CHAIR'S INTERIM REPORT

PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 45.43(3)
FOLLOWING A PUBLIC INTEREST INVESTIGATION
PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION 45.43(1)
OF THE RCMP ACT

Complainants:
Messrs. Réjean and Robert Bellefleur
Address removed

File No.: PC-2003-0819

August 19, 2004

CHAIR'S INTERIM REPORT

OVERVIEW

During the early evening of August 13, 2001, Guy Bellefleur and his friend¹ (both teenagers) were riding their motor bikes along a private, decommissioned logging road in a wooded area of Drummond, New Brunswick. They were involved in an accident in which they both fell off their bikes. This accident resulted in the sudden and tragic death of Guy Bellefleur. It occurred at a depression in the road, which was the remains of an old ditch and berm made by the owner to discourage access by motor vehicles. Immediately after the accident, the friend rode off on Guy Bellefleur's bike to get help. He located Mr. Yves Plourde who drove back to the scene with him and then contacted the RCMP. The accident was investigated by members of the Grand Falls, New Brunswick RCMP Detachment, including Constable Michel Porlier, Constable Sylvain Simard, Corporal Manon McSween and Corporal Robert Fullerton. The death of Guy Bellefleur was also the subject of a Coroner's inquest held from February 17 to 20, 2003.

COMPLAINT

On May 13, 2003, the Commission received correspondence (dated April 12, 2003) from Messrs. Réjean and Robert Bellefleur (the father and uncle of Guy Bellefleur), complaining about the conduct of Constable Porlier, Corporal Fullerton and other unnamed members of the Grand Falls Detachment. This correspondence essentially alleges that:

1. The RCMP's investigation into Guy Bellefleur's death was fundamentally flawed;
2. RCMP staff and officials have attempted to cover up the flawed investigation.

In their correspondence, the complainants go on to request: (1) that the Commission conduct its own investigation of the RCMP's handling of this case, (2) that the incident itself be re-investigated and (3) that the Bellefleur family be provided with access to the complete RCMP investigation file. By letter of July 14, 2003, the Commission advised the complainants that it did not have jurisdiction to comply with the second and third of these requests but that, pursuant to subsection 45.43(1) of the RCMP Act, the Commission Chair had decided in the public interest to initiate the Commission's own investigation into the RCMP conduct which is the subject of this complaint. The Chair's decision in this regard was conveyed to the Commissioner of the RCMP by letter dated July 14, 2003.

COMMISSION'S INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW OF THE COMPLAINT

It is important to note that the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP is an agency of the federal government, distinct and independent from the RCMP. When investigating and reviewing a complaint, the Commission does not act as an advocate either for the complainant or for RCMP members. Rather, its role is to inquire into complaints independently and to reach conclusions after an objective examination of the available information.

Having now investigated and reviewed the complaint of Messrs. Bellefleur, I have prepared this report, which contains my findings and recommendations with respect to the complaint. A detailed and very careful examination has been undertaken of all the available relevant materials related to this file. This has included a review of the Commission investigator's report; transcripts or notes of his interviews with Mr. and Mrs. Réjean Bellefleur and Mr. Robert Bellefleur, Mr. Joe Kavanaugh, Constable Porlier, Constable Simard, Corporal McSween and Corporal Fullerton; complete transcripts of the proceedings of the Coroner's inquest into the death of Guy Bellefleur; copies of relevant material provided by the RCMP including reports written, statements taken and notes made relative to the investigation of the death of Guy Bellefleur; copies of various RCMP correspondence and memos relating to the RCMP investigation and the Coroner's inquest; copies of relevant photos and expert reports provided by Mr. Robert Bellefleur and the RCMP; correspondence and other written material provided by Mr. Robert Bellefleur; and relevant RCMP policies and provincial legislation.

FIRST ALLEGATION: The RCMP's investigation into Guy Bellefleur's death was fundamentally flawed.

