The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal (AHRT) said the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) engaged in adverse treatment to two black men based on their race when they pepper-sprayed and arrested them when they reported a crime. The AHRT ordered EPS to pay complainant Yousef John $40,000 in general damages, $2,500 as compensation for lost wages, $50 reimbursement for over-the-counter pain medication, and judgment interest on all amounts. It said it would have to pay complainant Caesar Judianga $40,000 in general damages, $93 as compensation for a torn jacket, and judgment interest. “The issue before this Tribunal for the present hearing is the appropriate remedy for the violation of the Act by the respondent EPS,” said AHRT member Erika Ringseis in a ruling. “The other two named parties, Constables [Celia] Frattin and [Jordan] Steele, were found, in the Merits Decision, not have personal liability.” John and Judianga made human rights complaints in 2018 after being doused in pepper spray and arrested by EPS in 2017. They had called 9-1-1 for help after detaining a woman who had tried to break into a vehicle. Within less than one minute of arriving on the scene and without warning, Steele aimed and sprayed his pepper spray at them. Steele arrested them, demanded they lie down, and handcuffed them, despite them insisting they had not committed a crime. Frattin arrived and assisted with the handcuffing.John testified it took about three days for his eyes to recover from the pepper spray and continues to feel pain and discomfort from the force his arm had directed at it when he was arrested. While he had insurance coverage for drugs and some massage, he said he had to purchase $50 worth of over-the-counter medications. He said he did not have any coverage or financial means to access physical therapy or counselling. However, he took two weeks off of work because of the experience, which cost him about $2,500 in wages and only returned to support his family. As a result of his arrest, he testified his life has changed. He said he has poor quality sleep and some times wakes up during the night and cannot get back to sleep. When he was stopped by EPS again, he said he felt he did not have a future in Edmonton anymore. He moved out of Edmonton to a town in British Columbia. He requested $50,000 in general damages, special damages consisting of $2,500 in lost income, and $50 for over-the-counter pain medication.Judianga noted his eyes hurt and were red, his vision was cloudy, and his face was red. He said his face remained red for about two to three months and his vision took about three days to return to normal. Prior to the incident, he said he used to ride his bicycle, work out with friends, hang out at the mall, eat out at restaurants, sleep well, and wake up refreshed. After it, he testified does not sleep well, has nightmares about getting shot, and has a reduced appetite.He described his personality as having changed as a result of the incident, saying he does not talk too much to people anymore. He added he has stopped hanging out with friends, hates driving, and tries to stay inside and not go out when it is dark.His remedy request was for $50,000 for injury to dignity, $93 in special damages, and a letter of apology or regret. Ringseis said their subjective experiences and the recent increases in damage awards in Alberta “support a decision to award general damages in excess of the recent policing examples cited by the parties.” While she agreed they were harmed, she said the objective analysis of harm must be tempered by a separation of the use of force from the manner and timing it was applied. She concluded by saying EPS will not be ordered to provide the requested letter of apology or regret. Although such a letter might assist John and Judianga in their efforts to regain dignity lost and harm experienced, she said the value of the letter “would be from the voluntary act of writing it.”“I encourage the respondent to provide a letter of regret to the complainants, but in light of the Merit Decision being under judicial review, any words required by this Tribunal to be written would likely lack the sincerity needed to provide a benefit to the complainants,” she said.
The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal (AHRT) said the Edmonton Police Service (EPS) engaged in adverse treatment to two black men based on their race when they pepper-sprayed and arrested them when they reported a crime. The AHRT ordered EPS to pay complainant Yousef John $40,000 in general damages, $2,500 as compensation for lost wages, $50 reimbursement for over-the-counter pain medication, and judgment interest on all amounts. It said it would have to pay complainant Caesar Judianga $40,000 in general damages, $93 as compensation for a torn jacket, and judgment interest. “The issue before this Tribunal for the present hearing is the appropriate remedy for the violation of the Act by the respondent EPS,” said AHRT member Erika Ringseis in a ruling. “The other two named parties, Constables [Celia] Frattin and [Jordan] Steele, were found, in the Merits Decision, not have personal liability.” John and Judianga made human rights complaints in 2018 after being doused in pepper spray and arrested by EPS in 2017. They had called 9-1-1 for help after detaining a woman who had tried to break into a vehicle. Within less than one minute of arriving on the scene and without warning, Steele aimed and sprayed his pepper spray at them. Steele arrested them, demanded they lie down, and handcuffed them, despite them insisting they had not committed a crime. Frattin arrived and assisted with the handcuffing.John testified it took about three days for his eyes to recover from the pepper spray and continues to feel pain and discomfort from the force his arm had directed at it when he was arrested. While he had insurance coverage for drugs and some massage, he said he had to purchase $50 worth of over-the-counter medications. He said he did not have any coverage or financial means to access physical therapy or counselling. However, he took two weeks off of work because of the experience, which cost him about $2,500 in wages and only returned to support his family. As a result of his arrest, he testified his life has changed. He said he has poor quality sleep and some times wakes up during the night and cannot get back to sleep. When he was stopped by EPS again, he said he felt he did not have a future in Edmonton anymore. He moved out of Edmonton to a town in British Columbia. He requested $50,000 in general damages, special damages consisting of $2,500 in lost income, and $50 for over-the-counter pain medication.Judianga noted his eyes hurt and were red, his vision was cloudy, and his face was red. He said his face remained red for about two to three months and his vision took about three days to return to normal. Prior to the incident, he said he used to ride his bicycle, work out with friends, hang out at the mall, eat out at restaurants, sleep well, and wake up refreshed. After it, he testified does not sleep well, has nightmares about getting shot, and has a reduced appetite.He described his personality as having changed as a result of the incident, saying he does not talk too much to people anymore. He added he has stopped hanging out with friends, hates driving, and tries to stay inside and not go out when it is dark.His remedy request was for $50,000 for injury to dignity, $93 in special damages, and a letter of apology or regret. Ringseis said their subjective experiences and the recent increases in damage awards in Alberta “support a decision to award general damages in excess of the recent policing examples cited by the parties.” While she agreed they were harmed, she said the objective analysis of harm must be tempered by a separation of the use of force from the manner and timing it was applied. She concluded by saying EPS will not be ordered to provide the requested letter of apology or regret. Although such a letter might assist John and Judianga in their efforts to regain dignity lost and harm experienced, she said the value of the letter “would be from the voluntary act of writing it.”“I encourage the respondent to provide a letter of regret to the complainants, but in light of the Merit Decision being under judicial review, any words required by this Tribunal to be written would likely lack the sincerity needed to provide a benefit to the complainants,” she said.
