Mayor Mike Savage. Photo: Halifax Examiner

As we are learning that the Halifax police willfully acted to keep an innocent man in prison, the politicians responsible for civilian oversight of the police department are deafeningly silent. Meanwhile, unelected bureaucrats and lawyers at City Hall have attempted to keep the police misconduct hidden by a publication ban.

According to his lawyers, police “malfeasance” sits at the heart of the wrongful imprisonment of Glen Assoun for the 1995 murder of Brenda Way. Police had evidence that would have exonerated Assoun at least as early as 2006, but police did not turn that evidence over to Assoun’s lawyers or notify the court, and so Assoun stayed in prison another eight years.

This week, three media organizations — the Halifax Examiner, the CBC, and the Canadian Press — went to court to get documents in the Assoun case unsealed. Justice James Chipman indicated Tuesday that he will rule in our favour on July 12, and the documents will then be publicly available. With those documents, we will be able to tell the full story of Assoun’s wrongful conviction, and of the police misconduct.

But that court victory for the media came despite efforts by a city lawyer to keep some of the documents sealed, and thereby prevent the full story of police misconduct from being told. Over the past month, city lawyer Duncan Read successfully obtained intervener status on behalf of the police department in the case, and then submitted an affidavit from RCMP Corporal Roger Robbins that staked out the position that police documents should remain sealed. In court on Tuesday, Read argued that even police notes in the investigation of the Way murder should remain sealed.

But Mayor Mike Savage confirms to the Halifax Examiner that city council has never discussed the wrongful conviction of Assoun, nor has council met in closed session to give city lawyers direction to oppose the media’s application to unseal court documents in the Assoun case.

Likewise, the two city councillors who sit on the Board of Police Commissioners — the body that provides civilian oversight of the police — confirm that the police commission has not discussed the Assoun case, nor has the commission given Read or the city attorney’s office direction to oppose the media’s application to the court.

So under whose authority did Read act?

I put that question to the city’s communication department and received a one sentence response:

The decision to intervene was made by Halifax Regional Police, in consultation with our legal services team, ultimately all under the authority of the CAO.

In other words, there is no political oversight of the police department.

Moreover, the politicians don’t even seem curious about the case.

“I’m not particularly familiar with the case,” said Mayor Mike Savage. “I wasn’t in public life when it [the murder of Way] happened.”

Asked if he is concerned that there are serious allegations of police misconduct, Savage responded that “if there’s some indication that the police now did something wrong, we’ll certainly look into it.” Of course, there’s been that “indication” since Assoun’s lawyers made the claim when Assoun was exonerated in March.

Asked for an interview to discuss the Assoun case, councillor and commissioner Tony Mancini responded via email:

I am happy to chat, however I am not sure what I can add to the conversation?  The Board of Police Commission did not discuss the Assoun case?  

Mancini did not answer further phone calls from the Examiner.

Halifax councillor Lindell Smith. Photo: Halifax Examiner

“I am not sure I would be the best person to interview,” said councillor and police commissioner Lindell Smith via email in response to an interview request. “I am not very informed on the details for this case. This case has been ongoing way before my time on the commission as you are aware, and the only information that I have would be from what I have read in the media.”

Smith continued:

To your questions:
The apparent police misconduct
Again, not being aware of the particulars, I couldn’t speak to the misconduct.

The legal position of the police department regarding the release of information in the case — what involvement, if any, the police commission had in approving the legal position
I am not aware what the legal position of the department was. Mr. Assoun was improperly convicted in 1993 [sic; it was actually 1999] and since joining the board last November there has never been a briefing on this case. It is my understanding that once a case is in the courts, the commission isn’t briefed unless requested by a member, and this would be in Camera.

Again, allegations of police misconduct were made in court on March 2, and were widely publicized, by the Halifax Examiner and other media. Smith and the other police commissioners have had plenty of time to request a briefing on the case, and more importantly, to direct legal staff.

Because the commissioners did not get involved, legal staff, supposedly under the direction of CAO Jacques Dubé, attempted to cover up the police misconduct in the case.

Where’s that civilian oversight?