A. Chronology of the Investigation

As this complaint challenges the adequacy of the RCMP investigation, I begin by setting out a chronology of that investigation from the time that the RCMP was first notified of the incident.

August 13, 2001: RCMP dispatch records show that Mr. Yves Plourde called the RCMP about this incident at 8:52 p.m. on August 13^th and that Constable Porlier was dispatched to the scene at 8:56 p.m. Constable Porlier's police report indicates that he arrived at the scene of the accident at 9:15 p.m., along with Constable Simard and ambulance personnel. Upon arrival, Constable Porlier noted that Mr. Plourde, Guy Bellefleur's friend and Mr. Réjean Bellefleur were present and that Guy Bellefleur was on the ground, about 60 feet from what Constable Porlier determined to be the friend's motorbike. The friend told Constable Porlier that he had driven Guy Bellefleur's bike away from the scene to get help because his own bike was damaged. Constable Porlier also noted two motorcycle helmets and one of Guy Bellefleur's shoes on the ground.

The two ambulance attendants were unable to detect any signs of life from Guy Bellefleur and, at 9:21 p.m., Constable Porlier determined that he was deceased. He advised Constable Simard to contact the Coroner and the senior officers at the RCMP detachment, pursuant to RCMP policy with respect to human deaths². While waiting for the Coroner to call back, Constable Simard questioned Guy Bellefleur's friend further as to what had occurred and made brief notes of his description. Constable Porlier records in his report that he took photographs of the scene, Guy Bellefleur's body and the friend's bike. He goes on to record that the Coroner (Mr. Joe Kavanaugh) arrived at 10:10 p.m., looked at the scene and had the body transported by ambulance to the Grand Falls Hospital.

In his testimony at the Coroner's inquest into this matter, Constable Porlier says that Guy Bellefleur's friend described the accident as having happened as he was following Guy Bellefleur at a high rate of speed. Constable Porlier says that he specifically examined the scene in order to assist in understanding how the accident had occurred. He says that he could not see any debris, marks or signs on the ground to indicate the path or point of impact of Guy Bellefleur's bike or where it came to rest. Although it was still daylight when he arrived at the scene, night had fallen by the time he made his examination of the ground. However, he says that he was able to see using a flashlight. He states that the absence of any identifiable marks on the ground was apparently due to the fact that the road was very dry and that dust had been kicked up and had then fallen back down, covering any marks that might have been there.

He says that, in the area where the accident occurred (just prior to where Guy Bellefleur's body was located), there was what appeared to be a partly filled-in ditch across the road which resulted in a depression approximately 25 to 30 feet wide and two to two and a half feet deep at its deepest point.

Constable Porlier says that there was a helmet on the road about ten feet from the body. He did not notice any damage to it although he could tell that it was not new. He did not seize the helmet as evidence and gave it to Mr. Réjean Bellefleur. In a later statement provided to the Commission investigator, Constable Porlier says that he could not be sure whether that helmet belonged to Guy Bellefleur or his friend and that he did not ask.

In his testimony at the inquest, Constable Porlier says that, when he left the area, he took no steps to secure the scene of the accident for further investigation. He says that he would not have been able to see anything more the next day because there was nothing to see.

Constable Porlier acknowledges that RCMP policy normally requires police officers to take measurements and to draw a sketch of the scene when a fatal accident occurs³. However, he says he did not do so in this case as he could not see any markings on the road and Guy Bellefleur's bike had already been removed. Constable Porlier concedes in his testimony that it would have been more prudent to return the next day and examine the scene in daylight.

Mr. Joe Kavanaugh (the Coroner who attended the accident scene) provided a statement to the Commission investigator in which he confirms that he and Constable Porlier looked for gouges, rocks or marks on the road but could see nothing that would indicate how the accident had happened. He says that they did pace off the distance from the beginning of the depression in the road to where the bike and the deceased were located and it was approximately 120 feet. He says that Constable Porlier told him that he had left his measuring tape in his car. Mr. Kavanaugh adds that he has attended other accidents where either a member of the RCMP Identification Section was called in to take photographs and measurements or an accident reconstructionist attended. He notes that this is up to the RCMP investigator and that it did not occur in this case.

