[Here are four cases of OPCC dishonesty that were submitted to a joint BC Liberal/NDP committee of British Columbia MLAs. This page begins with three that were sent on September 11, 2012, followed by a fourth sent on November 20, 2012. The MLAs’ committee flatly ignored these submissions, as well as those of two other people. The MLAs refused my offer to appear before their committee. They met only with cop interests. Read more about the sham inquiry here.]

September 11, 2012

To all members of the Special Committee to Inquire into the Use of Conducted Energy Weapons and to Audit Selected Police Complaints:

I’m writing to request that your committee examine the following cases in your audit of B.C.’s Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner:

The OPCC’s handling of Vancouver police constable Taylor Robinson’s assault on Sandy Davidsen

The OPCC’s handling of New Westminster police constable Sukhwinder “Vinnie” Singh Dosanjh, who faced numerous serious charges

The OPCC’s selection of Bill Lewinski as an “expert witness” in the Paul Boyd shooting

I believe these cases show the OPCC colludes with police forces to cover up misconduct and criminal actions by police.

Here’s more detail on each case.


On June 9, 2010, Vancouver police constable Taylor Robinson shoved a disabled woman, Sandy Davidsen, to the sidewalk. Video evidence shows no justification for the assault. Robinson and his two partners looked at Davidsen lying on the ground, then walked away without checking her condition or providing assistance.

The incident didn’t become public knowledge until July 22, 2010, more than six weeks later. The public learned about this only because the B.C. Civil Liberties Association acquired surveillance video, which the organization released to the media.

It was only on July 22, 2010, following the BCCLA release, that the OPCC and VPD each issued a public statement acknowledging the incident and saying they learned about the incident soon after it happened.

However on July 22, 2010, after the OPCC statement was issued, the Vancouver Sun online edition reported: “No one at the OPCC returned calls Thursday [July 22, 2010].” The Sun also noted the fact in its print edition in a letter published on July 28, 2010.

A few days after July 22, 2010, an outside police force was called to investigate and Robinson was transferred to other duties.

There’s no credible indication that an investigation was underway before July 22, 2010, when the media learned about the assault.

Up to then Robinson was still walking a beat in the poverty-stricken neighbourhood where the assault took place and where there was a good chance he would encounter his victim again.

Vancouver police say they have a policy of requesting an outside police force to investigate allegations of serious misconduct among VPD officers. This incident is serious. It involves a gratuitous assault, an assault against a disabled woman, and an assault in a neighbourhood where police credibility was already severely strained.

Vancouver police claim they have a policy of notifying the public promptly when an officer is investigated for a serious incident. But in the Robinson case, no public notification was given until July 22, 2010.

B.C.’s Police Act requires police to inform the OPCC when a police officer is under investigation. So the VPD should have informed the OPCC on June 9, 2010, or very shortly after. The OPCC says it did learn about the incident promptly. So why didn’t the OPCC order an outside investigation well before July 22, 2010?

Why didn’t the OPCC make an announcement before then?

Why didn’t the OPCC respond to media calls after releasing its July 22, 2010 announcement?

Prior to July 22, 2010, Robinson had sent Davidsen a written “apology,” which suggests that the VPD had no intention of pursuing the matter further. (Additionally, Robinson didn’t even sign the letter. Nor is the letter actually an apology so much as an attempt to justify the assault by claiming he thought she was trying to grab his gun. That’s exactly the same excuse used by two Vancouver officers for beating up Ali Eltah Ishag on June 26, 2010, shortly before Robinson’s assault on Davidsen.) An apology would normally be the last step in attempting reconciliation. So it appears that this inadequate gesture was an attempt by Vancouver police to dismiss a very serious assault without proper investigation, let alone appropriate punishment.

There’s very little room for any but two possible conclusions: The OPCC learned about the assault soon after it happened but colluded in a Vancouver police cover-up. Or Vancouver police failed to inform the OPCC, as required by law, but the OPCC claimed otherwise to protect Robinson and his two partners, as well as other VPD officers who were obligated to report the incident to the OPCC.

