There’s a call from area First Nation leaders for City Police Chief J.P. Levesque to resign.
It follows an independent review into the 2015 death of Stacy DeBungee which is highly critical of the way police handled the case.
Julian Falconer, the lawyer representing the DeBungee family, notes how quick police were to dismiss the death as “non-criminal” before an autopsy was done on the body and the failure to protect the scene.
Alvin Fiddler, the Grand Chief of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, claims the review shows the “glaring mistakes that were made” as part of the probe.
Robin McGinnis, the Chief of the Rainy River First Nation, calls it a shameless disrespect for the victim.
However, don’t expect to hear any statement from city police in relation to DeBungee’s death.
The Thunder Bay Police Service says they aren’t allowed to say anything about the report for confidentiality reasons.
They say while a misconduct hearing is recommended, there has been no formal notice given to the officers involved.
The full report from the Ontario’s Independent Police Review Director can be found below. (Photo & Video by Sheri Leviski-Kotyk)
March 5, 2018
OIPRD Report: Complaint re the Stacy DeBungee Death Investigation
March 5, 2018 – Thunder Bay, ON
The following written statement is provided on behalf of the TBPS by Inspector Don Lewis, from the Professional Standards Branch.
OIPRD Report: Complaint re the Stacy DeBungee Death Investigation
The investigative report in this matter was produced as a result of a conduct investigation undertaken by the OIPRD. It began as a result of a complaint by two members of the public. In such cases, the TBPS is bound by section 95 of the Police Services Act, which directs that strict confidentiality over the complaints process be maintained until the OIPRD directs a hearing into any allegation of misconduct. Until that time, the Service is legally barred from making any comment to the public.
While the OIPRD has directed hearings in this matter, a Notice of Hearing has yet to be served on the affected officers. Before this occurs, an Application must first be heard by the Police Services Board as a result of the passage of time. This, again, is a requirement pursuant to Section 83(17) of the Police Services Act.
The Police Services Act is structured in this way to ensure that the integrity of the process is maintained and to protect the privacy interests of all those who have participated in or are touched by the OIPRD’s investigation. This is why section 95 exists, and why the service cannot comment.
As a result of the foregoing, the Service cannot release any information or make any comment beyond the above. If you wish to know more I would direct you to contact the Office of the Independent Police Review Director.