No Justice to Justify

"I don't have to justify to you why there is no criminal negligence investigation" said Detective Sergeant Dave McCartney of the Halton Regional Police when I asked if there was if there was going to be one into the death of Randy Mogridge, an Oakville autistic man who was found drowned in Sixteen Mile Creek in Oakville Ontario.

When I questioned why Randy was confined in "a cell" the detective told me that media reports were not accurate and I shouldn't believe everything I read in the newspapers. In any case, the Halton Police were acting under the Coroner's Act not the Criminal Code and they had no evidence with which to base further investigations.

I decided to call the Hamilton Spectator to confirm what I had read, that indeed Randy had spent time confined before he managed to escape the Centre, probably fearing for his life, although he was not able to articulate it, he was probably trying to get away. Far away and ended up in the creek.

Many thanks to journalist John Burman of the Hamilton Spectator, (the Spec being one of Hamilton's assets), who provided the following information to dispell the detective's dismissal. For copies of the original reports, they can be downloaded for a fee from the Hamilton Spectator dated February 3 and 5, 2005.

Mr. Burman confirmed that the information about Randy being confined for 8 hours that was non-documented by the facility came from a detailed and confidential Ministry report given to the Mogridge family. This report, by the way, since it is commissioned by the government, can be used as evidence under s. 25 of the Evidence Act.

The Ministry report documented how Randy Mogridge spent 8 hours in a detention cell that was called the "confinement timeout room". A room that was 2m x 3.5m with no windows but with a locked door and a vision port.

8 hours in a cell 2 x 3.5 m.
8 hours.
In a 2 x 3.5 m cell.

For 3 and a half hours Randy banged the walls and paced in that tiny room.

3 hours.

The Ministry reported that Randy spend similar time in isolation the 2 days prior to his escape.

2 days prior.

Past history details that Randy did not wander off the grounds or that he even needed to spend time in this room.

The sad part, the really sad part, is that according to the Centre policies, he should have only spent 15 minutes in this cell if needed as a last resort. Not 8 hours.

15 minutes not 8 hours.

Cruel and Unusual Treatment

I want to go over some legislation, the Charter to be exact. Just to clarify where people with disabilities stand in this province. Ontario the wha...? The good? Did someone say justice?

Let's start from square one: The Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Section 15 (1) states: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on...mental or physical disability".

Secton 12 under Legal Rights : "Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment"

In my Barron's Canadian Law Dictionary, cruel and unusual treatment or punishment is defined this way: "There has been no judicial ruling that clearly defines the limits of such punishment, but the Supreme Court of Canada has considered the gravity of the offense, the personal characteristics of the offender, and the particular characteristics of the case when evaluating the treatment and its effects. See R. v. Smith [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045"

What Barron's does not mention are the personal characteristics of the offended.

Barron's also cites: "The Canadian Bill of Rights, R.S.C 1985, Appendix III, s. 2(b) provides similar protection. Under this provision, the Court stated that the punishment would have to be so excessive as to outrage standards of decency. Miller and Cockriell v. The Queen, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 680."

Well, the actions of staff at Oaklands Regional Centre has certainly outraged my standards of decency.

Section 7 : "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

Next, is the Criminal Code of Canada which laws should apply and should have applied equally to Randy Mogridge.

The Criminal Code's definition of culpable homicide and criminal negligence in Randy's case seem to be covered under these clauses: s. 220 (b) and s. 222 (1) and (5) (c) and (d)

222. (1) A person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being
222 (5) A person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being,
(b) by criminal negligence,
(d) by wilfully frightenint that human being, in the case of a child or sick person

According to my Barron's law dictionary 'culpable' means "deserving of moral blame or punishment; 'criminal'. Implies, in addition to intention, recklessness as well as indifference or disregard for t he consequences that might ensue from an act, as in 'culpable' homicide. See, e.g. Criminal Code, RSC. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 222, 229-230. See also constructive murder"

s.230 'constructive murder' mentions s.279 kidnapping and forcible confinement under 'Assaults on the person'

s. 279 (2) "Every one who, without lawful authority, confines, imprisons or forcibly seizes another person is guilty of..."

The Ontario Mental Heath Act makes it illegal to confine an individual who is cabable to give consent. It doesn't say anything in it about confining non-cabable individuals, but confinement would be part of treatment that should have approval and consent of the family.

I have my doubts that any "mental health worker" (save from a qualified registered social workers and the like) and worse, any psychiatrist in this area have any idea of what their legal obligations to the public are. If they did violate then, I am quite sure the College of Physicians and Surgeons wouldn't enforce them as evidenced by the KPMG Report I have archived.

But lastly are the police services including the coroners office that resides within the Ministry of Health. The police are to champion the Charter and the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The Police Services Act, 1990 has the following 'declaration of principles' as a preamble:

1. Police services shall be provided throughout Ontario in accordance with the following principles:

1) The need to ensure the safety and security of all persons and property in Ontario
2) The importance of safeguarding the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code.
3) The need for co-operation between the providers of police services and the communities they serve
4) The importance of respect for victims of crime and understanding their needs
5) The need for sensitivity to the pluralistic, multiracial and multicultural character of Ontario society
6) The need to ensure that police forces are representative of the communities they serve.

Since Randy was forcibly confined for 8 hours on several contiguous occassions, this should be considered nothing but cruel and unusual treatment.

He had the right be free from it, the right to life and security of the person and the right to have equal protection of the law both in life and death. He had those rights. He has those rights.

If our police services, coroner's office or Ministry won't champion Randy's rights, who will champion them?

No detective, you don't need to justify anything to me because, it seems in Ontario, there is no justice to justify.