And speaking of Robinson’s two partners, have they been investigated for failing to check Davidsen’s condition and offer her help?

I believe the July 22, 2010 before-and-after contrast shows how the OPCC operates — in secrecy, whenever possible, with the intention of colluding in police cover-ups.


The same principle applies to the case of New Westminster police constable Sukhwinder “Vinnie” Singh Dosanjh. He was suspended July 28, 2008, while under investigation for a number of very serious charges related to an off-duty Port Moody incident in which he assaulted a woman after illegally entering her house. But the OPCC, along with New Westminster police and Port Moody police, kept the case secret. More than three months later, on November 3, 2008, the media found out. They did so only because a reporter working on another story asked New Westminster police how many of its officers were then under suspension. Three days of news stories about Dosanjh followed. Then the media lost track of the case until February 10, 2012. On that day New Westminster’s Royal City Record reported that Dosanjh had returned to work following a three-year, seven-month paid suspension. The Record apparently discovered that despite the lack of any public announcement from New Westminster Police or the OPCC. The Record story is here.

The details stink.

The Record stated that Crown attorneys had dropped all charges against Dosanjh, who admitted guilt to several charges. Even though the Crown dropped charges, the judge was so concerned that he took the unusual step of imposing a peace bond with a number of conditions on Dosanjh. He was to report to a probation officer, have no contact with the woman he assaulted and possess no weapons outside his police work. He was also ordered to undergo psychological treatment. Additionally, the Record revealed that Dosanjh faced additional allegations, including an off-duty firearms offence, which were investigated under the Police Act but not under the Criminal Code.

Despite admitting to very serious charges, Dosanjh was allowed to return to the force. His only penalty is a temporary (15-month) reduction in rank to second-class constable, a minor inconvenience following his nearly four-year paid vacation.

The February 10, 2012 Record story also stated: “Rollie Woods, deputy police complaint commissioner, recently told The Record that he has seen New Westminster Police Service become one of the better forces in the province when it comes to transparency, discipline and accountability.”

Not long after the Record story appeared, the OPCC deleted its archive of media releases prior to February 10, 2012. The OPCC did so on or about February 18, 2012. On February 17, 2012 the Record printed a letter I wrote about the Robinson and Dosanjh cases.

The OPCC did not release an annual report for 2011.

Why didn’t the OPCC inform the public in July 2008 that Dosanjh was under investigation? These are very serious offences.

Why didn’t the OPCC object to the extremely slow conduct of the Police Act investigation? Justice delayed is justice denied.

Who conducted the investigation — an outside police force or Dosanjh’s colleagues?

Why didn’t the OPCC object to Dosanjh’s nearly four-year paid vacation? Dosanjh actually profited from his criminal actions.

Why didn’t the OPCC inform the public of its decision regarding Dosanjh? New Westminster police sergeant Diana McDanie told the Record that the OPCC “signed off” on the cop-on-cop investigation. The OPCC still hasn’t made a public statement on the subject.

Exactly what did the OPCC “sign off” on, and why? How does the OPCC justify Dosanjh’s return to the force when he admits to charges that reflect very poorly on his suitability for work involving weapons and use of force? Furthermore the judge showed strong concern about Dosanjh, including his suitability to handle firearms and his mental health.

Why did deputy police complaint commissioner Rollie Woods praise New Westminster police at the same time that this secret investigation was dragging on?

Why did the OPCC delete its online archive of media releases after the Record published its story about Dosanjh and my letter about Robinson and Dosanjh? Why hasn’t the OPCC issued a 2011 annual report? The OPCC has made it more difficult for journalists and other citizens to monitor the agency.

How does this case reflect on the OPCC’s handling of other cases that fail to get sufficient media coverage, support from an influential group or caught on video?


The third case shows that the OPCC set out in advance to clear police of wrongdoing, that it worked with police to do so, and that it is closely connected to the police forces it supposedly oversees.

