Parkdale Community Legal Services Inc.

165 Dufferin Street
Toronto, Ontario, M6K 1Y9
Telephone 531-2411
Fax 531-0885

July 11, 1991



Mr. Murray Segal
Director of Crown Law Office - Criminal
Ministry of the Attorney General
Clara Brett Martin Building
720 Bay Street, 7th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 2K1

Dear Mr. Segal:

Re: Request for Witness Protection

This letter is a request that the Ministry of the Attorney General provide witness protection to Ms. Jane Doe who has been granted standing at the current Ontario Police Commission Inquiry. The purpose of the Inquiry is to inquire into the administration of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force as it relates to internal investigations of allegations of wrong-doing against members of that force.

To date, the Commission has heard only of the matter commonly known as the 'Junger Affair'. The evidence of Jane Doe goes beyond that which has to date been typified before the Commission as a unique and exceptional case. Jane Doe's evidence goes to the heart of the Inquiry's mandate to investigate the policies, practices and procedures of the Internal Affairs Unit of the force. Her evidence will call into question the commonly held and publicly presented view of the practices of the Internal Affairs Unit. Jane Doe is the only member of the public granted standing before the Inquiry. Her evidence is critical, timely and challenging.

Given the particular circumstances of this case, any potential protection would be provided by The Ontario Provincial Police, and not the protection unit of the Metropolitan Toronto Police. Thus, you will likely forward this letter to the O.P.P. We request that the strictest confidentiality be maintained. Our client's legitimate fear is that knowledge of her request for protection will confirm her intention to testify, increasing the risk of further intimidation. She understands that the fact of protection, if granted, would soon be known by The Metro Police.


Jane Doe requested standing from the Commission through a letter from her counsel to Commission counsel by letter dated April 29, 1991. On May 5, 1991 counsel to Jane Doe appeared before the Commission and gave notice that Jane Doe would be requesting standing in order to give evidence and participate in the Inquiry. It was about that time that telephone threats began to the home of Jane Doe demanding that she not testify at the Inquiry. The telephone threats included threats of bodily harm. On June 8, 1991 Jane Doe was granted standing before the Commission. The telephone threats continued, including threats of death.

During the week of June 24, 1991 our client received several threatening calls on one evening. She was sufficiently upset that she decided to go to friends for the night, leaving some time after 10:00 P.M. Upon leaving her building she heard her first name called and she turned to see who it was. Two men appeared, gripped her wrist (leaving a bruise) and led her to a nearby deserted spot. She was hit and her hair was pulled hard. She was also pinned to the wall and hit and kicked, both on her legs and in her stomach. She was told that she should not testify and that the Police would know she was not testifying if they saw such a statement in the newspapers. They said that they wanted her to take it seriously. The included photographs were taken 4 days after the attack.

In our view, the timing of the threats is highly suggestive of the involvement of The Metro Police, as is the consistent reference to her participation in the Inquiry. We, therefore, urge an early and positive response to this request.


The Commission is sitting on Auguest 21, 22, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1991. The Commissioners have requested an extension of their appointments, which are due to expire on September 3, 1991. In that event, dates have been set from September 3-6, 1991. There are a number of police officer witnesses (4) and a Crown Attorney yet to testify. It is quite possible and realistic to expect that our client should be able to testify during the first week of September. At the latest our client would testify at the next sitting scheduled by the Commission.


Jane Doe works approximately 3 days a week at a community agency. She reduced her workload as a result of the trauma of the original incidents leading to her involvement in the Inquiry. Her work involves travelling around the city to participate in meetings, several of which occur at night. Her work hours are irregular.

Our client lives alone in an apartment building. Since the incident of late June 1991, a woman friend has stayed two or three nights only. Our client has some close friends who are aware of her circumstances.

Jane Doe uses public transit and cycles in the city. There is weekday bus service to her building and round-the-clock bus service (with more transfers) which necessitates her crossing a main artery. Her building is in a part of the city which is often quite deserted after 9:00 P.M.

Our client has the average working and social life of a single person. She would rather remain in Toronto, particularly given the nature of her work and her recent appointment to a committee of a new commission, at which she is to participate approximately 2 or 3 days a month.

If we can be of any further assistance, please contact us forthwith.

Yours truly,


Phyllis Gordon
Phyllis Gordon
Clinic Director


c.c. Counsel to Jane Doe: Dianne Martin, Academic Advisor, PCLS
Ray Kuszelewski, Staff Lawyer, PCLS

1971 - 1991

Project of the Ontario Legal Aid Plan and Osgoode Hall Law School of York University

Jane Doe... [Fiona Stewart] [the Walnuts] [Whore Heroes]

Created: August 15, 1999
Last modified: August 15, 1999

Walnet Jane Doe, c/o Walnut Society
Box 3075, Vancouver, BC V6B 3X6
Tel: +1 (604) 488-0710