We’re witnessing an astonishing display of cowardice from our elected officials.

It’s far past time for city council to step up and show leadership, and to get actively involved in the Assoun case to make matters right for Assoun, to stop legal attempts to hide police wrongdoing, to fully investigate police misconduct, and to hold those responsible accountable.


The Halifax Examiner is an advertising-free, subscriber-supported news site. Your subscription makes this work possible; please subscribe.

Legal fund

To contribute to the Halifax Examiner’s legal fundplease contact Iris.

Tim Bousquet

Tim Bousquet is the editor and publisher of the Halifax Examiner. Twitter @Tim_Bousquet Mastodon

Join the Conversation

8 Comments

Only subscribers to the Halifax Examiner may comment on articles. We moderate all comments. Be respectful; whenever possible, provide links to credible documentary evidence to back up your factual claims. Please read our Commenting Policy.
Cancel reply
  1. ” The decision to intervene was made by Halifax Regional Police, in consultation with our legal services team, ultimately all under the authority of the CAO.”
    The Chief of Police reports to the Board of Police Commissioners and the Police Act has no reference to the Chief reporting to the CAO or being under the authority of the CAO. I have mentioned this issue many times in comments on this site and neither Tim nor any other reporters have bothered to read the Act and the Bylaw relating to the powers and responsibilities of the Board.
    Few people want or would accept the notion of politicians becoming involved in legal actions. In this case we should all sit back and await the judicial decision.
    For greater detail re legal actions relating to policing see section 43 of the Police Act see here : https://nslegislature.ca/sites/default/files/legc/statutes/police.pdf

    1. “Few people want or would accept the notion of politicians becoming involved in legal actions. In this case we should all sit back and await the judicial decision.”

      But by sitting quiet, and letting HRM take a prominent role in a legal action, the municipal politicians did just what Colin May says is unwanted and unacceptable. This is Tim’s point.

      1. The legal action was not started by HRM, they are a bystander in an argument over disclosure.
        Legal issues are generally the remit of the legal staff or the CAO.
        You would be appalled if HRM council was voting in camera to decide who to sue/prosecute.
        Staff may decide to appeal the decision and do so without consulting the council.
        Enforcing by-laws is not subject to council decisions.
        Perhaps you believe councillors should be telling police officers who and when to arrest/prosecute.

        1. The police force initiated the action to become an intervener in order to keep the information about police misconduct from becoming public. The politicians should have been made aware of this, and should have stopped it.

          1. Under the collective agreement between HRM and HRP HRM is obligated, under certain circumstances, to provide legal services to member/members of HRP and the decision to provide/withold legal services is not within the purview of the council.

          2. The city often must provide legal representation to cops. No one’s arguing that. This is a completely different matter. It’s about informing the public. No specific cop was named in the city’s filings in this matter, nor was the collective agreement cited. The argument was administrative in nature, not criminal. You’r throwing out nonsense. The public’s right to know is paramount, and does not preclude a speculative future representation of some cop(s) in a civil or criminal matter that may be filed. In fact, Glen could sue specific cop(s) whether their names are redacted in the court documents or not. *He* has every right to their full names.

  2. I am not surprised. My own battle with the HRM, HRP and the RCMP is very similar in many ways. While I can and could never understand what Glenn has been through, I can feel some of his pain and trust me, I am ‘slightly’, you could say, attached to this story. Disclosure should be a big topic of discussion surrounding this case and other cases involving this city. While at great cost, I had won a small battle vs the HRM in Supreme Court. The case can be found on CanlawII legal site, file number Hfx. no. 258954 or 2011 NSSC 267. And yes, I have been told many times that ‘ well I was not involved at the time. ‘ or ‘ sorry, but before my time. ‘ Does that mean you just don’t have the time??? Almost 20 years for Glenn, 15 for me. Also, there are Police Officers still working as we speak that should be looked at. Maybe that’s why Council and our Politicians are reluctant? This is Pandora’s Box at it’s greatest. I have to commend Tim on doing a lifetime of work over this issue. The people need to know and they need to care.

  3. Lindell Smith has drank the Kool-Aid, sigh. I suppose it had to happen sooner or later.