On August 29, 2012, CBC broadcast an investigative report concerning the Paul Boyd shooting death by Vancouver police constable Lee Chipperfield. In the CBC report the victim’s father, David Boyd, raises questions about a self-proclaimed police psychologist named Bill Lewinski, whom the OPCC used as an expert witness. Lewinski claimed that Chipperfield repeatedly shot Boyd because the officer was “inattentionally blind.” In its March 16, 2012 final report, the OPCC accepted Lewinski’s rationale, stating that he “reasonably explained” Chipperfield’s actions.

The CBC reported that a judge examining an Oakland, California, police shooting rejected Lewinski’s claim of inattentional blindness. The judge called it speculative.

The CBC reported that Lewinski got his degree online and named his own subject “police psychology.”

In the CBC report, lawyer Michael Haddad of the U.S.-based National Police Accountability Project says of Lewinski: “We’ve done a lot of research about him in many different cases and we’ve seen that his opinions are consistently to exonerate bad shootings by police officers.”

The CBC stated that Lewinski declined numerous requests for interviews.

In the CBC report, David Boyd asks why the OPCC used Lewinski as an expert witness when the Vancouver police also used him.

In the CBC report, deputy police complaint commissioner Rollie Woods, a former Vancouver police officer himself, defends Lewinski. It wasn’t until after the CBC report was broadcast that the OPCC stated it would not hire Lewinski again.

If this reflects a lack of due diligence by the OPCC, that in itself is a serious failing. But, given the OPCC’s track record of siding with police, it’s likely the OPCC did perform due diligence — that the OPCC deliberately recruited someone who consistently clears the police.

Furthermore, it’s alarming that Vancouver police had already used Lewinski. It’s possible that police complaint commissioner Stan T. Lowe, ex-VPD Rollie Woods or any of the other senior OPCC staff (all senior OPCC staff are former B.C. police officers or people with previous jobs very close to B.C. police) asked the VPD for advice on an “expert” who was guaranteed to clear Chipperfield.

The CBC report is an exceptionally rare example of the OPCC coming under scrutiny. There may be many more cases in which the OPCC has gone to extraordinary lengths to side with police, either through cover-ups or false rationalizations.


I brought to light the OPCC’s secrecy on the Robinson case in a letter published in the Vancouver Sun on July 28, 2010 and its secrecy on the Robinson and Dosanjh cases in a letter published in the New Westminster Record on February 17, 2012. The CBC broadcast reports about Lewinski on August 29 and 31, 2012. So the OPCC has had time to back-date files and concoct stories. But I urge this committee to take a very close look at this agency and ask difficult questions.

Although I’ve previously called for an independent investigation into the OPCC, I can’t help wondering whether a legislative committee is appropriate. In committee and the legislature, both the BC Liberals and NDP have consistently united to thwart police accountability.

It was an all-party committee that unanimously appointed Stan T. Lowe police complaint commissioner in December 2008. He was appointed just one week after stating that the five Taser blasts and other brutal treatment inflicted on Robert Dziekanski were “reasonable and necessary.” Lowe made that statement as part of the Criminal Justice Branch executive management that unanimously decided to exonerate the four RCMP officers involved.

In October 2009 both the BC Liberals and NDP united to pass a revised Police Act that changed nothing of substance.

In May 2011 both parties again united, this time to pass legislation creating an Independent Investigations Office that doesn’t come close to its supposed model, Ontario’s Special Investigations Unit. I’m appending a list of the IIO’s shortcomings to the end of this submission. But it’s worth emphasizing here that the legislation keeps the IIO immune from the provincial Ombudsperson and instead puts the new agency under the investigative authority of Stan Lowe and his crew of ex-cops.

The record of your two parties on this issue suggests rigid party discipline, possibly in response to a powerful police lobby. Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin has written about the power of police lobbyists in Ontario and Manitoba.

I believe a scandal would result if the OPCC were to face scrutiny similar to Marin’s investigation of the SIU. The three OPCC cases noted above are just the tip of the iceberg. Unless a case gets sufficient media coverage, support from an influential group or caught on video, the OPCC colludes with police to either cover up or excuse police misconduct.

So I urge the members of this committee to take a close look at the OPCC and ask some difficult questions. And, if need be, tell your party enforcers to get stuffed.

Greg Klein



The legislated shortcomings of
B.C.’s new Independent Investigations Office


Media coverage on the IIO has neglected these points, instead focusing on Richard Rosenthal as a person.

The BC Liberals point out that Braidwood supports their legislation. But to do so, Braidwood changed his position radically. The B.C. Civil Liberties Association has repeatedly congratulated the government for its legislation, falsely stating that it marks the end of police self-investigations. But the BCCLA is close to the NDP. The NDP voted unanimously in favour of the legislation and has supported every previous BC Liberal ploy to thwart police accountability.

Greg Klein


November 20, 2012

To all members of the Special Committee to Inquire into the Use of Conducted Energy Weapons and to Audit Selected Police Complaints:

I’m requesting that you consider another case for your audit of the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner, in addition to the three cases I brought to your attention on September 11, 2012 and again on October 4, 2012.

The incident behind this case isn’t nearly as serious as the other three. But the principle is important. So is the fact that this case shows obvious dishonesty on the part of former police complaint commissioner Dirk Ryneveld, former deputy police complaint commissioner Bruce M. Brown and current deputy police complaint commissioner Rollie Woods.

In fact their dishonesty is so brazen that there’s no justification for euphemisms. Woods, Brown and Ryneveld proved themselves to be liars. That they were so obvious suggests dishonesty was, and is, routine for police self-investigations and OPCC reviews. The way this police complaint was handled probably presents a typical case study of a dishonest process and a dishonest OPCC.

The incident took place on June 14, 2006. Three Vancouver police officers — constables John Doduk, Anna Grigoletto and Jeffrey Dy — fully supported the actions of two private security guards who illegally “arrested” and assaulted me on a public sidewalk.

The two security guards threatened to break my arms because I was walking up a public street that they had felt emboldened to take over. It’s important to note that the street was not closed to the public. They had no right to take over the street. They were just acting tough.

I reported that threat to 911. When I was told the police wouldn’t respond for several hours, I returned to get the security guards’ licence plate numbers. While I was writing down one of the licence plate numbers they grabbed me, pushed me, handcuffed my hands behind my back, shoved me to the ground, tried to press my face into the sidewalk, forced me to kneel in a painful stress position and threatened to kick my face in. All this happened on a public sidewalk.

When VPD officers Dy, Grigoletto and Doduk arrived they immediately sided with the security guards. Right from the beginning they displayed enormous animosity towards me but deference to the two security guards, one of whom was very big.

After I complained to Vancouver Police Professional Standards, the matter was handled by VPD sergeant Ian Upton, who worked under the department head, inspector Rollie Woods. Woods wrote the decision. He’s now deputy police complaint commissioner.

VPD Professional Standards gave me every impression they intended in advance to find the police 100-percent right and the complainant 100-percent wrong. Woods’ decision, dated December 5, 2006, confirmed that. So I wrote to the OPCC on January 4, 2007. The matter was handled by Bruce M. Brown, then deputy police complaint commissioner.

Again, there’s no justification for euphemisms. Woods lied a number of times in his VPD decision. Brown lied when he rubber-stamped Woods’ decision. Ryneveld lied when he supported Brown’s dishonest work.

Brown’s written decision of February 5, 2007 defended the three police officers by first defending the two security guards.

The following is an outline of the most serious problems with the way this complaint was handled. While there might be a “he said/she said” aspect to some parts of the incident, the dishonesty of Woods, Brown and Ryneveld can be seen by examining the written correspondence regarding this complaint.

Rollie Woods, Bruce M. Brown and Dirk Ryneveld lied
about a straightforward section of the Criminal Code.

Woods and Brown lied when they claimed the security guards had the right to arrest me under Section 494 of the Criminal Code. At that time, security guards had no more right of arrest than any other citizen — in other words, a citizen’s arrest. The legislation covering a citizen’s arrest at that time was Section 494. It’s appended at the end of this submission. The legislation is straightforward.

It didn’t give the security guards the right to “arrest” me — not nearly. I had not committed an offence, nor did the guards have reasonable grounds to think I did.

Their rationale was an extremely vague, unsubstantiated claim that I was “suspicious.” In my letter to the OPCC, I pointed out that Woods’ claim that I was “suspicious” was far too vague to use Section 494 to justify the security guards’ actions. Yet Brown simply repeated the same vague, unsubstantiated claim to justify illegal use of handcuffs, detention and, by implication, violence by two security guards, and to justify the unprofessional conduct of three police officers who immediately sided with them.

This is a very important point. VDP inspector Woods lied when he deliberately misinterpreted a straightforward section of the Criminal Code. I pointed out the obvious weakness of Woods’ rationale to the OPCC. But Brown repeated Woods’ lie.

Brown didn’t even try to explain this crucial point further. He simply repeated Woods’ vague, unsubstantiated reasoning for a brazenly dishonest decision.

On reading Woods’ decision, I was very disappointed by the obvious dishonesty of a senior police officer who was making up the Criminal Code as he went along. On reading Brown’s decision, I was extremely surprised that a senior public official would display such brazen dishonesty. So on May 5, 2007 I took the unusual step of asking then-police complaint commissioner Dirk Ryneveld to review Brown’s work. Ryneveld’s response, dated August 17, 2007, supported every aspect of Brown’s decision unequivocally, showing Ryneveld to be an obvious liar too.

The enormity of this lie is staggering. Woods, Brown and Ryneveld proved themselves to be complacent, arrogant bigshots who could get away with making up the Criminal Code as they went along.

Woods, Brown and Ryneveld supported a VPD violation
of B.C.’s Privacy Act.

The police made me provide my name, address and birth date while the security guards were standing very close and listening intently. Woods ignored this aspect of my complaint. Brown refused to act on it, implying it was acceptable police procedure. Ryneveld supported Brown. In fact it’s a breach of the Privacy Act and therefore illegal.

Woods, Brown and Ryneveld used wildly contradictory statements
from the two security guards as evidence against me. They should have
considered those statements as evidence challenging the credibility
of the security guards.

The security guards gave radically different reasons for handcuffing me. According to Woods, they said I wanted to fight them and I consented to being handcuffed. Woods used these contradictory remarks to justify the fact that they handcuffed me. He didn’t consider how they reflect on the security guards’ credibility.

I pointed this out in my letter to the OPCC. Brown tried to make excuses by saying the contradictory statements might be a “consequence of proximity, angle, emotional state, or the degree of personal involvement or jeopardy.” The contradictions are far too blatant to be explained by Brown’s weak excuses. Two guys committed a violent and illegal arrest, then gave wildly contradictory statements to justify an important aspect of the incident.

An honest investigator would consider the very strong likelihood that at least one of those contradictory statements is a lie. (In fact both statements are lies. But since no one at the VPD or OPCC witnessed the incident first-hand, they would have to consider that at least one statement is most probably a lie.)

Those wildly divergent contradictions obviously reflected badly on the security guards’ credibility. Instead of considering that, Woods accepted the contradictions as evidence against me. Brown went to great lengths to construct an extremely weak, dishonest excuse for the contradictory statements. Ryneveld supported Brown. Again, all three lied about an extremely important aspect of the complaint.

(By the way, Woods, Brown and Ryneveld, like constables Dy, Grigoletto and Doduk, completely ignored the assault. Once handcuffed, I was shoved to ground. The security guards tried to shove my face into the pavement and then forced me to kneel in a very painful stress position. One of them threatened to kick my face in while I was kneeling with my hands cuffed behind my back.)

Liars that they are, Woods, Brown and Ryneveld might deny the assault even took place. But you have evidence of their dishonesty in the way Woods, Brown and Ryneveld held contradictory statements against me, when they should have admitted that the contradictions challenge the security guards’ credibility.

Woods used a highly subjective statement to dishonestly rationalize
the three police officers who supported an illegal arrest. Brown and Ryneveld
ignored this in order to dishonestly support Woods and his fellow officers.

Woods stated, “The security guards had an honest belief that you had committed a criminal offence...” (Emphasis added.) Woods provided no support for this extremely subjective judgement. There was no evidence that I had committed an offence and I provided evidence that I hadn’t. For example, why would I have been writing down a licence plate number if I was committing a crime? I still had the piece of paper with the plate number.

Woods’ subjective judgement, like the extremely vague, unsubstantiated claim that I was “suspicious,” didn’t nearly justify a citizen’s arrest under Section 494 of the Criminal Code. Woods was obviously, and dishonestly, straining to rationalize the illegal arrest and therefore the three Vancouver police officers who supported it. I pointed this out to the OPCC. Brown and Ryneveld ignored it in order to dishonestly support Woods and his three fellow officers.

Brown and Ryneveld lied about the information
I gave to VPD Professional Standards.

Brown falsely stated: “You did not provide any information as to the actual handcuffing and the manner in which it was done.” Again, he was lying. I provided that information in my original complaint to VPD Professional Standards and my interview with VPD Professional Standards.

Ryneveld supported Brown, again showing himself to be a liar.

Brown and Ryneveld lied when they praised
the VPD Professional Standards investigation.

Brown lied again when he claimed that the Vancouver Police Professional Standards investigation was “thorough and complete.” In fact it was biased and dishonest, for reasons that I detailed in my letter to the OPCC. Brown again showed obvious dishonesty and Ryneveld supported him.

Brown and Ryneveld refused to send the complaint back to
VPD Professional Standards for another investigation.

Brown and Ryneveld refused outright to call a public hearing into this complaint. They didn’t even acknowledge that another option open to them was to send the complaint back to VPD Professional Standards for a fair investigation. Brown and Ryneveld didn’t mention that possibility because they were dishonest public officials who support police misconduct.

Brown ignored a demonstrable lie from constable Doduk.
Ryneveld obfuscated the point.

Even more evidence of Brown’s dishonesty showed when he ignored the fact that constable Doduk falsely claimed I had not phoned 911 to report that the security guards had threatened me. That happened prior to the security guards “arresting” and assaulting me.

Ryneveld acknowledged that 911 call, but without acknowledging how that reflects on the credibility of Brown and Doduk. Instead, Ryneveld tried to obfuscate the point by immediately stating: “… you were likely not aware of the fact that the security guards had also phoned 911 to report their arrest of you pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Code.”

I was indeed aware of that. The security guard was standing right in front of me as he made the call. I was kneeling on the sidewalk in a very painful stress position with my hands cuffed behind my back. Ryneveld shifted the topic to evade the fact that Doduk made a false statement and Brown ignored it.

Ryneveld repeated his lie about Section 494 of the Criminal Code.

Ryneveld’s choice of words “pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Code” (in the above passage) again falsely stated that this was a legal citizen’s arrest, which it most certainly was not. Ryneveld knew that. He’s a liar.

Woods, Brown and Ryneveld ignored another aspect
of the VPD officers’ dereliction of duty.

Another important point that Woods, Brown and Ryneveld ignored is this: Even if the three VPD officers didn’t think they had enough evidence to charge the security guards, they should have at least given them a stern warning about illegal arrest and assault. Instead, the police sided with them from the start. The police officers further reinforced the guards’ actions by refusing to let me explain what happened and by behaving obnoxiously towards me, strongly implying to the guards that Vancouver police approve of illegal arrest and assault — at least when committed against low-income East Enders.

Brown showed bias against low-income people.

Brown suggested that the East Side Vancouver location helped justify the security guards’ actions and the police who supported them. But the security guards had no more right to “arrest,” handcuff and assault me in my neighbourhood than they would to “arrest,” handcuff and assault people like Brown, Woods or Ryneveld in their neighbourhoods.

Brown and Ryneveld lied when they stated
there was no independent evidence to support me.

Brown again lied when he claimed: “There is no independent evidence that would seem to corroborate your allegations.” That’s false. For example, my 911 call stated that the security guards were breaking the law even before they “arrested” and assaulted me. They were two tough guys who wanted to take over a public street and threatened me for walking up that street.

Brown ignored the fact that I was writing down the licence plate number of one of the security guards’ vehicles when they “arrested” me. That was further evidence supporting my complaint. If I were committing an offence, why would I be writing down a license plate number? I still had the paper with the licence plate number. Constables Grigoletto, Doduk and Dy should have taken that into consideration, but they refused to listen to me. Woods, Brown and Ryneveld also ignored this important piece of evidence. Then Brown lied by stating there’s no independent evidence to support me. Ryneveld supported Brown’s lie.

Brown and Ryneveld lied in stating
that the three Vancouver police officers “acted appropriately.”

There’s no independent evidence to support that lie. Instead, there are too many indications that they behaved unprofessionally. Again, at the very least, the three officers should have given the two security guards a very clear, stern warning about illegal arrest and assault. Instead they fully supported the security guards’ actions from the start. They further reinforced the security guards’ actions by behaving offensively to me. Brown and Ryneveld stated otherwise because they are liars.


There are several other problems with the way Woods, Brown and Ryneveld handled this complaint. They ignored other aspects of my complaint, like the security guards’ demeanour and behaviour in front of the police, who were clearly deferential to the security guards. Woods, Brown and Ryneveld smeared me by claiming I was intoxicated. They claimed I wouldn’t let the police talk, when in fact I was so scared that I was deferential in response to their obnoxious behaviour. Brown tried to evade the real issues by filling nearly one-fifth of his report with irrelevant information cut and pasted from a Law Commission of Canada report. The list of faults goes on and on.

But the problems I’ve emphasized are especially disturbing and they don’t rely on “he said/she said” evidence. The evidence of dishonesty among Woods, Brown and Ryneveld comes through clearly in the written correspondence regarding this complaint. They lied about the Criminal Code, the Privacy Act, the security guards’ contradictory statements, my statements to VPD Professional Standards and other issues. At every stage, Woods, Brown and Ryneveld handled the complaint dishonestly.

And as I stated near the beginning, the brazen manner in which they did so suggests more than arrogance. It suggests they were dishonest as a matter of routine. That would make this case fairly typical of how the police and OPCC work together to dismiss complaints. Unless a complaint gets media coverage, caught on video or the support of an influential group, the OPCC routinely supports dishonest police self-investigations.

When police screw up that badly, and behave that offensively, citizens need to know that the offending officers have been dealt with properly. Instead, Vancouver Police Professional Standards sets out in advance to find police 100-percent right and complainants 100-percent wrong. The OPCC then rubber-stamps the dishonest police self-investigation.

So apart from my extreme disappointment with a police force I once respected, I’ve learned about corruption in high places. The OPCC consists of liars who get away with being liars because they answer to no one. That leads to the final aspect of this submission:

Police complaint commissioner Stan T. Lowe hired and promoted
Rollie Woods, knowing full well that Woods is a liar.

I met Lowe briefly in September 2009. I didn’t bring up the subject, but he said a few times, “My office treated you very badly.” He was therefore familiar with this case, although it happened under his predecessor, Ryneveld. If Lowe was familiar with the case, he knew that Woods is a liar. Yet Lowe hired Woods and later promoted him deputy police complaint commissioner.


I’ll be happy to provide any additional information and also attend a meeting of your committee, if requested.

Section 494 of the Criminal Code is appended below.

Greg Klein


Section 494 of the Criminal Code of Canada

Arrest without warrant by any person

494. (1) Any one may arrest without warrant

(a) a person whom he finds committing an indictable offence; or

(b) a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes

(i) has committed a criminal offence, and

(ii) is escaping from and freshly pursued by persons who have lawful authority to arrest that person.

Arrest by owner, etc., of property

(2) Any one who is

(a) the owner or a person in lawful possession of property, or

(b) a person authorized by the owner or by a person in lawful possession of property,

may arrest without warrant a person whom he finds committing a criminal offence on or in relation to that property.

Delivery to peace officer

(3) Any one other than a peace officer who arrests a person without warrant shall forthwith deliver the person to a peace officer.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 449; R.S., c. 2(2nd Supp.), s. 5.

Read about what turned out to be a sham inquiry into the OPCC
Read more about Stan T. Lowe and the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner
Go to News and Comment page