Search results
notes in the Schaeffer investigation stand as a stark reminder of the significance of Counsel intervention.1 B. Statement of Facts 1. Procedural History 4. The Respondents (also referred to as the “Families”) are the respective families of Douglas Minty and Levi Schaeffer, two mentally disabled men who died as a result of two
Wood v Schaeffer [2] is a significant ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning procedural requirements involving incidents arising from police misconduct. Background [ edit ]
Dec 19, 2013 · Citation: Wood v. Schaeffer, 2013 SCC 71, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1053. Date: 20131219. Docket: 34621. Between: Police Constable Kris Wood, Acting Sergeant Mark Pullbrook and Police Constable Graham Seguin. Appellants/Respondents on cross-appeal. and. Ruth Schaeffer, Evelyn Minty, Diane Pinder and Ian Scott, Director of the Special Investigations Unit.
B. Facts 4. For the purpose of this cross-appeal, the Families rely on the facts as detailed m paragraphs 11 to 52 oftheir factum on the main appeal. C. Court of Appeal's Decision 5. At paragraph 81 of the decision, the Court of Appeal outlined the limits on counsel's advice prior to an officer completing his or her notes:
Supreme Court clarifies the duties of police officers who are under investigation by the Special Investigations Unit In Wood v. Schaeffer, the Supreme Court of Canada held that police officers have a duty to prepare accurate, detailed and comprehensive notes as soon as possible after an investigation or incident, and cannot confer with legal counsel before preparing their notes.
Dec 18, 2013 · In a strongly worded report following the Schaeffer investigation, Scott wrote that the officers’ “note-writing process flies in the face” of what makes the notes reliable.
People also ask
What are the facts of the Schaeffer investigation?
How did the police detain Mr Schaeffer?
What is Schaeffer v Wood?
Was the lethal force used in the Minty investigation excessive?
Who prepared a report on the Special Investigations Unit reforms?
RUTH SCHAEFFER, EVELYN MINTY AND DIANE PINDER . Respondents -and- IAN SCOTT, DIRECTOR OF THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT . Respondent -and- JULIAN FANTINO, COMMISSIONER OF THE ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE . Respondent . APPELLANTS’ FACTUM . GREENSPAN HUMPHREY LAVINE GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON . Barristers Barristers and Solicitors