Constable Porlier's police report indicates that he left the scene at 10:35 p.m. and went to the hospital. Dr. Mobayed examined the body of Guy Bellefleur and officially pronounced him dead at 11:16 p.m. Constable Porlier learned that an autopsy was scheduled for the following morning. He contacted Corporal McSween (the detachment's team leader during the temporary absence of Corporal Fullerton) to advise her of this and was instructed to attend the autopsy.

At 11:35 p.m., while at the hospital, Constable Simard took a written statement from Guy Bellefleur's friend. In that statement, the friend said that he had been with Guy Bellefleur since about 1:30 p.m. that afternoon and that they had been riding their motor bikes off-road. During the course of the afternoon, they stopped from time to time and they each had a few beers. Just prior to the accident, they were driving along a narrow dusty trail at about 80-100 km/h. The friend was following Guy but could not see much because of the dust. When Guy came off his bike, the friend hit him with his bike and fell off himself. When he saw that Guy was badly hurt, the friend took Guy's bike to look for help. He found a man (Mr. Plourde) who then drove him back to the scene and called Guy's parents and the police.

In his testimony at the inquest, Constable Simard says that his role in the investigation was to assist Constable Porlier who was in charge. At the scene of the accident, he dealt with the witnesses present and made sure they did not get in the way of the investigation. Constable Simard says that he did not participate in an examination of the scene or in any measuring.

In her interview with the Commission investigator, Corporal McSween says that she was initially advised of the accident by radio dispatch. She was subsequently able to contact Constable Porlier directly and determined that he and Constable Simard were at the scene and that everything was under control. She says that, since those two members had 11 years and five years of police experience respectively, she did not feel it necessary to attend herself.

August 14, 2001: Constable Porlier's police report indicates that, at 9:35 a.m. on August 14^th, he arrived at the Edmundston Hospital for the autopsy of Guy Bellefleur. Doctor Syed performed the autopsy and determined that the cause of death was a head wound. Constable Porlier took photographs of the autopsy and seized samples of blood and urine for analysis. He returned to the detachment at 2:30 p.m.

At 6:30 p.m., he and Corporal McSween drove out to interview Mr. Plourde and examine Guy Bellefleur's bike which had been left there by his friend. Constable Porlier noted damage to the headlight and handle bar of the bike but no other damage. He recorded the vehicle identification number but took no photographs of the bike and did not seize it.

In his testimony at the inquest, Constable Porlier agrees that RCMP policy would normally require an examination or mechanical inspection of a vehicle involved in a fatal accident to see whether or not a mechanical defect may have contributed to or caused the accident. When specifically asked why he did not have the bike inspected in this case, he does not provide a reason.

Constable Porlier says that Mr. Plourde told them that Guy Bellefleur's friend had arrived at the house asking for help because he had been in an accident. Mr. Plourde drove the friend back to the scene of the accident in his four-wheel all-terrain vehicle. He found Guy Bellefleur lying on his back, apparently lifeless. He then called the police and Guy Bellefleur's parents. Constable Porlier recorded this information in his police report but did not take a written statement from Mr. Plourde.

In his statement to the Commission investigator, Constable Porlier says that Mr. Plourde also showed him a back-pack that had been left there by Guy Bellefleur's friend, along with the motor bike. It was wet, smelled of beer and appeared to contain broken bottles. However, Constable Porlier did not open or seize the back-pack and cannot say how many bottles were in it or what else it might have contained. He did not mention the back-pack in his police report.

Constable Porlier's report for August 14^th records his conclusion that the cause of the accident was "excess of speed on a dirt road" which led to a loss of control of the motorcycle. He also notes that "the helmet came loose when he was ejected and the head struck the ground." He adds that the file is still under investigation and that he is awaiting the results of the blood and urine analyses and the reports of the doctor and the coroner.

