Lawyer alleging assault by cops inside Oshawa courthouse was handed trespassing ticket at 5:10 p.m. — just minutes after close
“Asking an officer of the court to leave five or 10 minutes after the courthouse closed is patently wrong,” said John Struthers, a former president of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association.
Feb. 3, 2026

The ticket issued to lawyer Sudine Riley, left, and the officer who issued it, right, Durham officer Lyndon Greene, seen here in a 2018 file photo.

By Jacques GallantCourts and Justice Reporter
A defence lawyer who alleges she was assaulted by Durham police officers last month was charged with trespassing just 10 minutes after the Oshawa courthouse had closed to the public, the Star has learned, in what lawyers are describing as an “abuse of power” in a world where legal professionals routinely work late inside Ontario courthouses.
The notice issued to Sudine Riley for “fail to leave premises when directed” along with a $65 fine was issued at exactly 5:10 p.m. on Friday, Jan. 23, according to a copy of the notice obtained by the Star. The notice, which Riley is contesting, also includes the name and badge number of the Durham police officer who issued it: Lyndon Greene.
As first reported last week by the Star, Riley, a Black woman who wears a headscarf, was finishing up legal work in an interview room after a trial on a Friday afternoon when, she alleges, uniformed Durham officers “challenged her presence” in the room. She alleges they slammed her head on the desk, put their knees on her back and neck, and took her to the cells in handcuffs. She said she suffered bleeding and a swollen eye.
“She committed no offence other than being a Black woman practising law,” said a statement last week by Riley’s lawyer, Neha Chugh. “She was handled violently and aggressively by members of police services.”
Aside from issuing the trespass notice, no specific allegations have been levelled against Greene, who was previously assigned to Durham police’s air support unit.
A spokesperson for York Regional Police, which took over the criminal investigation into Riley’s allegations at Durham’s request last Friday, declined to comment on whether Greene is being investigated, citing a need to maintain the integrity of the probe. Durham police also declined to comment Monday; the police service previously said that the unnamed officers involved in the incident had been reassigned from courthouse security.
While Ontario courthouses officially close to the public at 5 p.m., lawyers interviewed by the Star say they routinely work in court offices well into the evening, and have never been questioned or trespassed, nor heard of any other lawyer having that experience. They also pointed out that legal proceedings often continue into the night. Some courtrooms, particularly bail courts, occasionally sit late. And lawyers can also be found waiting on juries to return their verdicts; deliberations often go till 8 p.m. or later. Or they could just be wrapping up after finishing a trial.
“The fact that she was trespassed 10 minutes after closing to the public is also egregious,” said Cassandra DeMelo, president of the advocacy group Women in Canadian Criminal Defence. “It’s an offensive abuse of power.”
The ticket was issued at 5:10 p.m. on Friday, Jan. 23.
The group’s founder, Anita Szigeti, said the consensus among several legal organizations is that a lawyer being trespassed from a courthouse — their place of work — is unheard of not just in Ontario, but anywhere else in Canada.
“I’m in my 34th year of practice and have spent plenty of time in our Superior Court and the Court of Appeal, where I think the sky would have to fall before a lawyer is either physically removed or trespassed,” Szigeti said.
Oshawa-based criminal defence lawyer Alan Richter, who has practised in the courthouse since it opened in 2010, said it’s “quite common” for lawyers to be in the building after 5 p.m., and he’s never been asked to leave. Richter said he doesn’t believe there was a reasonable basis for police to issue Riley a trespass notice.
“I think it’s an untenable position for the police,” Richter told the Star. “It demonstrates a very poor exercise of discretion. Whatever may have happened in that room to cause it, there’s little doubt that at some point, they became aware that she was a lawyer, and as such she would be entitled to be in the building.”
A former president of the Criminal Lawyers’ Association says the prosecution should withdraw the trespass notice; just like Crown attorneys, defence lawyers are considered to be “officers of the court,” who have an obligation to ensure the justice system is functioning properly, John Struthers pointed out.
“She’s now theoretically being prevented from representing her clients in the courthouse,” said Struthers. “Asking an officer of the court to leave five or 10 minutes after the courthouse closed is patently wrong. It’s frankly outrageous.”
The incident prompted about two dozen legal and advocacy organizations to issue statements expressing their concern, many highlighting that female racialized lawyers continue to face barriers in the justice system when trying to do their jobs, while some expressed ongoing concerns for the physical safety of female lawyers at the Oshawa courthouse.
A sit-in protest involving dozens of mainly female lawyers and paralegals was held at the Oshawa courthouse last Friday after 5 p.m., marking one week since the incident.
“We sat in rooms like Sudine sat in. We stood in the hallways,” Szigeti wrote in a blog post. “Defence lawyers belong in courthouses. We are an integral justice system participant. Not lesser than.”
In a statement shared by Chugh on Sunday, Riley thanked everyone for their “overwhelming support and encouragement” over the past week.
“I’ve seen all the messages, emails, and calls, and while I’m unable to respond to each person individually, please know how much your kindness and solidarity mean to me,” she said.

