A stark disagreement has erupted at the highest levels of Toronto’s law enforcement, leaving a cloud of uncertainty over the handling of alleged antisemitic activity. Mayor Olivia Chow publicly stated that Police Chief Myron Demkiw confided in her a troubling reality: investigations into potential hate crimes were being stifled by a legal opinion within the police headquarters.
According to the Mayor, a lawyer at headquarters was advising officers against pursuing charges in cases of alleged antisemitism, deeming convictions unlikely. This assertion paints a picture of a demoralized force, hesitant to act even when faced with disturbing displays of hate. The implication is chilling – that potential perpetrators might be shielded from justice before investigations even fully unfold.
Chief Demkiw vehemently denies the Mayor’s account, dismissing the narrative as inaccurate. He insists that charging decisions are based on reasonable grounds and guided by Crown Attorneys, emphasizing a process of careful evaluation and discretion. This direct contradiction has ignited a firestorm of speculation and raised serious questions about communication within the Toronto Police Service.
As the debate intensifies, attention is turning to Falguni Debnath, the Toronto Police Service’s General Counsel. Sources within the service suggest she is the lawyer referenced by Mayor Chow, a prominent figure whose legal advice carries significant weight. Her role, as officially stated on the TPS website, is to “manage legal risk” for the Chief and “provide legal advice.”
Debnath’s credentials are formidable. Before joining the Toronto Police in 2024, she served with the Federal Department of Justice, the Ontario Court of Appeal, and even the United Nations, where she led a team representing survivors of war crimes and genocide. Chief Demkiw himself highlighted her extensive experience when introducing her to the Toronto Police Services Board, praising her expertise in complex legal matters.
Mayor Chow detailed her conversation with the Chief, explaining that police were making arrests only to have charges dropped by the Crown. She described a frustrating cycle where valuable police work yielded no tangible results, leading to a directive from the internal lawyer: “There’s no hope of you getting anywhere, so don’t bother.” This account suggests a systemic issue, a perceived futility in pursuing these cases.
When pressed directly by a radio host, Chief Demkiw flatly denied the Mayor’s claim. He maintained that decisions were based on evidence and Crown Attorney guidance, rejecting the notion of a blanket advisory against pursuing charges. This denial, however, hasn’t quelled the controversy, as the Mayor has not retracted her original statement.
Following the radio interview, the Mayor’s office released a statement acknowledging the “complex legal terrain” surrounding hate crimes and the challenges of securing convictions. While expressing gratitude for the Chief’s work, the statement notably stopped short of correcting the Mayor’s initial assertion, further fueling the speculation surrounding the role of the internal lawyer.
Attempts to reach Falguni Debnath directly were met with a response from a Toronto Police spokesperson, who clarified that consultations on hate crime laws occur with the Ministry of the Attorney General, not with TPS counsel. This attempt to redirect the focus, however, hasn’t extinguished the questions surrounding the internal legal advice allegedly being given to officers.
With the Mayor standing by her account and the Chief denying it, the truth remains elusive. The introduction of Falguni Debnath into the public discourse adds another layer of complexity to this unfolding situation, raising critical questions about the balance between legal caution and the pursuit of justice in a city grappling with rising concerns over hate-motivated incidents.
