To Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion “I’m sitting on the floor outside the Security Office as Crime Awareness Day is happening all around me.”

September 23rd, 2013  

For the record, what follows is video of me reading an email written to Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion during Saturday’s Mississauga Crime Awareness Day as well as a transcript of the actual letter.

City of Mississauga Corporate Security, Peel Regional Police: “What is missing?” –Hazel McCallion

Video transcript of the actual letter.


Dear Madam Mayor,

I’m sitting on the floor outside the Security Office as Crime Awareness Day 2013 is happening all around me. I can think of no more fitting way to finally deliver on my February 2010 promise to meet with you to discuss my concerns relating to the City’s governance in general, and your Corporate Security “force” in particular.

Please remember that I requested permission to document our meeting on video and you responded with “anything you want”. I also understand that at best, I might be able to get an hour of your time. I propose that we meet on Monday, October 6, 2014 –just over a year from now. I chose this date for three reasons.

First I’ve attended enough court sessions to know that to make the most efficient use of time, lawyers exchange factums. I propose to do that as well –provide you a series of factums over the course of a year, to be included in Council and Governance Committee minutes. These factums will be Freedom of Information documents, and audio/video evidence (ie: Staff
interviews, meetings, speeches etc).

The Oxford dictionary defines “factum” as:


noun (pluralfactums /-təmz/ or facta /-tə/) Law chiefly Canadiana
statement of the facts of a case.

I’m sure you’ll agree that if I state something supported with Freedom of Information, audio, or video evidence, then the factum will indeed be “facts of a case”. Your Staff can review each and respond where they see I might be in error. Or not.

Second, I propose meeting a year from now because by the time of our meeting I will be 65 and officially a senior.

My third and final reason for waiting a year is that I know that nothing I say or do will actually have any effect on anything, other than setting the record straight and finally answering your question.

What question?

You asked it during the October 16, 2008 Peel Police Homicide Information Session at Peel Regional Council. Frustrated by the spike in homicides that year, you’d asked Chief Metcalfe and Peel Regional Council, “We’re spending a lot of money on programs. What is missing?”

You asked “What is missing?” five years ago. I submit that the answer to your “What is missing?” goes a long way to explain what is missing in the McMurtry/Curling Review of the Roots of Youth Violence report.

The City’s 2013 Crime Awareness day is a rainy, gray affair and I’ve taken enough time sitting on the floor of the Great Hall.

So please slot a time for me for Monday, October 6, 2014 (or later). I look forward to a productive hour of your time.

You have my very best wishes,


Mississauga blogger to City of Mississauga Director of Corporate Security, "CITY STAFF LIE."

Toronto Star "Peel officers who 'lied under oath' won't face charges" October 19, 2012

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

Ombudsman accepts Durham police officer’s apology; Real “Joe Mayo” regrets hateful tweets

September 23rd, 2013  

For the record I should have posted this update a lot sooner.

Press Conference Ontario Ombudsman André Marin accepts Durham police officer’s apology and takes questions

Ombudsman accepts Durham police officer’s apology; Real “Joe Mayo” regrets hateful tweets

Date: 2013-09-13

(TORONTO, September 13, 2013) – Ontario Ombudsman André Marin has accepted a personal apology from the Durham Regional Police Service detective responsible for sending him hateful Twitter messages on August 8 via an account set up in a fellow officer’s name.

“The officer in question reached out to me to arrange a meeting and I met with him Thursday,” said Mr. Marin. “He apologized unconditionally for his actions and told me he regrets posting those tweets. I believe the apology to be heartfelt and sincere, and I am happy to accept it.”

Mr. Marin said the officer understood that his name should be made public in the interest of transparency. He is Detective Jeff Caplan, a member of the Durham Regional Police Service’s Major Fraud Unit.

The abusive tweets were sent immediately prior to a press conference where the Ombudsman announced an investigation into police de-escalation training, related to the recent police shooting of Sammy Yatim. Among other slurs, the author urged the Ombudsman not to stick his “big French nose” where it didn’t belong and called him “a carded member of Al Qaida.”

Under the alias “Joe Mayo,” the user stated in his Twitter profile that his “only goal in life” was to “expose André Marin” and added: “Ombudsman = stick nose in everyone’s business.” He also sent angry tweets related to the Yatim case to a Toronto councillor.

