against officers.

It is impossible to know whether the allegations in the letters are true, because the findings of the chief’s investigations are kept secret. Scott said he still doesn’t know, because he never received a response from Blair.

“I’m not saying I’m definitively right when I wrote that there was a breach, because there’s always another side to the story,” said the former director, who ended his five-year term in October and now runs a private law practice.

“But we never got the other side of the story. I could never, ever develop a dialogue with the Toronto Police.”

In one 2009 letter, the Toronto Police Service allegedly completed an internal investigation into an allegation of sex assault against one of its officers, before notifying the SIU a year and a half later.

Scott found no evidence the officer had committed sex assault, but asks Blair to look into this “clear breach of the duty to notify” and respond in writing.

In another letter, also in 2009, Scott writes that a woman died of a cocaine overdose in custody and the SIU was not notified until eight hours later. Officers did, however, immediately notify the Toronto Police Association and speak to a lawyer, according to the letter.

The SIU is the provincial body that investigates when police are involved in incidents resulting in serious injury, death or allegations of sexual assault. Officers are required by law to “immediately” notify the SIU when it appears its mandate may apply, and to “co-operate fully” with the watchdog’s investigation.

Pugash said Scott was violating his legal mandate by asking for replies to his letters. In a 2011 report, Chief Justice Patrick LeSage confirmed the SIU director has no authority to require the police chief to investigate or report to him.

The Police Services Act states that the chief conducts an investigation into any incident involving the SIU and reports his findings to the police services board. Asking the chief to release those confidential findings to the SIU is equivalent to “asking him to break the law,” said Pugash.

Scott disagreed, stating there is nothing in the act that makes it illegal for police chiefs to respond to his letters.

OPP Commissioner Chris Lewis replied to several of Scott’s letters. Lewis said that although he didn’t think it was appropriate for Scott to request a response, he felt it was important to build a strong relationship with the SIU director.

“We aren’t always going to agree, but we both want the same end result. If police officers are violating the law in terms of use-of-force, we need to fix that,” he said.

Non-notification or delayed notification — by hours, months and even years — comes up repeatedly in the letters.

In one 2007 incident, an individual was taken to St. Michael’s Hospital allegedly bleeding and vomiting blood, apparently after being Tasered four times by police. The officer’s injury/illness report does not mention the use of the Taser, according to the letter.

The SIU was never notified and only learned of the incident through a news article on Oct. 15, 2008, Scott writes.

Liaison officers working with the police are supposed to notify the SIU once it appears its mandate will be invoked. In cases of obvious physical trauma, it should have been clear the mandate applied, said Scott.

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

In a 2011 letter, Scott writes that the fourth allegation of sexual touching in less than three years had come to his attention against a specific unit of the TPS. Although only one of the officers was found guilty, Scott wrote “there would appear to be a pattern of misconduct involving members of that unit” and suggested Blair address this issue in a pro-active way.

Scott said he was well aware he did not have the power to “demand” a response from Blair, but he was trying to work out a protocol to ensure that the apparent issues of non-cooperation were being dealt with.

“I never imagined I’d end up writing letters for years and not getting answers. I was very surprised when I didn’t get answers.”

Former SIU director Ian Scott sent nearly 125 letters to Police Chief Bill Blair during his five-year term. The letters contain allegations that cannot be proven because the chief conducts an internal investigation and his findings are kept secret.

March 18, 2009: A woman dies of a cocaine overdose while in custody on June 24, 2008, but the SIU is not notified until more than eight hours later. Almost immediately after the incident, however, officers did contact the Toronto Police Association and speak to a lawyer, according to the letter. They also allegedly did not secure the cell for the SIU.

March 20, 2009: A man was taken to St. Michael’s Hospital allegedly bleeding from the face and vomiting blood on July 7, 2007, apparently after being Tasered four times by police. The SIU was never notified and learned of the incident from a Canoe News article on Oct. 15, 2008, Scott writes.

June 26, 2009: The TPS received a letter of complaint alleging sexual assault against an officer on July 8, 2007, but instead of forwarding it to the SIU, the TPS allegedly did an internal investigation that closed on Oct. 10, 2007. The letter states the investigation was reopened on Jan. 13, 2009, and the SIU was notified on Feb. 2, 2009 — more than a year and a half after the allegation was first made.

Aug. 13, 2009: When the SIU was contacted about a custody injury, the SIU was told the officers involved had gone home for the day. In fact, according to the notes of two of the involved officers, they were directed to remain at the station and reported off-duty three hours later, the letter states.

May 5, 2010: The SIU was notified nine hours after a vehicle injury of a complainant. When paramedics arrived, the complainant's head was lying in a pool of blood and he appeared unconscious, Scott writes. Within an hour of the injury, involved officers were allegedly segregated because of a possible SIU investigation and a TPA director was notified. Association lawyers met with the officers well before the SIU was notified, the letter says.

May 9, 2011: A complainant allegedly sustained a compound fracture in which his bone was protruding from his forearm, in an altercation with police. The SIU was not notified until seven months later after TPS received a complaint from the OIRPD.

August 4, 2011: Scott writes that the fourth allegation of sexual touching has come to his attention in less than three years against a particular unit of the TPS. Although there was only one found guilty of sexual assault, Scott wrote “there would appear to be a pattern of misconduct involving members of that unit” and suggested Blair address this issue in a pro-active way.

March 26, 2012: A woman allegedly suffered an injury while being apprehended by officers under the Mental Health Act. She was taken by officers to hospital, where she was diagnosed as sustaining a split depression fracture. However, the SIU did not learn of this incident until 10 days later, when the woman came to the police station and complained of suffering a broken leg, Scott writes.

June 25, 2013: A police association lawyer allegedly impeded the SIU interview process by spending so much time conferring with his clients before interviews that two had to be sent home, causing a delay of a week. A witness officer also allegedly refused to answer “a materially relevant question” as the result of an objection by the officer’s lawyer. Involved officers also allegedly destroyed or lost their original notes.

July 2, 2013: Some involved officers allegedly wrote their notes after a “team debriefing” after a custody injury on May 11, 2013. Scott writes that this is a probable breach of the segregation and non-communication provision of the SIU regulations.

Read more about: