City appeals ruling it released too much info

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 16/08/2018 (2078 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

After a superior court judge criticized a Winnipeg police policy to allow the release of information that goes beyond criminal convictions, the city is appealing to Manitoba’s highest court.

The City of Winnipeg has launched a 15-ground appeal against a judgment from Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Sheldon Lanchbery. In May, he wrote a strongly worded decision in favour of a Winnipeg man who found out that information about his past criminal charges was included on his vulnerable-sector check for a job application, even though he was never convicted and has no criminal record.

Lanchbery decided Michael Kalo was entitled to a hearing with representatives of the Winnipeg Police Service so he could dispute the records disclosure. The judge ruled an internal police service policy is “flawed” and he asked the province to bring in legislation that would standardize rules for how non-conviction records are disclosed in exceptional cases.

In a notice of appeal filed on Aug. 16, the city argues Lanchbery made several legal errors and overstepped his bounds by telling the police service what to do.

“The learned application judge exceeded its jurisdiction in requiring the WPS to conduct its exceptional disclosure assessment in a particular fashion,” the notice of appeal states.

Kalo said Friday he’ll “vigorously defend” the city’s appeal and may consider further legal action.

“It’s a very weak appeal,” he said. “He (Lanchbery) made a strong, detailed, reasoned decision after hearing submissions from both (sides) and I think that his decision should stand and I think that his decision should be respected.”

Kalo had his WPS hearing earlier this week to challenge police disclosure of his non-conviction records. He said he expects the police inspector’s decision to be released soon.

The legal challenge began after Kalo applied to work as a school bus driver in early 2017. He got a vulnerable-sector check done — a common part of the process for job applicants who would be working with children.

The checks go beyond a standard criminal record check, including information about sexual offences that were pardoned, as well as police information.

Kalo’s vulnerable-sector check showed eight-year-old sexual-assault allegations that had been levied against him during a family court battle with his former spouse. Kalo was accused of sexual assault and sexual interference, but the charges were stayed after he signed a peace bond. He was never convicted.

His previous criminal record checks came back clear, but about three months before he applied for the vulnerable-sector check, the Winnipeg Police Service updated its policies on exceptional disclosure assessment, allowing an officer to review a person’s non-conviction information and include it on the record check if there are concerns the person may be a sexual predator or has a history of fraud targeting the elderly or vulnerable.

In its appeal, the city argues Lanchbery was wrong in finding Kalo didn’t know about the updated police policy. It says Kalo signed a document when he applied for the vulnerable-sector check that indicated the disclosure assessment would happen.

Lanchbery’s judgment said police were like “judge, jury and executioner” because they could decide what information to disclose on a records check without giving the applicant a chance to challenge that decision.

In the past, police Chief Danny Smyth has said the police service was taking Lanchbery’s judgment seriously and would determine whether changes were necessary. On Friday, the Winnipeg Police Service didn’t respond to questions about whether the policy has been reviewed or changed.

The Criminal Defence Lawyers Association of Manitoba supports Lanchbery’s call for implementation of provincial standards for disclosing non-conviction records, said spokesman Scott Newman.

“These kinds of disclosures can have serious repercussions for people, whether it’s employment or Child and Family Services or a myriad of other situations (including) travel abroad,” Newman said.

“So it’s something that should be done with great care, because of the impact it can have on people’s lives and there has to be appropriate safeguards, whether that’s judicial oversight or some kind of a mechanism to make sure that you’re not disclosing something that you shouldn’t be.”

katie.may@freepress.mb.caTwitter: @thatkatiemay