City of Toronto settles (again) with protesters
Almost ten years ago in a Toronto inner city public park a small group of university students and community members began joining homeless people who resided in the area to hold a “sleep-in” protest to highlight the housing crisis in Toronto.
Every Friday night for 120 weeks in a public park.
On one of those nights in October 2000 Toronto police “conducted a sweep of the downtown park” in riot gear, dragging three people from a tent (Elan Ohayon, Alex Brown and Oriel Varga)*. Ohayon was holding a video camera and all three claim that police became angered when seeing the video camera.
The trio claim a police officer smashed the camera, took the video cassette and charged Ohayon with assaulting a police officer. Ohayon received a cut underneath his right eye, went to the hospitial and the arresting police officer said he cut his finger but denied there being any camera. The broken camera was later found missing its film.
Ohayon spent three weeks in jail before the charges of assaulting the police officer were dealt with by a judge and immediately thrown out. Ohayon was offered a $500 bail with the condition that he stay away from the park where he was seized by police but he refused citing the need to provide food and care for homeless people staying in the park. A few months later the trio sued the city, the police and a number of officers as individuals for $150,000.
Lawyer Vilko Zbogar represented the trio with Peter Rosenthal, another lawyer and Professor of Mathematics at the University of Toronto. Ohayon and Varga were both post-graduate students and Brown is an unemployed truck driver.**
The case was finally due for court on December 8, 2008 (8 years later) before a settlement was brokered at the eleventh hour with the City of Toronto agreeing to pay the trio $116,000. Anti-poverty activists are calling the agreement a “vindication” that the protest was valid and the treatment by city police was unfair.
City lawyer Kevin McGivney who represented the city and police, later said in a phone interview that calling the settlement a “victory” is a “bit like calling a tie hockey game a victory.”
“This is purely just a settlement, a compromise on both sides,” said McGivney.
“Considering it’s litigation over events that occurred 10 years ago, the best decision was to compromise the case and achieve a resolution rather than spend weeks in court fighting.”
While it’s not unusual for the City of Toronto to settle payments to some police brutality complaints against homeless people or to have embarrassing moments harassing other community activists and being sued, it is highly unusual for the details of a settlement to be released, or at least the cost. In most legal settlement agreements, political or celebrity, a non-disclosure agreement is tacked on to avoid the public record.
With the case so close to going to court, the city lawyer claiming a few more weeks of testimony after waiting 8 years just now might be a tad bothersome so late in the game and the conditions of the settlement released, one has to question why indeed did the city finally agree to the settlement at the last minute… ?
Not all politicians are included in the legal reasoning of the city they serve despite the trouble being inflicted by political ignorance to a civic problem. City Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong, a suspected conservative Toronto Mayor contender in the next civic election balked to the National Post about the settlement cost asking why Toronto “spent eight years fighting a lawsuit by a trio of activists only to settle out of court on the eve of trial”.
The police should be doing everything they can to make sure the homeless get shelter, but aren’t squatting on properties that should be used for the general public. It’s one of the reasons why so many people decide not to come to downtown Toronto, because of the panhandling and the homeless people sleeping on grates and sleeping in parks.
By “properties” the City Councillor means “public parks” and by “general public” he’s clearly not referring to “the homeless”, which draws the irony of the issue. He calls the complainants “professional protesters” who make Toronto “look bad” while the City Councillor admits he is outside on the details and fails to recognize it was the complainants who were the ones calling attention to the homelessness crisis in the first place.
These “professional protesters” have a lot in common with a civic election contender. They both don’t like homelessness. But it is the professionals who have made their point, effectively by virtue of patience. Even the Toronto police agree, a “compromise” was necessary at the very last resort. In my opinion, it is continued (patient and well funded) legal action that is the last resort to forcing city officials to recognize civic liabilities.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
And the answer lies in the complaint.
“The duration of the process highlights the continued problems in Toronto housing and the Ontario justice system,” Varga said.
———–
*The Globe & Mail erroneously reported that the incident happened in 1999 on the 120th consecutive night. The silent protest actually started in 1999 and carried on for 120 weekly Fridays, despite the “sweep” in late October 2000.
** Some media sources are technically reporting that Brown, an umemployed truck driver, is an “unemployed auto worker” in what I can only suspect is sensationization considering the “economic slowdown” .
ps. I somehow
The New York Times has launched a new site tool named 