However, the account originated under the name and badge number of one of Detective Caplan’s colleagues. Mr. Marin initially named that officer as the source of the tweets when he brought the disturbing incident to the DRPS’s attention via Twitter. The Ombudsman issued a public apology to that officer on August 28, when the Durham Police sergeants conducting the internal investigation informed Mr. Marin they had confirmed another officer created the account. Detective Caplan has also apologized to his colleague.

“While I am pleased to consider the situation resolved, it is unfortunate that such an incident – one officer destructively impersonating another online – could happen in any police service,” Mr. Marin said. “I am a strong proponent of good policing, but no one should tolerate situations of police abuse, and this case is no exception.”

Detective Caplan has been charged with discreditable conduct under the Police Services Act and his first appearance on that matter is set for October 1.

Mr. Marin will be available to speak to media at 11:30 a.m. today only. For details, contact:

Linda Williamson, 416-586-3426,
Ashley Bursey, 416-586-3521,

It takes a remarkable person to take accountability the way that this police officer did. Ask yourself if you’d be able to summon that kind of courage.


Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

Durham Regional Police Services Board and Police Chief Mike Ewles confirm Twitter’s “Joe Mayo” a Durham Police Supervisor.

September 10th, 2013  

Yesterday I attended the Durham Regional Police Services Board meeting because “Twitter Update” was an item on their agenda. I decided to videotape it for two reasons: First, I no longer trust the Media to report what I really need to know and second I believe that, rather than depending on Media, people should see the unedited primary source material and draw their own conclusions.

And now that I’ve read the articles covering yesterday’s Durham Police Twitter Update, I know I was right making certain my camera was there to document what was said.

What follows is unedited video of the entire Durham Regional Police Services Board Joe Mayo/Twitter Update discussion, plus the CHEX TV interview with Police Chief Mike Ewles. The video is 17:34 minutes long and fact is I don’t feel like providing an entire transcript. It’s a sunny day and my 2006 black Dodge Charger R/T hasn’t had a run since the end of June and today’s the day!

That said, I will provide a video transcript of what I feel are the most important things said by Durham Regional Police Services Chief Mike Ewles.

Chief Mike Ewles re Twitter attack on Ontario Ombudsman at Durham Regional Police Services Board (17:34 min)



Durham Regional Police Chief Mike Ewles

The investigators looked at the entire scope of the investigation as police officers looked at criminality, looked at the potential of involving the crown attorneys, had discussion with the crown attorneys with regards to any criminal offenses, that may be germane to this investigation. There were none.

Quite candidly social media is evolving so quickly that the legislative process by way of the criminal code are —lacking— is the term that we could use. And if you’re aware of the some of the challenges that they’re facing down-east in Halifax with the cyber-bullying, online cyber-bullying, in which a young girl committed suicide —they’re actually using child pornography offenses to try and hold those people accountable for that cyber-bullying that went on.

It’s a whole new area for us in policing and a challenge for us. But we did look at the criminality. The crown attorney did not determine —or did not feel that any criminal offenses had been committed. Notwithstanding that we did continue with our investigation.

The officer is facing what we deemed —I have deemed,  to be serious misconduct charges. As is typical of all Part 5 disciplinary processes we do not release the officer’s name until the actual date of the hearing. And there are several reasons for that.

First and foremost is the concern that the officer may in fact resign, at which point we lose jurisdiction. And there would be no grounds for releasing the officer’s name.

Secondly his counsel, through Statutory Powers Procedure Act, Article 9, could ask for an in-camera hearing at which point his name would not be released. Those are options available to the defense —of him, at the hearing itself.

The third piece, and hopefully that’s not the case in this instance, is that, as you know, oftentimes, both criminal and other cases hinge on witnesses, hinge on the whole process. There is an option for an informal resolution. Oftentimes we have to accept an informal resolution because the case goes sideways at the last minute. We are not anticipating that in this instance but we have to prepare for that. And if it is in fact an informal resolution, then there would be no authority for me to release that officer’s name.

So, having all those factors in consideration and in play at this point in time, it’s our belief that the officer will be named at the actual hearing date.

MEDIA INTERVIEW with Durham Regional Police Chief Mike Ewles, September 9, 2013



Am I correct in my inference that this person is a supervisor that we’re dealing with —a veteran officer?

Durham Regional Police Chief Mike Ewles

Supervisors generally, well, they’ve been promoted at least to the rank of Sergeant or Detective.  So, I got promoted at ten years, whether that was a veteran. I got promoted to Sergeant in ten. Whether I consider myself a veteran in that point in time?…


Does that make this a little more troubling in your mind?