I’ve hesitated to post this because it’s an hour and a half long documentary but in view of the separatist sentiments and the embrace of Trumpian totalitarianism by some in Alberta, as well as an assault upon a lawyer by Durham Regional Police, a light needs to shine on police brutality in Canada and in Calgary in particular.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ktKrNvJnuQ

A senior Ontario judge found guilty of judicial misconduct for raping a woman and breaking her wrist has escaped punishment by retiring from the bench. 

Ontario Court Justice Paul Currie, 71, retired as of Friday, just days before he was set to face a penalty hearing, according to the Ontario Judicial Council, which investigates and disciplines provincially-appointed judges. 

“Since Justice Currie is no longer a judge of that court, the council no longer has jurisdiction over the complaint about his conduct,” says a notice posted on the council’s website. “As a result, the hearing on the appropriate disposition of the complaint will not proceed.” 

Currie was facing a penalty hearing next Wednesday after a four-member discipline panel concluded that he committed judicial misconduct, in that he sexually assaulted a woman in January 2023 and pushed her and broke her wrist in a separate incident three months later; that he had driven while drinking alcohol on multiple occasions; that he failed to turn himself in for five days in April 2023 on assault charges despite knowing there was a warrant out for his arrest, and that he tried to dissuade the woman from participating in judicial council’s investigation.

Currie has maintained his innocence throughout. “I did not rape (her),” he testified last year. “I would not rape (her) or anybody.”

Regarding the police assault upon a lawyer,
“In a statement on behalf of the Durham Regional Police Association (DRPA) on Friday morning, president Andrew Tummonds said members requested the matter be referred to the province’s police watchdog.

The police association statement critiques a few select members of the local bar that it says partook in “opportunistic conduct.”

“It is both hypocritical and professionally distasteful to see criminal defence lawyers — individuals whose entire careers are built on the ‘presumption of innocence’ — abandon that principle the moment it suits their political agenda or personal brand,” Tummonds said.

“It is particularly galling that as these lawyers stand on their soapboxes today to disparage our profession, they do so under the protection of the very officers they are baselessly attacking,” he said. “We stand firmly with our officers and look forward to the facts of the investigation.”

A former York Region lawyer “maintained an elaborate web of lies for years” as he gave his clients fake judicial orders and continued taking their money even though he was no longer working on their cases, a judge has found.
Ontario Court Justice Sandra Bacchus convicted Adam White of fraud and uttering forged documents in December in Newmarket; her written reasons were released earlier this month. In doing so, she took into account his testimony that he was dealing with mental health issues, but rejected his claims that he either didn’t provide the fake documents or didn’t recall doing so. A former president of the York Region Law Association, White was suspended by the Law Society Tribunal in 2023 and his licence was revoked the following year over the forgeries.
In one instance, White provided a client who was suing for wrongful dismissal with fake documents including orders from a judge and an email from the opposing lawyer offering to settle, when in reality the case had already been dismissed without the client’s knowledge.
The fake letter from opposing lawyer Jessica DiFederico, dated Dec. 16, 2019, and including her law firm logo, offered to settle the case for $85,000 — “this is in excess of our client’s last offer, not as an admission of liability but as an offer to see this matter resolved.”
The letter partly contributed to the client’s desire to increase the amount of damages he was seeking. What he didn’t know was that his case had been dismissed in June 2019. He testified he only learned of that fact when he went to the courthouse in March 2023 to inquire about its status; not only was he told that the case had ended years ago, but that there was an outstanding costs award against him for $8,000.
A fake letter from an opposing lawyer in December 2019 offering to settle, when in reality the case had been dismissed months earlier.
It was a surprise to the client, given that White had been emailing him throughout 2020 and 2021 suggesting the civil case was still active. White had also provided him with an endorsement that appeared to be signed by Superior Court Justice Andrea Himel and included a court logo, in which the judge purportedly ruled that the trial would be heard in November 2021, but may be impacted by delays related to COVID-19.
“The jury selection process has only just returned in the central east region and that court protocol may impact this matter being heard in a timely fashion,” says the fake Himel endorsement. “If it is the case that this matter cannot practically be heard during the November 2021 trial sittings, this matter is to be given priority on the May 2022 trial sittings.”
In November 2022, White sent his client another fake Himel endorsement, punting the trial to spring 2023. The client testified he paid White between $15,000 to $20,000 to handle his lawsuit; he said he paid $7,000 after the case was dismissed without his knowledge in June 2019.
Fake Himel endorsement
A fake endorsement with the signature of Superior Court Justice Andrea Himel.
In the second instance, White provided a number a fake judicial endorsements while representing a man in a child custody case between 2020 and 2022. The client testified receiving one of the endorsements from White in his Keswick office, with White telling him it was positive and the judge “appeared to be favouring his side.”
In the fake endorsement purportedly signed by Superior Court Justice Phillip Sutherland in February 2022, the judge wrote that it was “completely untenable” that the mother was frustrating the man’s access to his children, and ordered that the Office of the Children’s Lawyer investigate the current views and desires of the children to facilitate the father’s reintegration into their lives.
The man’s professional relationship with White ended in October 2022 when he was served with a contempt motion by his ex-wife’s lawyer for missing a court date he had no knowledge of. The man’s mother had been covering his legal fees, and testified she paid White an initial $5,000 retainer fee followed by several payments totaling over $11,000.
The judge specifically found that a payment of $2,825 made by the mother to White in June 2022 at the lawyer’s request, for what White descried as “future actions,” was money received “for court proceedings that had not occurred and were not scheduled” in 2022.
“She testified that she went to Mr. White’s office on multiple occasions to find out what was going on with the case when he was not replying to the emails, texts or phone calls, either she or her son sent to Mr. White,” Bacchus wrote in her judgment.
“She testified that on other occasions, Mr. White met her at the door of his office and told her he was working on it. However, on more than one occasion when she went to Mr. White’s office, she testified that he would come out of his office and say, ‘it’s good news,’ and then hand her and her son a document.”
White represented himself at trial. Testifying in his own defence, he said he didn’t have the required intent to defraud his clients due to mental health struggles. Bacchus found that he testified in “an incredible and unreliable fashion.” For example, when asked if he had sent a particular email, his response was typically “that he could not confirm, but he also could not lawfully or legally deny,” the judge wrote. And when asked about a particular fake judicial endorsement, he testified that “if he received an endorsement, he was obligated to provide it to his client.”
She also rejected a suggestion by White that his law clerk “was principally involved in passing off these false documents” to his clients without his knowledge.
“It defies credulity that Mr. White did not provide the emails and endorsements identified in these proceedings to his respective clients or does not recall doing so,” Bacchus wrote. “They created the appearance that the matters were moving ahead while also setting up what appeared to be barriers imposed by the court.”
The judge said she took White’s mental health issues into account, but he was nevertheless guilty of one count of fraud over $5,000, one count of fraud under $5,000, and two counts of uttering forged documents. She acquitted him on two counts of attempting to obstruct justice. A sentencing hearing is scheduled for next month.
“The picture Mr. White paints of not being able to function at all, not knowing or remembering what he was doing, or how documents came about because of his deteriorated mental state, and acting with only a singular motivation and intention to survive, is not credible,” Bacchus said.
White didn’t just give his clients fake documents, the judge stated.
“He answered questions and represented to them that he was engaged in their cases,” she wrote. “And he took their money.”

