COMMISSION FOR PUBLIC COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE RCMP

CHAIR'S FINAL REPORT

PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 45.46(3)
FOLLOWING A PUBLIC INTEREST INVESTIGATION
PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 45.43(1)

INTO THE CHAIR'S COMPLAINT RESPECTING AN ALLEGED PURSUIT

	Complainant: Shirley Heafey Chair, Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP PO Box 3423, Station D Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6L4
July 10, 2003	File No.:  PC-2002-0107

CHAIR'S FINAL REPORT FOLLOWING A PUBLIC INTEREST INVESTIGATION

The Process

As Chair of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP (hereinafter "the Commission"), I have the authority to initiate a complaint, pursuant to subsection 45.37(1) of the RCMP Act (hereinafter "the Act"), where I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to investigate the conduct, in the performance of any duty or function under the Act, of any member or other person appointed or employed under the authority of the Act.

When I consider it advisable in the public interest, I also have the authority, pursuant to subsection 45.43(1) of the Act, to investigate a complaint, whether or not the complaint has been investigated, reported on or otherwise dealt with by the RCMP. Upon completion of the investigation, I am required to prepare and send a report to the Solicitor General of Canada and the RCMP Commissioner (hereinafter "the Commissioner"), setting out such findings and recommendations with respect to the complaint as I see fit (my "Interim Report").

Upon receipt of the Interim Report, the Commissioner is required to review the complaint in light of the report's findings and recommendations. The Commissioner must then notify me of any further action that has been, or will be, taken with respect to the complaint or provide his reasons for not acting on the findings or any recommendations made (the "Commissioner's Notice"). After I have considered such a Notice, a Final Report is prepared.

The Complaint

On February 28, 2002, I initiated the complaint into this matter, alleging "that unidentified members of the RCMP initiated and conducted a pursuit of a stolen vehicle without due regard for public safety, contrary to current policy, and improperly denied that a pursuit had been undertaken and failed to report the pursuit in accordance with current policy." 

The Interim Report

After the Commission's public interest investigation was completed, my Interim Report, dated March 31, 2003,  was sent to the Solicitor General of Canada and to the Commissioner (Appendix I).  In summary, I found that a pursuit did occur but was very quickly terminated.  As such, it would have been appropriate for the officers to complete the forms 2088, as required by the National Pursuit Policy.  I further noted that both Constable Potvin's and Sergeant Scott's actions during the pursuit exemplified the appropriate risk assessment and decision-making skills that pursuit policies strive to elicit. However, in light of the empirical evidence regarding fleeing suspects' perceptions and resulting behaviour, I expressed concern that the RCMP's current policy permits members to follow a suspect after a pursuit has been terminated.  I noted that a number of pursuit policies prohibit this practice, and indicated my intention to further review this issue.  Lastly, I referenced the Pedersen family's perceptions that their situation and injuries resulted in little or no attention from the members at the scene, and I suggested that it would have been reassuring for the family if at least one of the eight members at the scene had tended and assisted them until the ambulance arrived.  

The Commissioner's Notice

The Commissioner responded to my Interim Report by way of a letter dated May 15, 2003 (Appendix II).  While the Commissioner expressed confidence that the members involved did not intentionally mislead anyone, he agreed that a pursuit had occurred and therefore, forms 2088 should have been submitted.  The Commissioner further concurred that Constable Potvin and Sergeant Scott exercised appropriate risk assessment and decision-making skills, ensuring that public safety was properly considered.  With respect to the members following the suspect vehicle once the pursuit was terminated, the Commissioner suggested that the suspect vehicle was out of the members' sight shortly after the pursuit was terminated and they proceeded in the same direction in accordance with appropriate procedures to continue an investigation of a stolen vehicle.   With respect to the Pedersens' perceptions that they were ignored for the most part, the Commissioner asserted that the statements of Constables Stovern and Potvin indicate that they both spoke to the Pedersen family "at various times to ascertain their condition, to let them know that an ambulance was on the way and to take down the information about what had occurred."  The Commissioner suggested that Constable Stovern's observation that the Pedersens were in shock was a reasonable explanation for the noted variance and in his view, these members acted appropriately.  The Commissioner further acknowledged that my Interim Report did not make any recommendations, and in conclusion, stated that he was satisfied the RCMP police pursuit policy was followed properly in this case.

Conclusions

I am pleased that the Commissioner agrees with my finding that the incident under review constituted a pursuit, and that the members should have submitted documentation as required by the RCMP's National Pursuit Policy.  Contrary to the Commissioner's concluding determination that their pursuit policy was followed properly in this case, I note that the members' misinterpretation of this incident, and their corresponding failure to submit appropriate documentation, is evidence that the reporting requirements of their pursuit policy were not properly applied. 

In regard to the RCMP's current policy permitting members to follow a fleeing suspect after a pursuit has been terminated, I remain concerned over the empirical evidence that once a pursuit has been initiated, the suspect's perceptions and resulting behaviour tend to dictate the outcome.  While the Commissioner correctly notes that the suspect vehicle was out of the members' sight shortly after the pursuit was terminated, the evidence substantiates that the members were in the suspect's sight for at least four blocks and as such, their presence continued to influence the suspect's behaviour.  In fact, when the suspect was asked whether he was aware of the presence of the police and if he could see them all the way to the collision, he responded affirmatively. Accordingly, I reiterate my intention to further review this issue in light of the current research on the dangerousness of this practice.

With respect to the Commissioner's comments regarding the Pedersens' perceptions that they were ignored for the most part by the members at the scene, I disagree with his suggestion that both Constables Stovern and Potvin spoke to the Pedersen family at various times "to ascertain their condition, to let them know that an ambulance was on the way and to take down the information about what had occurred."  The evidence indicates that Constable Stovern approached the family once to ascertain whether there were any injuries, and after informing them that an ambulance was on the way, left them in the care of bystanders.  Similarly, the evidence indicates that Constable Potvin approached the family shortly before they departed in the ambulance, in order to obtain their names.  There was no evidence that any of the members approached the family other than for these two brief occasions.  It would have been reassuring for the injured Pedersen family if at least one of the eight members present had tended and assisted them until the ambulance arrived.

Despite the unfortunate outcome of this incident, the necessary risk assessment and decision-making skills required to protect public safety were applied.  Consequently, I did not make recommendations in this case.

July 10, 2003

___________________________ Chair

Shirley Heafey
Chair
Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP
P.O. Box 3423, Station "D"
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 6L4