Three Calgary police officers named in a wrongful arrest complaint after they punched and handcuffed an unsuspecting Walmart employee won’t face further review as previously directed.
Court of King’s Bench Justice Glen Poelman, in a written decision posted Friday, set aside his judicial review decision, stating it should not have proceeded.
Benjamin Kyambadde was on a break while working at Walmart in March 2021 when he was apprehended and handcuffed for about 15 minutes by officers looking for three suspects involved in a series of cellphone theft assaults. He was released without charges.
Kyambadde, like the suspects, is Black and had taken off his employee vest and was standing near two of the men sought by police when officers approached him.
Kyambadde told an investigating detective he thought he was being robbed of his cellphone when he was thrown to the floor and punched by police, and wasn’t told they were officers until 90 seconds after the event began.
Two of the officers involved said they punched Kyambadde about a total of a dozen times in the side because they perceived him to be resisting.
Kyambadde filed a complaint against the three officers two weeks later, stating unnecessary force and claiming he was racially profiled.
CPS Chief Mark Neufeld dismissed the complaint in December 2021 — without a hearing — after determining the allegations were not serious.
Kyambadde objected and applied for a judicial review of Neufeld’s decision.
In January of this year, Poelman ruled Neufeld’s dismissal of the complaint was unreasonable.
Poelman concluded Neufeld hadn’t properly considered an officer’s need to impose a chokehold or the testimony of Kyambadde’s work colleague, which contradicted some of the CPS members’ version of events.
However, in his decision this week, Poelman sided with police, stating the judicial review application didn’t meet requirements.
The application had to be filed within six months of Neufeld’s decision. In addition, the officers had to be served notice of the application; they had no knowledge of the judicial review.
“Perhaps it was not necessary for the officers to be named as respondents at the initial stage, but there can be no question of their being directly affected by the judicial review application,” Poelman wrote.
“Mr. Kyambadde argues, in part, that service on the Chief or CPS was sufficient to encompass service on the officers. That submission has no merit. It is patent from the statutory and regulatory framework that there are many cases in which the Chief and CPS as an organization have interests different from the sworn officers involved in policing.
“There are specific procedures and time limitations governing judicial review of administrative decisions. I am not persuaded that there is any legitimate basis on which I can disregard them in this case. Rather, I am bound to observe them.”
Poelman said the strict six-month limitation period for judicial review applications means Kyambadde’s application cannot be heard again.