Two unidentified protestors comfort each other after police surrounded during the G20 Summit in Toronto, June 27, 2010. (Photo: Carolyn Kaster/AP)In response, lawyer Eric Gillespie said the class action would "help protect the basic freedoms of all Canadians" while co-counsel Kent Elson said it could lead to the disclosure of confidential police documents and tapes about what really happened as well as "positive reforms about policing." Police authorities in Toronto had wanted the Court of Appeal to quash the class proceedings, which had already been subject to two lower court rulings. The courts had originally ruled against certifying a class action, but Divisional Court overturned the ruling on initial appeal and instead split the action in two. "It is important to remember that the police cannot sweep up scores of people just in the hope that one of the persons captured is a person who they believe is engaged in criminal activity," Divisional court said in the earlier ruling cited by the Appeal Court. Among other things, the police services board had argued Divisional Court overstepped its boundaries in stating the mass arrests could be seen as "one of the hallmarks of a police state" and therefore needed a thorough airing as class actions. The board also argued the different behaviour of various summit protesters precluded their being considered a class.
To date, the Appeal Court noted, only 16 individuals have brought claims for their detentions and 15 of those have been settled. "It remains apparent that most of the affected individuals are unwilling to devote the time and expense necessary to seek individual relief," the Appeal Court found. "A class proceeding is the preferable procedure for the resolution of the common issues." The lead plaintiffs in the actions are Sherry Good, who was among scores of people police "kettled'' in torrential rain at a downtown intersection, and Thomas Taylor, who represents those sent to the east-end detention centre. Both want damages for false arrest or imprisonment, and violations of their constitutional rights. They maintain a senior officer gave orders for the indiscriminate roundup of anyone present at various downtown locations — including peaceful protesters, bystanders and journalists — enough to warrant class certification. "There was some basis in fact for finding that the individual officer or officers who are alleged to have given orders for mass detentions and arrests did so without regard to whether all of the individuals detained, or detained and then arrested, were implicated in the criminal activity with which the police were concerned," the Appeal Court said. In addition, the court awarded the plaintiffs $315,000 in costs for the certification motion and another $65,000 for the appeal
"Police cannot sweep up scores of people just in the hope that one of the persons captured is a person who they believe is engaged in criminal activity."
Also on HuffPost: