DRUG SQUAD PROBE FOUND 'SERIOUS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY'

Investigators Of Toronto Officers Alleged Widespread Corruption, Documents Show

TORONTO -- A sweeping internal probe into Toronto police drug squads
uncovered evidence that suggested the alleged corruption was much broader
and more serious than what was revealed when six officers were charged
earlier this month.

The officers, all former members of the now disbanded Central Field Command
drug squad, face a total of 22 counts of assault, extortion, theft, perjury
and obstruction of justice.

The special task force, which conducted the most extensive internal police
investigation in Canadian history, had "reason to suspect" that nearly 20
drug squad officers had been involved in "serious criminal activity" over a
lengthy period of time in the late 1990s.

The ongoing findings of the internal investigation were outlined in six
affidavits filed by a senior Toronto detective and RCMP Chief Supt. John
Neily, who lead the 31-member task force in August 2001.

The affidavits allege there was evidence of officers involved in the theft
of large sums of money and drugs and the sale of weapons and narcotics to
drug dealers. There are also allegations in the affidavits that certain
officers regularly lied to the court about the status of informants and
evidence required to obtain search warrants.

As well, the affidavits suggest that well over 200 drug prosecutions,
dozens more than the federal Justice Department has ever admitted, were
stayed since 1996 because of credibility problems with drug squad officers.

The affidavits had previously been sealed by the Court of Appeal and were
linked to the case of Simon Yeung, a convicted heroin trafficker, who was
released from prison in July 2001 after serving 18 months of a 45-month
sentence.

The Court of Appeal did not give its reasons for releasing Mr. Yeung at the
time because of fears that the drug squad investigation might be compromised.

However, the court requested updates which were given in the form of the
affidavits.

Last week, when the officers were charged, the court was prepared to
release the documents but agreed to hear arguments from their lawyers and
legal representatives of officers named in the affidavits.

A three-judge panel on the appeal court rejected arguments by a lawyer for
the six charged officers that they would not receive a fair trial if the
task force affidavits were made public.

"This isn't evidence. This is what the police say the results of the
investigation have yielded. Evidence is what you hear in court," said
Justice David Doherty. "We are talking about the public's right to know
about this investigation and why it has lasted two and a half years."

The affidavits suggested that a team of officers led by Staff-Sgt. John
Schertzer may have committed perjury and obstructed justice in the Yeung
prosecution. The officers testified that the defendant was arrested after a
confidential complaint about drug activity in a west end Toronto neighbourhood.

Instead, police records show that an informant in the case, who was later
paid $1,500, "acted as an agent and not as a confidential informant. He
told us that he ordered drugs to be delivered to him and then called his
police handler," states a July 2001 internal affairs affidavit.

Whether this person acted as an "informant" or an "agent" is not a legal
technicality, said lawyer Greg Lafontaine, who represented Mr. Yeung in his
appeal. "A confidential informant provides information and police conduct
the investigation. An agent is someone connected to the criminal
underworld, a crook, who is playing cop, but they get a commission. The
rules that require this to be disclosed are so innocent people do not go to
jail," said Mr. Lafontaine.

In a subsequent affidavit, Supt. Neily alleged that the probe had uncovered
a "pattern of misconduct" by the officers in the Yeung case. More than 80
per cent of the charges laid by the "Schertzer crew" were stayed by the
federal Justice Department, which handles all drug prosecutions, between
1997 and 1999. "This is a remarkably high figure," said Supt. Neily in a
June 2002 affidavit.

"I don't know whether his figures are accurate," said James Leising, the
Justice Department's director of criminal prosecutions in Ontario. He said
he couldn't say why the cases didn't proceed, and insisted that the scandal
led to charges being stayed in no more than 150 cases.

By November 2002 the task force said there was "evidence of criminal
activity" against 17 officers, which included 27 allegations that police
"stole large amounts of cash from targets of their drug investigations."

The affidavits also stated that a second unit of drug squad officers, other
than the ones facing criminal charges, may have been involved in the thefts
of hundreds of thousands of dollars from safety deposit boxes while
executing search warrants. Some of those officers are facing civil suits,
and the Justice Department has stayed some of their cases, but Mr. Leising
insisted the task force did not inform him the other officers were also
under investigation.

According to the affidavits, Supt. Neily, said his team identified "only
the strongest cases" to Crown attorneys at the Ontario Ministry of the
Attorney General who are handling the prosecution.

The six charged officers are scheduled to appear in court again on Feb. 25.