Alberta court overturns ruling which held Edmonton police responsible for racially-motivated arrest

An Alberta try has quashed a human rights tribunal determination that held the Edmonton law serve liable for discriminating against deuce Black men during an arrest in 2017. 

A decision from Court of King’s Bench of Alberta Justice John Little, issued Monday, has cleared the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) of liability in the arrest of Yousef John and Caesar Judianga. 

The decision is the result of a judicial review brought by the EPS over a 2024 ruling from the Human Rights Tribunal of Alberta, which awarded $80,000 to the men who were pepper-sprayed, forced to the ground and detained by police in 2017.

John and Judianga, who are members of Edmonton’s South Sudanese community, alleged that they suffered racial discrimination while attempting to stop a theft in progress outside their home. 

The tribunal found that, while individual responding officers were not liable, the EPS as an institution was liable for the racial discrimination the men had suffered during a wrongful arrest.

The commission ordered EPS to pay each of the men $40,000 in damages for the "injury to dignity" they had faced.

In his decision issued Monday, Little said the human rights tribunal erred in holding the EPS responsible when it had cleared the officers for their role in the arrest.

Little found that the tribunal's logic was "completely at odds" with itself. 

The tribunal made specific findings of fact that the officers acted based on bias, yet simultaneously concluded there was no finding of discrimination by those same officers, Little wrote. 

“The finding by the tribunal of no discrimination by the officers and its subsequent imposition of liability on EPS is unreasonable,” Little wrote. 

Little also ruled there was a lack of legal basis for institutional liability in the case. The tribunal failed to explain how the EPS could be liable if the responding officers were not. 

“Here, the complaints were dismissed against the two employees,” Little wrote. “In a corporate situation, if no liability is imposed on an employee, there is no reason to pierce the corporate veil to impose it on the corporation.” 

In his decision, Little chose not to send the case back for another hearing, citing the long legal battle already endured by the parties involved in the case. 

“I see no reason why the parties should be put to the time and expense of repeating this tortuous process some nine years after the incident.”

The arrest occurred on May 5, 2017. John and Judianga called police after witnessing a white woman throwing a rock through a car window, outside their apartment.

John, Judianga and their roommate chased after the woman and made a citizen's arrest while they waited for police to arrive.

The first officer on scene pepper-sprayed the men, ordered them to get on the ground and put them in handcuffs.

The men were arrested while the woman was taken to a police car and given support.

Later that night, after learning more details about what happened, police took the handcuffs off of the men and let them go, the tribunal heard. 

The documents say an officer also told the men they should feel lucky they weren't shot.

Human rights commission member Erika Ringseis found the Edmonton Police Service liable for racial discrimination due to unconscious bias on the part of the officers, noting the rapid deployment of pepper spray, and the disparity in their treatment when compared to the alleged thief.

No personal liability, however, was found against the police officers in question, Const. Celia Frattin and Const. Jordan Steele.

In his ruling, Little said that the original decision was unreasonable “in stating that it found no discrimination by the officers, when it clearly did so.” 

A lawyer for John and Judiang said he will review the decision and consult with his clients regarding a possible appeal.

“The EPS acknowledges the pain and suffering that many people of colour experience due to bias, discrimination and racism in our society. 

“The EPS maintains that the responding officers made an immediate, critical decision with the information available to them at the time, which was that a crying female was being held down by one of three males on scene, all of whom were physically larger than the lone officer who first attended. 

“The EPS considers it appropriate that both the factual decision and the penalty have been overturned, and neither was sent back for a re-hearing.”   

Reporter

Add some “good” to your morning and evening.

---

---