The largest youth jail in Ontario is routinely strip searching children: ‘A systemic violation’

The largest youth detention centre in Ontario is still routinely strip searching boys in their custody, the Star has learned.

Jan. 28, 2026

By Jennifer PagliaroCrime Reporter

The largest youth detention centre in Ontario is still routinely strip searching boys in their custody, the Star has learned, despite a court ruling declaring them unconstitutional. 

The revelation was made earlier this month in a Newmarket courtroom, where a 17-year-old boy, charged in an alleged carjacking incident, is now at the centre of the latest public case to see a young person challenging that treatment in custody. The boy was stripped completely naked three times in a single day at the Roy McMurtry Youth Centre. 

Three staff from the Brampton jail testified in a pretrial hearing earlier this month, according to a transcript obtained by the Star, that not only was this type of search standard procedure for the time, but since new provincial regulations were put in place this past summer, youth continue to be subjected to routine strip searches without any specific suspicion that the youth is concealing contraband, like drugs or weapons.

That appeared to shock a veteran criminal defence lawyer, Leora Shemesh, who is representing the young person.

“What I didn’t envision, and I’ll be quite frank with the Court, was that there is — there continues to be, at least my understanding of the new regulations and the new law — a systemic violation that is currently ongoing,” she said in court.

It follows a Superior Court ruling in May 2025 in the so-called girl swarm case that both being subjected to routine strip searches and being made to strip completely naked in provincial custody was unconstitutional and stating that the law authorizing it was unreasonable.

“Strip searches should be recognized as exceptional and consequential, not routine,” Justice Philip Campbell wrote. “This is especially true when they are performed on young persons who, because of their circumstances, are extremely vulnerable.”

Gta

Routine strip searches of girls in provincial custody ruled unconstitutional by Superior court judge

Youth detention is the responsibility of the Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services in Ontario. The province directly operates five jails, including the Roy, but the majority of young people in custody are held in what are called “transfer payment” facilities run by organizations contracted by the government.

In July, the province updated the regulations to “clearly define rules and procedures for searches of staff and visitors and youth in these facilities,” an unnamed ministry spokesperson said in an emailed statement in response to the Star’s questions for this story.

The statement also said that the ministry is installing X-ray body scanners, a less intrusive search method, as a pilot project in two youth facilities, including the Roy, with plans to have them operational “in the coming months.”

The ministry said it is unable to provide further details on matters before the court.

Boys strip searched even after being in police custody

The workers at the Roy took the stand Jan. 6 to answer questions about the treatment of the boy accused in the carjacking incident after he filed a motion saying his charter rights had been violated. The Crown attorney assigned to the case has conceded that the teen’s right to not be subject to unreasonable search and seizure was violated. The boy cannot be identified under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Neither the challenge or the charges against him have been resolved.

During the workers’ testimony the court also heard about how the jail is still performing routine searches under the new regulations, with some modifications.

The new rules continue to permit strip searching under certain circumstances but say youth should not be completely undressed at any time. The updated procedures require the head of a facility to authorize a search when less intrusive methods “would not be effective at locating contraband or is not operationally feasible” or if the person in charge “believes on reasonable grounds that the young person is carrying contraband.” The facility must also record the less intrusive search methods that were “used or contemplated” and a description of the reasonable grounds that led to the search.

In one exchange, Shemesh challenged longtime youth service worker Steven Bowes about these ongoing searches.

