Members of the public who are attending Toronto police board meetings should no longer be subjected to a security search before entering police headquarters, an Ontario Superior Court judge has ruled, finding the current screening practice violates their Charter rights.

Calling the mandatory security screening at the entrance of Toronto police headquarters a “warrantless search,” Justice Jill Copeland concluded in a written decision released Monday that requiring such searches as a precondition of attending a public board meeting infringes on the Charter-protected right to freedom of expression.

The ruling comes after Kris Langenfeld, a Toronto school bus driver and regular attendee of the board meetings, mounted a one-man constitutional challenge last year.

After years of strolling in the front doors of police headquarters at 40 College St., en route to a board meeting in the auditorium, he encountered special constables conducting bag searches and using metal-detecting wands after security measures were implemented in June 2017.

Self-represented, the former accountant with no legal training traded arguments with four lawyers brought on by the Toronto police service and its board at a hearing earlier this year. While he waited for the decision, Langenfeld occasionally stood in quiet protest at the entrance to Toronto police headquarters as board meetings took place inside.

Copeland’s decision is a win for the public, said Langenfeld, who began his near-religious attendance at police board meetings after the fatal shooting of Sammy Yatim, 18, by Toronto police Const. James Forcillo in 2013.

Read more:

‘I was scared,’ during Neptune Four arrest, Toronto police officer tells disciplinary hearing

Police charge suspect with first-degree murder after man pushed off subway platform

Toronto police take another look at body-worn cameras

When police begin “creating rules for themselves ... without any democratic process, that’s the beginning of that slippery slope and that’s when it has to be dealt with,” he said in an interview.

Toronto police spokesperson Meaghan Gray said in an email that the service is carefully reviewing the decision and “will consider any changes that need to be made as a result.” No decision has been made on whether there will be an appeal.

Toronto Police Services Board chair Andy Pringle said the board is now receiving legal advice on next steps, but did not provide any other comment.

Neither the Toronto police or its board confirmed that attendees at the next board meeting, this Thursday, will not be subjected to the search. Copeland wrote that a placing a delay on her ruling was not appropriate.

Lawyers for Toronto police Chief Mark Saunders had argued that security measures were minimal, reasonable and “required by the changing security landscape,” according to Copeland’s ruling. They also argued that “the act of attending a meeting does not have expressive content” because there are others ways to watch and participate, including by watching the live-stream, the decision stated.

Copeland disagreed.

“The right to attend and be informed of the activities of a government body at a public meeting has expressive content. Further, the right to make submissions to the government body, if it is a body that receives submissions, as the TPSB clearly does according to its bylaws, also engages freedom of expression,” Copeland wrote in her 36-page ruling.

The ruling applies only to those who are entering police headquarters to attend the monthly board meetings — a distinction she acknowledges will create logistical issues, since members of the public come to the building for many other reasons.

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

She also reiterated that her ruling’s application was narrow, and did not examine whether having security searches at the entrance of major public buildings is generally a good policy.

“Reasonable people may differ as to the merits of this type of policy decision, particularly in the developing security climate around the world, including Canada,” she wrote.

Toronto lawyer Selwyn Pieters believes Copeland’s ruling could have broader implications, including for the Toronto police tribunal hearings held at headquarters.

Late last year, Pieters brought forward a motion at the Toronto police disciplinary tribunal alleging that searching people attending such hearings violated their constitutional rights, specifically, freedom of expression. That motion, which has not yet been adjudicated, asks for a change of venue for an upcoming hearing involving his client, Waseem Khan, whose complaint about police behaviour resulted in a misconduct charge against an officer.

“Certainly (Copeland’s) decision will have to be studied seriously and carefully, and acted upon by police,” Pieters said.

The ruling comes as a growing number of public buildings are upping security measures amid increasing concerns about public safety risks and terrorist threats. At city hall Tuesday, Mayor John Tory’s executive committee endorsed enhanced security measures that include bag screening at the public entrances to the building and walk-through metal detectors for members of the public entering the council chamber.

The measures must be approved by council at a meeting next week. A city lawyer did not think that Copeland’s ruling would be applicable to Toronto city council.

The decision also comes as a growing number of police services boards in Ontario have faced pressure to move their public meetings to other locations, in response to concerns that meetings at police headquarters can feel intimidating for some members of the public. In December, the London police service voted to move its meetings to city hall, with the ability to hold other meetings in community spaces such as libraries.

Knia Singh, a Toronto lawyer who frequently attends police board meetings, said he has noticed a growing presence of police officers at the Toronto police board meetings in recent months, something he called a deterrent to public criticism.

Singh acknowledged there is a “delicate balance” between public safety and ensuring freedom of expression, but said protecting the public’s ability to express itself is of “primary importance.”

With files from Jennifer Pagliaro