Public Interest Litigation Against Investigators

Can the courts be used to effect change in the way that investigators conduct their inquiries? That issue is squarely raised in Williams v London Police Services Board, 2019 ONSC 227, <http://canlii.ca/t/hwxbr>. Representative plaintiffs and a well-known legal aid clinic that focusses on addressing violence against women sued a municipal police service for systematically declaring complaints of sexual assault as unfounded “based on sexual stereotypes and myths about sexual assault and sexual assault complainants”. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the rights of sexual assault complaints under s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom were infringed, implementing a “Court appointed external review panel to review all LPS sexual assault cases that have been closed as “unfounded”” and damages. The police service moved to strike out the claim on various grounds including that claims were frivolous, that the legal aid clinic did not have standing to be a party and that the relief sought was not available in law.

The Court rejected those arguments and allowed the claim to continue. The Court held that it was not clear and certain the claim would fail and that it should be allowed to proceed. The Court did require some changes to the pleadings, but nothing that altered the ability of the action to proceed.

Regulators should be aware that claims for systemic discrimination against investigators are possible in Canada.

More Posts

The Importance of Engaging with the Issues

The importance of addressing the significant issues raised when screening complaints was reinforced in Sarpong v Law Enforcement Complaints Agency, 2026 ONSC 3525 (CanLII). There,

Failed Delivery

In Real Estate Council of Alberta v More, 2026 ABKB 459 (CanLII), the regulator received several complaints about a former registrant’s conduct which raised serious

Challenging Disciplinary Findings

In Bacchus v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario, 2026 ONSC 3415 (CanLII), the registrant appealed a discipline panel’s decision on the basis that