Durham Regional Police Chief Mike Ewles

Very much so. Our Supervisors we definitely hold to a higher standard. It is quite a surprise and a concern to us. And that’s why we initiated the investigation so quickly. And when it was determined that it was a supervisor, they [sic] were immediately removed from their [sic] assignment. They [sic] have no supervisory duties —right now, and we’ll deal with that accordingly. That may be an aggravating factor at trial if it’s brought forward by the prosecutor.


Is there any notion why Dennis in particular was targeted?

Durham Regional Police Chief Mike Ewles

I have no idea. No idea. And that may come out as part of the hearing.


But this Supervisor supervised Dennis, correct?

Durham Regional Police Chief Mike Ewles

The Supervisor was a supervisor within the Service. [smiles]

[general laughter MISSISSAUGAWATCH into camera “Interesting”]

Everyone’s a supervi— Every sergeant is a supervisor. Every detective is a supervisor.


Did they have a direct working relationship.

Durham Regional Police Chief Mike Ewles

I can’t comment on that. It might tend to disclose who the officer is.

MISSISSAUGAWATCH into camera “Yeah. That’s true.”


I’ve had my own share of “Joe Mayo”-types originating from the City of Mississauga. Readers might recall “HyJynx” —the City of Mississauga Corporate Security guard and his online confessions. Or the anonymous City of Mississauga Security personnel who refused to identify himself despite numerous requests when emailing me via Freedom of Information led right to City of Mississauga Security Manager Jamie Hillis as the cowardly culprit.

(Put in perspective, discovering that “Public.Info” was the City of Mississauga Security Manager is kind of like it would be if the Ontario Ombudsman found out that “Joe Mayo” was none other than Chief Ewles!)

For the record, Durham Regional Police’s “Joe Mayo” burned me almost as much as he did Marin. By impersonating Detective Constable Scott Dennis, “Joe Mayo” suckered me too! That’s why I’ve gone to considerable pains to research this issue.

For example, I scoured the 2012 Public Sector Salary Disclosure for 2012: Municipalities and Services “Sunshine List” to see if I could identify said-supervisor. That’s just not possible. There are close to 90 Detectives or Detective Sergeants in the Durham Regional Police Services. That doesn’t even include those in the Sergeant-only rank.

So you can understand Police Chief Ewles’ “I can’t comment on that. It might tend to disclose who the officer is” response to the reporter’s “But this Supervisor supervised Dennis, correct?” That keeps “Joe Mayo” close to two hundred suspects!

Because if Ewles had answered yes, that would have narrowed the suspects down considerably!  After all, it’s been confirmed that “Joe Mayo”s colleague-victim Dennis, works in the Durham’s Fraud Unit.

Cut-and-pasted from the Durham Regional Police website:

Fraud Unit
A Detective Sergeant leads a team of Detectives and Detective Constables in the investigation of fraud related offences. Located in 17 Division, 77 Centre St.N., Oshawa, the Fraud Unit investigates all major fraud related offences in the Durham Region.
URL: cope=Unit&ID=17

Had Chief Ewles responded in the affirmative, that would make Durham’s Fraud Unit Detective Sergeant or one of his Detectives (not Detective Constables) potentially the Supervisory “Joe Mayo”… and a small list indeed.



Durham Regional Police Chief Mike Ewles gives three reasons why Durham Police's "Joe Mayo"s real name may never be released.


Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article

Toronto Star Rosie DiManno “Who’s the tweeting twit on Durham’s police force?” –and his actual tweets.

September 2nd, 2013  

This is an update on our previous blog “Will Durham Regional Police pull a City of Mississauga on the Ontario Ombudsman –and protect “Joe Mayo”?

I just want to alert readers to the Toronto Star column “Who’s the tweeting twit on Durham’s police force?” by Rosie DiManno.

I’ll reproduce the most important part of DiManno here.

Who’s the tweeting twit on Durham’s police force?: DiManno

By: Rosie DiManno Columnist, Published on Sun Sep 01 2013

An impulsive ombudsman who called out the wrong twitter troll is unfortunate.

A municipal police force that hides the identity of the alleged true culprit whilst demanding apologies — from the victim — is unhinged.

