Mr. Zameer and the Reputation of Ontario Policing

A terrible tragedy occurred in July of 2021, when a senior police officer, Jefferey Northrup, lost his life in an underground parking lot while working undercover.  The details of how the died were intentionally misrepresented to attempt to send Umar Zameer to prison for “killing a police officer”.  If it was not for camera evidence from a parking lot security camera that captured the incident, that man, a father, and husband, would likely have spent the rest of his life in prison because of lying police officers.

Multiple police officers lied in police reports and then lied under oath and shared the same sequence of events to the court.  Just how bad were the lies? One police officer said that the fallen officer was standing in front of Mr.  Zameer’s vehicle, with his police badge out, just before the officer was struck by the car, which turned out to be completely fabricated.

There were claims that the act was intentional and deliberate, and that Mr. Zameer being released on bail was something beyond understanding.  Those comments were concerning enough that the Honorable Jill Copeland put a publication ban in place during bail hearings as they believed the trial would tell a “very different story”.  And it did, which is why the jury voted to acquit Mr. Zameer.  But then more comments were made by public officials after the trial, hoping for a “different result”.  None of them referred to Mr.  Zameer by his name nor did they raise issue with how police officers fabricated an entire sequence of events to try to convict Mr.  Zameer.

Asking how many Canadians have been put through similar situations,  are sitting behind bars, or been criminalized across the country but do not belong there is the right question to ask.  Because how Mr.  Zameer’s court case unfolded might be the biggest indictment on Canada’s institution of policing, highlighting the existence of systemic abuses and power inequities and how the judicial system is not failproof – even if Mr. Zameer did not get convicted.

The Details of the Incident.

Umar Zameer had no criminal record and worked as an accountant.  He was out with his eight-month pregnant wife and their two-year-old son to celebrate Canada Day.  After deciding to call it a night, the Zameers would walk past the scene of an earlier stabbing on their way to their car.  The stabbing victim had described the attacker as a heavyset, homeless-looking man with brown skin, big hair, and a long beard.  So the Toronto Police Service began a search for anyone who fit that profile.  Mr. Zameer did not.  He was not heavyset, did not have a long beard, or big hair and, as he was inside a luxury vehicle, did not look homeless.  His only shared similarity with the perpetrator was that he happens to be brown-skinned.

The Zameers were in their car, getting ready to leave Toronto City Hall’s underground parking lot, when individuals rushed their car and began yelling and banging on the windows.  Mr. Zameer’s wife and child began to cry as an unmarked van with tinted windows pulled in front of them and attempted to block him off.  In fear for his and his family’s lives, Mr.  Zameer backed up a bit before turning his vehicle to take another route and avoid the van.  Less than thirty seconds after driving away, the Zameers reached the exit but were rammed from behind by the van.  With the airbags deployed, they were hauled out of the car at gunpoint by plainclothes police.

Mr. Zameer was being informed that he was under arrest for the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle when another officer interrupted and took over the interaction.  That officer then asked Mr.  Zameer to explain what had happened, and Mr.  Zameer mentioned the following: he and his pregnant wife had heard about the stabbing and seen a lot of police cars in the area.  They decided to leave and went to the parking garage and got inside their car.  A man and woman arrived and started hitting his window and door, and a black van pulled up.  He did not see either of the people with police badges, and he had no idea they were police, nor were they dressed like police officers.  He was scared and tried to get away, but he would not have done so had he known that they were police officers.

After Mr. Zameer was taken to the police station, having already been charged with the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, he was informed that he had run over an officer who had succumbed to their injuries, and that he was now being charged with First Degree Murder. Mr. Zameer’s response at the police station was that he was not aware that the people who were banging on his car were police officers, repeating that anybody who had been struck was not wearing a police vest, that the van had no police markings, and that he and his wife were afraid they were going to be killed by the “gang” that charged them.

The Truth Comes out at Trial

Despite that Mr. Zameer would be found not guilty, what transpired at different times during his trial stained the meaning behind testifying under oath.  It also set a new precedent for how far police officers are willing to stretch their misconduct.

At the preliminary hearing, one of the officers testified that they had been drawn to Mr.  Zameer as a result of a child’s cry.  They also stated that they did not have a clear view of Mr.  Zameer, but that he could be generically described as a brown male with a slim build, short hair, and a short beard.  This same officer also testified that they had no reasonable or probable grounds to detain Mr.  Zameer, having seen him with his family, but that they were wearing their police badge around their neck, that they held up their badge as they approached Mr.  Zameer, smiling at him and saying, “Hi, police.  Can we speak to you?” It was then said that Mr.  Zameer’s response to their words was that he jumped in his car and slammed the door.  In response to his actions, the two officers present continued to show their badges while pounding on the window and repeatedly saying, “Police”, and telling him to stop.  When Mr. Zameer started to drive forward, the unmarked police van drove forward to block him in.  In attempt to flee, Mr.  Zameer struck one of the plainclothes officers who was standing in front of his car and ordering him to stop.  It turned out none of it was accurate of what had transpired.

At trial, two of the plainclothes officers testified that after ramming Mr. Zameer’s car, they went on the sides of the car with their guns held by their side, yelling for the Zameers to get out of it.  This also turned out to be untrue, because both officers were identified as having pointed their guns at both Mr. and Mrs. Zameer, by the car that had been in front of the Zameers at the exit.

The third plainclothes officer provided a statement that Officer Northrup had been standing in the middle of the laneway with both hands up for the sign, “stop”.  This officer also testified that Mr.  Zameer had drove his BMW straight at Officer Northrup and hit him head-on and ran over his body as it lay on the ground.  One of the other plainclothes officers also added that it looked like Officer Northrup had been holding his badge in his left hand, that he fell forward over the hood of the vehicle, that he went in the air before landing, and then being run over.  None of it was found to be accurate of what had actually transpired.

Instead, surveillance video from the parking garage recorded that Officer Northrup was not standing in the laneway when he was knocked to the ground.  Despite the footage, the Crown attempted to argue that Officer Northrup could have been hit when he was behind a pillar and not in the view of the camera, but that  would mean that all of the officers were wrong about their recollection of events.

Two crash reconstruction experts were brought in to testify about the science behind the crash and they detailed how it was impossible that Officer Northrup was hit head-on while standing up.  There was no disturbance to the dust on the hood of Mr.  Zameer’s car and no denting or marks that indicated damage to the bumper of the car that would be consistent with frontal impact.  Rather, they concluded that Northrup fell after being side swiped by the reversing car and was already on the ground when he was run over by the car moving forward. He would not have been visible on the ground because he would have been in the car’s blind zone.  None of what was reported by the officers could have actually transpired the way that they were claiming it had.

The occupants of the car that was ahead of Mr.  Zameer’s BMW at the exit testified how they heard the crash as the van slammed into the back of the BMW.  Upon looking back and seeing what was happening, they did not recognize the people around the BMW, and only heard yelling.  They heard plainclothes officers yelling “out”, while Mrs.  Zameer was heard screaming.  The driver of that car also testified that guns were pointed at the Zameers, who were still in their car.  The entire situation was so frightening that they sped away in fear for their lives, smashing through the barrier, and not seeing any police vehicles as they exited, which is why they reported the incident to police the next day.

The Honorable Anne Molloy, who was presiding over the case, found that officers lied when they said they did not point their guns at the Zameers, and that they were pointed at the Zameers’ heads, citing the testimony of the two occupants in the vehicle in front of the Zameers, who also had not recognized the individuals as officers. Judge Molloy also raised issue with how the officers lied to put themselves in a better light, while disregarding the implications it would have on Mr. Zameer.  Furthermore, Judge Molloy stated that what the police officers alleged to have seen was impossible, but that their stories were so closely aligned that they not only lied, but they colluded to lie.

Before jurors began deliberating, Judge Molloy told the jurors that it was her opinion that there was no evidence to fully support the Crown’s theory, and that the defence’s theory aligned with the video, the experts, and the testimony of Mr. Zameer and his wife.  Then, Judge Molloy also suggested that jurors should consider the possibility of collusion between the witness officers because all three had incorrect accounts of what happened, how they were untruthful and unreliable.  The jury found Mr. Zameer not guilty.

The Aftermath

Three years after the tragedy on Canada Day, the “not guilty” verdict was followed by an apology from Judge Molloy to the Zameers, noting that they had her deepest apologies for what they had been put through. This is something that judges almost never do.

If there had been no security camera footage the night of the incident, if there had been no other vehicles in the vicinity of the incident, then would a man who did not deserve to be in prison be spending the rest of his life behind bars?

Messages were sent to the Zameers, and every other person that looks like Mr.  Zameer, with the comments that were made after the trial.  Because Mr.  Zameer’s life did not matter.  Because Mrs.  Zameer deserved to have a miscarriage, or to become a single mother of two children.  Because their children deserved to grow up in a fatherless household, ashamed and traumatized of their father, and without ever knowing the kind of man he truly was: a proud Canadian that went out to celebrate Canada Day. Those “becauses” were the messages. Because none of them seemed to have issue with the fact that Mr.  Zameer never fit the profile of the person who committed the stabbing, with police officers exposed for lying under oath, and even with hopes for a different outcome.

Toronto Police Services brass have since called upon the Ontario Provincial Police to investigate the officers that lied under oath.  But criminalizing and incarcerating those officers for their attempt to criminalize and incarcerate Mr. Zameer would do nothing for anyone involved and only destroys more families.

If any positives are to come out of this terrible tragedy, hopefully one of them is a national standard requirement for training that all police officers have to take, given how none of the plainclothes police officers were trained in high-risk vehicle takedowns.  It will not change what happened to Jefferey Northrup, but it can prevent similar such situations from happening again.

References
R. v. Zameer, 2022 ONSC 296 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/jlw3w>
R. v. Zameer #1, 2023 ONSC 6396 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k16jl>
R. v. Zameer #2, 2023 ONSC 7130 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k3p6n>
R. v. Zameer #3, 2024 ONSC 91 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k46jm>
R. v. Zameer #4, 2024 ONSC 2483 (CanLII), <https://canlii.ca/t/k4gh0>