“As far as searching everyone for quote-unquote, contraband, there doesn’t have to be grounds for it. It’s just a standard policy. That’s how it was when you learned about it in 1997. That’s how it is now,” Shemesh said.

“There’s rules surrounding it,” Bowes replied. “That’s why you read the local operating policies and procedures, so you make sure you’re following the policy.”

“Right. But that’s what I’m asking you. So when someone comes back from court … it doesn’t matter if you think they may or may not have contraband, they’re being searched.”

“Correct.”

She pressed him further: “So when you say the grounds, there’s no real grounds. It’s just policy. The policy is, they’re going to be searched — strip searched.”

“Fair. Yes.”

Bowes also confirmed that boys are also still searched when being admitted to the facility, even if they are coming from police custody.

Shemesh later questioned Charlene Tardiel, the youth centre administrator at the Roy who said she was responsible for oversight of how the jail operates in accordance with ministry policies and legislation. She confirmed the ongoing practice.

“You believe there are still routine searches being conducted at the Roy as we sit here today?” Shemesh asked.

“Yes,” Tardiel replied.

The Roy staff testified that the teen in the carjacking case was made to strip down as an officer searched each piece of clothing, told to expose his genitals, lift them up and then turn around and bend over before he was allowed to redress.

That, the court heard, was part of the Roy’s standard practice prior to July 2025. All three staff who testified acknowledged that the new regulations now prevent total nudity and said their practice has changed. 

“So if (my client) was to go back to Roy McMurtry right now, leave court, go with you back to Roy McMurtry, he’d be strip searched?” Shemesh asked Bowes.

“Correct.”

“And the only difference would be, you’d make sure he was wearing his T-shirt when you looked at his penis and genitals and rectum?”

“Correct and that’s following the policy.”

Strip searches challenged in girl swarm case

The issue of routine strip searching in Ontario youth detention facilities became a central issue in the girl swarm case after the practice was discovered during one of the girls’ bail hearings. It led to two separate charter challenges in both the Ontario Court of Justice and Superior Court of Justice, ultimately leading to a reduction in sentences for each of the eight girls who were involved in the 2022 swarming death of Kenneth Lee.

ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW

In his decision, Justice Campbell put the ministry and youth detention facilities on notice, saying a “constitutionally compliant strip search” going forward would involve “articulating to a manager information that gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that a detained youth possesses contraband, or that a strip search is otherwise necessary, and securing the manager’s approval.”

Routine strip searching is also being challenged in civil court with a yet-to-be certified class action filed on behalf of young people who have undergone similar treatment.

As part of that case, a legal team from Sotos LLP that is representing the youth plaintiffs submitted expert evidence about the effectiveness and psychological impact of strip searches.

Kelly Hannah-Moffat, a criminology professor at the University of Toronto, wrote in an affidavit that the new regulations “do not adequately address the core concerns surrounding routine strip searches, nor do they offer sufficient protection for youth against unwarranted or unnecessary intrusions.”

“Without a clear ban or stronger safeguards, the practice of routine strip searches is likely to persist under the guise of operational necessity or vague justifications such as ‘risk’ or feasibility,’” she wrote.

Further, she said strip searches “can inflict significant psychological harm and directly undermine the rehabilitative objectives of youth custody.”

“Despite this, institutions typically justify strip searches on the grounds of safety and security, claiming they are necessary to prevent the smuggling of contraband (e.g., weapons or drugs) and to protect detainees, staff, and visitors. However, there is no clear evidence that strip searches are effective in achieving these goals.”

