On June 24th, 2009, Levi Schaeffer was shot and killed by a police officer.  

The only other person there and alive to witness what occurred was a second officer- the first officer’s partner.

 The Special Investigations Unit- a civilian law enforcement agency- was called in, as mandated by the Police Services Act, to investigate circumstances involving police and civilians which have resulted in death.

    The investigation unveiled that both officers had been instructed by supervisors to hold off on writing their notes or making any statements until they had both consulted O.P.P.A. lawyers.

The information subsequently submitted to the S.I.U. was written days after the shooting and may have been a mash up of the subject and witness officers’ remembrances because it was vetted for review by O.P.P.A.

 On September 28^th, 2009 SIU director Ian Scott announced he was unable to decide if an OPP officer was guilty of wrongdoing in the shooting death of Levi Schaeffer- so no charges were laid.

Last fall the Schaeffer family, along with the family of one Douglas Minty who was also shot by police last June- asked a Superior Court judge to put an end to the long standing practice of lawyer vetting.

It is common practice across the province for officers involved in fatal incidents to have their notes looked over and ‘approved’ by police union lawyers before giving them to the SIU as evidence. 

Too often, the same union lawyer will review both subject and witness officers statements.  The section of the Police Act that calls for officers to be segregated until after being interviewed by the SIU is violated through this practice.

SIU Director Ian Scott and Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino have been squaring off on this issue of lawyer vetting.   The relationship between these two bodies has become so strained that in January, the Attorney General, appointed a mediator to defuse the situation.

The police and their unions say that officers involved in an incident have a charter right to see a lawyer.  

Julian Falconer, the lawyer representing  the Schaeffer and Minty families- argues that this charter right does not apply to witness officers.

HELP RAISE LEGAL FUNDS SO THAT THE SCHAEFFER FAMILY

CAN PURSUE THIS IMPORTANT CASE THROUGH THE COURTS.

HELP RAISE AWARENESS AND UNDERSTANDING OF THIS STORY AND STAY TUNED FOR FURTHER UPDATES.

JUSTICE FOR LEVI!    JUSTICE FOR US ALL!

About the case update Jan 2012:

At the Ontario Superior Court, lawyers from the Ontario Provincial Police Association put forward a motion to strike the application put forward by the families.   They effectively convinced the justice presiding to forgo hearing the application on its merits, to declare that the families had neither private nor public interest standing and that the matters before the court were moot.   In September, 2011, the families appealed this decision at the Ontario Superior Court of Appeal.   In a unanimous November 15^th, 2011 decision, Ontario’s top court declared that the police note taking behavior in question was not permissible by law and that although an officer could and should speak with a lawyer to seek legal advice, but that they could not postpone finishing notes on time or submit notes that have been first checked and vetted by a lawyer.   In late January, 2012, the Ontario Provincial Police Association began the process of taking the Ontario Superior Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.   No date is set, but it is expected that these matters may come before Canada’s highest court in December 2012.