August 24, 2001: A continuation report with respect to this file indicates that Constable Simard and Corporal McSween re-attended the scene of the accident during the afternoon of August 24^th. Corporal McSween took a number of photographs, particularly of the depression in the road. Constable Simard verified that the road was still in the same condition as it was on the night of the accident.

In his testimony at the inquest, Constable Porlier says that he was assigned to duties in Burnt Church on August 24^th (as a member of the tactical team) and that he was travelling back and forth between Grand Falls and Burnt Church over the ensuing two and a half months.

August 27, 2001: The RCMP investigation file contains a faxed copy of a letter dated August 27^th from J.D. Irving Ltd. (a logging company), addressed to the CBC. This letter describes the company's practice of decommissioning its private roads by building "a large and very visible berm" across the road (two to three feet in height) and flagging it with tape both ahead of and on the berm. The letter goes on to say that the flagging tape is often removed and the berms reduced by unauthorized users. It says that this is what occurred with respect to "the road on which the very tragic accident occurred."

September 19, 2001: In a continuation report dated September 19^th, Constable Porlier records that the toxicology report came back indicating no drugs or alcohol present in the blood of Guy Bellefleur. (In fact, this is incorrect; the report concludes that alcohol was present in the blood and that both alcohol and marijuana were present in the urine.)

On the same date, counsel for Mr. and Mrs. Réjean Bellefleur wrote to the RCMP requesting a copy of all documents in the investigation file, including any photographs or sketches.

October 10, 2001: In a letter to Corporal McSween, faxed on October 10^th, counsel for the Bellefleur family requested an explanation for the refusal of his September 19^th request for a copy of the file. An entry in the police continuation report indicates that this request was passed on to Corporal Fullerton (who had returned from leave to his position as the detachment's team leader sometime in September). The entry goes on to say that Corporal Fullerton reviewed the file and asked Constable Porlier to "complete the report." In fact, a later entry records that, on October 10^th, Corporal Fullerton asked Constable Porlier several specific questions about his investigation including whether or not the road where the accident occurred was private, what the cause of the accident was, and why a sketch was not completed and measurements not taken. Corporal Fullerton replied to counsel's letter on October 16^th, advising him of the legislative provisions, privacy concerns and RCMP policies which restrict the release of RCMP investigation files but offering to meet the family and discuss the file in person.

October 13, 2001: In a continuation report dated October 13^th, Constable Porlier records that personnel from J.D. Irving Ltd. had confirmed that the accident had occurred on property owned by that company. However, he concludes that "speed was the main cause of the accident, but the deceased may or may not have lost control of the motorcycle when he drove in the culverts." He adds that both the deceased and his motorcycle had been moved by Guy Bellefleur's friend prior to police arrival at the scene. He also partially corrects his earlier report by noting that the toxicology report showed that the deceased had marijuana in his urine.

October 29, 2001: In a continuation report dated November 2^nd, Corporal Fullerton records that he met with Mr. Réjean Bellefleur and his counsel to discuss the case on October 29^th. Corporal Fullerton indicates that he advised Mr. Bellefleur and his counsel that criminal charges of setting a trap or criminal negligence (sections 247(2) and 219(1) of the Criminal Code) were not appropriate as the necessary intent could not be proved. Corporal Fullerton goes on to say that he intended to discuss with Crown counsel the suggestion of Mr. Bellefleur's counsel that a charge under section 263(2) of the Criminal Code (leaving an unguarded excavation on land) would be appropriate.

November 1, 2001: A continuation report dated November 1^st contains written directions from Corporal Fullerton to Constable Porlier with respect to completion of the investigation. The report begins with the comment, "I have reviewed this file thoroughly and have found that it is severely lacking in detail. Written communication must improve." He indicates that Constable Porlier's report of October 13^th (see above) had not cleared up the lack of detail. He directs that more witness statements be taken and that detailed information be provided with respect to the size and location of the hole in the road and the relative positions of the deceased and his friend's bike. He asks if the bikes were examined for possible paint transference. He adds the comment that either a traffic analyst or someone from Identification Services should have been called. He also asks why a breath test was not demanded from Guy Bellefleur's friend.

November 2, 2001: Corporal Fullerton reports that he contacted the Coroner, Mr. Joe Kavanaugh, in order to express the RCMP's interest in and support for an inquest. He also reports that the file was taken to Crown counsel for a preliminary review and that Crown counsel advised that the file was worth pursuing and that a written response would be given once the full package had been received at the conclusion of the investigation.

November 6, 2001: Corporal Fullerton records in a continuation report that he visited the accident scene on November 6^th but that the excavations on the road had now been filled with gravel. He also took a statement from Mr. Réjean Bellefleur who provided him with copies of photographs that Mr. Bellefleur had taken of the accident scene on September 20^th.

November 7, 2001: Constable Porlier notes in a continuation report that he has contacted the Irving Corporation and requested information with respect to when they had stopped using the road, when the culvert in the road had been made, and whether or not signs had been posted. He indicates that he is awaiting a response.

December 4, 2001: In an internal email, Corporal Fullerton summarizes the investigation to date. He says, "[t]he case was not thoroughly investigated as per policy. When I received a request for information, I reviewed the file and found it lacking. The file was returned to the member for additional details." The email goes on to say that, due to the illness of Constable Porlier, the further statements that were requested have not been obtained and the file is to be reassigned. In his testimony at the inquest, Corporal Fullerton says that he subsequently took over the investigation himself. RCMP records show that Constable Porlier began a lengthy medical leave on November 13, 2001.

January 4, 2002: Mr. Robert Bellefleur sends a letter to the RCMP complaining about the length of the investigation and the fact that no charges have been laid against the Irving Corporation. He suggests that the investigation would have been more thorough had the Irving Corporation not been involved.

January 10, 2002: Corporal Fullerton takes a statement from Mr. Plourde on January 10^th. Mr. Plourde provides details of his involvement on the day of the accident.

January 22, 2002: On January 22^nd, Corporal Fullerton takes a statement from another individual who was friends with Guy Bellefleur and his friend⁴. He saw them on their motor bikes a few hours prior to the accident. His statement does not provide any information useful to the investigation of the accident. Corporal Fullerton also takes a further statement from the first youth who describes the accident much as he had before. He adds that he and Guy had smoked a couple of joints prior to the accident, in addition to drinking beer.

January 25, 2002: In a letter to the Security Officer for J.D. Irving Ltd. dated January 25^th, Corporal Fullerton asks for general information about how the company's roads are decommissioned and specific information with respect to the road where the accident took place.

January 29, 2002: Internal correspondence from Corporal Fullerton states that Sergeant Ron Latour (Non-Commissioned Officer in charge of District 10) does not feel that the file should go to Crown counsel but that it has been sent to Staff Sergeant Colin Farrar of "J" Division Criminal Operations for a legal analysis of section 263(2) of the Criminal Code. (In his interview with the Commission investigator, Corporal Fullerton advises that Staff Sergeant Farrar has a law degree and provides legal advice to the Division.)

February 8, 2002: Staff Sergeant Farrar's written response to Sergeant Latour is dated February 8^th. After a lengthy analysis, he concludes that "there is no apparent evidence that would support charges of the setting of a trap, of criminal negligence resulting from the wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of persons, or of manslaughter for somebody falling into an unguarded excavation."

February 14, 2002: In a letter dated February 14^th, counsel for J.D. Irving Ltd. responds to Corporal Fullerton's letter of January 25^th by asking whether or not the company is under investigation or charges are being considered. In response to this inquiry, Sergeant Latour writes that the file is concluded and that no criminal charges are contemplated unless new evidence comes to light.