January 26, 2026 PRESS RELEASE Re: INCIDENT AT OSHAWA COURTHOUSE My client, Sudine Riley, finished a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice late in the day on Friday January 23, 2026, and was catching up on her legal work in an interview room outside of the courtroom. Uniformed officers challenged her presence in the interview room. Ms. Riley’s head was then slammed on the desk and officers put knees in her back and neck. She was spoken to with rage, disrespect, and contempt by officers. She was forcibly removed from that room and was dragged out of the room, handcuffed, and then taken to cells in the basement of the courthouse. Her head scarf was ripped off, her skirt was raised when she was handled by officers, and her head was bleeding and her eye swollen from being slammed into the desk. She committed no offence other than being a Black woman practising law, being diligent about her commitment to the pursuit of justice. Ms. Riley is a proud member of the criminal defence bar in Ontario. She is a petite Black woman who wears a head scarf. She was handled violently and aggressively by members of police services. She is taking time to rest and heal while she considers her next legal steps. We thank you for respecting her privacy during this time. Any questions or comments can be directed through my office. Neha Chugh Neha Chugh Lawyer 613-938-0000 neha@chughlaw.ca chughlaw.ca

DURHAM REGIONAL POLICE ASSAULT LAWYER AT THE OSHAWA COURTHOUSE

Lawyer alleges Durham police slammed her head into table, physically dragged her to cells inside Oshawa courthouse
Sudine Riley “committed no offence other than being a Black woman practising law,” reads a statement from her lawyer.
Jan. 26, 2026

“The allegations arising from this matter are being taken with the utmost seriousness,” said a statement from the Durham Regional Police Service.

Doug Ives The Canadian Press
Jacques-Gallant
By Jacques GallantCourts and Justice Reporter
A defence lawyer is alleging that Durham police officers violently assaulted her, ripped off her headscarf and took her to the cells in handcuffs at the Oshawa courthouse last Friday.
A statement issued Monday says Sudine Riley had just finished up a trial late Friday afternoon and was catching up on legal work in an interview room near the courtroom when uniformed Durham officers, working as security, “challenged her presence” in the room.
“Ms. Riley’s head was then slammed on the desk and officers put knees in her back and neck. She was spoken to with rage, disrespect, and contempt by officers,” says the statement issued by Riley’s lawyer, Neha Chugh.
“She was forcibly removed from that room and was dragged out of the room, handcuffed, and then taken to cells in the basement of the courthouse. Her head scarf was ripped off, her skirt was raised when she was handled by officers, and her head was bleeding and her eye swollen from being slammed into the desk.”
The statement goes on to say that Riley “committed no offence other than being a Black woman practising law, being diligent about her commitment to the pursuit of justice. Ms. Riley is a proud member of the criminal defence bar in Ontario. She is a petite Black woman who wears a head scarf.
“She was handled violently and aggressively by members of police services. She is taking time to rest and heal while she considers her next legal steps.”
Durham regional police confirmed to the Star that they are investigating an incident that occurred at the courthouse on Friday around 5 p.m., though did not provide further details.
“Our investigators are working closely with court services to obtain and thoroughly review all available evidence related to this incident,” the force said in a statement.
“The allegations arising from this matter are being taken with the utmost seriousness. DRPS has assigned the appropriate investigative and oversight resources to fully understand the circumstances and determine what further actions may be required.”

The incident has prompted concerns about the safety of lawyers and others who work in the Oshawa courthouse. Those concerns are outlined in a letter sent Sunday to Ontario Court Justice Lara Crawford, the local administrative judge at the courthouse, from the advocacy organization Women in Canadian Criminal Defence (WiCCD), which has nearly 800 members across the country.
“WiCCD members are understandably deeply concerned for their own safety in the Oshawa courthouse,” wrote organization president Cassandra DeMelo. “Many, if not most, of our members are racialized women who represent accused persons and many of our members do so at that courthouse.”
DeMelo asked Crawford to provide assurances that necessary measures have been taken to ensure the safety of the organization’s members working in the courthouse.
“We are taking this unprecedented step in contacting Your Honour directly because of the urgency of the situation and our members’ expressed concerns,” DeMelo wrote.
“We do also recognize that all justice system participants who work in the Oshawa courthouse have a direct and substantial interest in the issue and may also be fearful at this time.”

Top Ten Insights to Pass on to Younger Lawyers