Durham Regional Chief Mike Ewles has bigger problems than a rogue cop going off the social media reservation with contemptible yips sent to Andre Marin. To wit: Calling him a “douche-bag’’, describing him as a “card-carrying member of al-Qaeda’’ and snarling “Why don’t you stick your big French nose up you’re a– instead of business it doesn’t belong’’, which is both crude and ungrammatical.

What Ewles has in the bosom of his police department is an asp, a venomous cop, who betrayed a colleague before ever going on the twit prowl against Marin, appropriating that individual’s name to set up a dummy Twitter account from which to spew his bile, under the handle “Joe Mayo.’’

So much for the solidarity of that famous thin blue line. I can only imagine what this disclosure has done for morale at the Durham cop-shop. We’ve heard lots about the public’s deteriorating confidence in law enforcement. Up in Durham Region, they can’t even trust each other. Stab you in the back rather than I got your back.

DiManno gets it! The real problem isn’t the names someone tweeted the Ontario Ombudsman. Good Lord, there’s far worse festering on that cesspool of a law-enforcement-hate-site! (Seriously. If you really want to see what police officers, municipal security and private security personnel, hiding in anonymity, think about oversight and the public, feast your eyes there.)

The problem was not the “Joe Mayo” Twitter account but the one impersonating the victim-officer. DiManno reports:

No-name copper — Ewles-the-sock-puppet won’t say who-done-it — is, sources told the Star’s Tony Van Alphen, a top detective in a supervisory role in the same major crimes-unit as Dennis.

Let’s repeat that. The “no-name” Joe Mayo is “a top detective in a supervisory role in the same major crimes-unit as Dennis.”

A simple Google search shows that back in 2011 that “same major crimes-unit” would be Durham Regional Police Services East Criminal Investigative Bureau.

That’s all I’m going to say for now.

I do think it’s important to provide a support document, for the record, to support Rosie DiManno’s statement, that this top Durham Regional Police detective in a supervisory role “betrayed a colleague before ever going on the twit prowl against Marin”.

“No-name copper” opened a Twitter account using the victim-officer’s real name and ID —a subordinate colleague that was his duty to “supervise”.

Durham Police detective "Joe Mayo" who trolled Ontario Ombudsman and impersonated officer-colleague protected by Police Brass.

Now read these tweets in this new light –as tweets generated by a Durham Regional Police “top  detective in a supervisory roll” making it appear as though his victim-subordinate wrote them…


  1. Lunch taken care of. Now a 2 hr nap sitting at my desk pretending to be looking at my computer screen. Then home time. #leavingearlyagain

  2. Woot its Friday! Wait…its only Thursday. Doesn’t matter really cause I don’t do much on Fridays at work. Maybe I won’t even go in.

  3. Think anyone will notice if I close my eyes for a few mins before lunch?

  4. Did not sleep well! Guess it’ll be an unproductive day at the office again. What should I do for lunch hmmmm…. #priorities

  5. Welp its past my bed time gotta big day at the office tomorrow, gonna tuck myself in!

  6. End of another day already? I’m outta here. Don’t tell the boss I left at 4:10 ;)

  7. Hmmmm still hungry…missed the breakfast meeting….maybe Ill head to Boston Pizza if anyone is interested

  8. Its almost 9am. Time to start thinking about what to eat for lunch #myday

Rosie DiManno’s “No-name copper — Ewles-the-sock-puppet won’t say who-done-it” reminds me of all the “No-name” City of Mississauga Corporate Security guards that Security Bosses Jamie Hillis and Ken Owen have shielded from accountability over the years.

And Durham Regional Police Chief Mike Ewles’ “That officer will be held to account” is just so-City-of-Mississauga echoing Ken Owen’s “The incident to which you refer in your email has been addressed and appropriately handled and, as such, we consider the matter closed.”

Us-Schmuck-Public will have to admit though that Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin got further along the No-name Copper’s Police Blue Wall than you or I ever could…

Last. Found this only yesterday…  Toronto Star, April 26, 2013, “Durham police officer accused of making child pornography back on job, sources say”




Ontario Ombudsman ‏@Ont_Ombudsman "You will not find a greater fan of good policing than me. Ever. But I abhor situations of police abuse. So do Courts."

"Joe Mayo" Durham Regional Police. Twitter For the Record "It's not because that @DRPS detective-supervisor went after the Ontario Ombudsman. It's what he did to his victim-colleague..."

Post Linx
Permalink | | Print This Article