B. Analysis of the Investigation

I have no hesitation in saying that the initial investigation of this tragic accident by Constable Porlier fell below the standard expected and required from members of the RCMP. As Corporal Fullerton succinctly stated in his December 4, 2001 email, "the case was not thoroughly investigated as per policy." Constable Porlier concedes as much in his evidence at the inquest when he agrees that he did not do several things that should have been done.

The purpose of an investigation into a serious motor vehicle accident is generally described in the "J" Division Operational Manual as being "to gather accident data so more efficient accident prevention programs and improved vehicle design may be formulated" and "to gather evidence to prosecute if an involved party violated the law."⁵ The manual goes on to instruct investigators to "consider the potential of future civil litigation."⁶ In cases of fatalities, members are instructed to conduct a thorough investigation to establish the cause of the accident.⁷

Specifically, the manual requires that certain investigative steps be taken with respect to fatal accidents, including taking adequate measurements and making a rough sketch of the scene. The manual refers to measuring the placement of highway signing and roadway faults, skid marks, point of impact, position of final rest, and placement of bodies and debris.⁸ It goes on to direct that a collision analyst/reconstructionist be immediately contacted and/or consulted in fatal motor vehicle accidents where criminality is suspected or cause cannot be established or is unclear.⁹

Constable Porlier concedes that he did not take the various steps set out above. His stated reason for not taking measurements or drawing a sketch is that he could not see any marks on the road. However, this does not explain why measurements and a sketch were not made to demonstrate the size and depth of the depression in the road and the relative positions of Guy Bellefleur's body, his shoe, the helmets and his friend's bike. He should have determined from the witnesses at the scene whether or not any of these items had been moved and, if so, where they had been immediately following the accident. He should also have asked Guy Bellefleur's friend to describe the location and position of Guy Bellefleur's bike after the accident.

While I accept Constable Porlier's evidence (corroborated by the evidence of Mr. Kavanaugh) that he could not detect any markings on the road, the net result was that the cause of the accident could not be established or was unclear. This should have triggered immediate contact with a collision reconstructionist. I will not speculate as to what (if anything) a collision reconstructionist would have done or directed to be done in these circumstances. However, the contact should have been made so that a properly trained person could make the decision as to whether or not further investigation of the scene (perhaps in daylight) was warranted. Furthermore, the scene should have been secured pending that decision.

As suggested by Corporal Fullerton in his November 1, 2001 continuation report, the two bikes should have been seized for closer examination, particularly with a view to determining if they had collided with one another or if they had any pre-existing mechanical defects. There may also have been evidence to corroborate his friend's statement that his bike had hit Guy Bellefleur during the accident. Guy Bellefleur's helmet should also have been seized and examined closely in an attempt to determine when and why it may have come off.

I also note that Constable Porlier failed to examine or seize the contents of the back-pack which was left by Guy Bellefleur's friend at Mr. Plourde's house, even though it obviously contained beer bottles. Its contents may have corroborated (or contradicted) the friend's account of how much drugs and alcohol he and Guy had consumed prior to the accident.

The issue of Constable Porlier's failure to ask Guy Bellefleur's friend for a breath sample is not specifically referred to in the complaint but does arise from Corporal Fullerton's continuation report of November 1, 2001. In his statement to the Commission investigator, Constable Porlier says that he did not detect any sign of alcohol consumption or any odour of alcohol from the friend, either at the scene or in the ambulance. I accept this as a sufficient explanation for the lack of a breath demand. Section 254(2) of the Criminal Code only authorizes peace officers to demand a breath sample for a roadside test when they "reasonably suspect" that a person who is operating a motor vehicle has alcohol in his or her body.

It appears from the entries in Constable Porlier's continuation reports that he concluded very early on in his investigation (August 14, 2001) that the cause of the accident was excessive speed and that death occurred because Guy Bellefleur lost his helmet and hit his head on the ground. While I am not in a position to assess the accuracy of those conclusions, they appear to have been made on very little evidence, relying primarily on the statement made by Guy Bellefleur's friend. Corporal Fullerton was struck (as I am) by the lack of detail in Constable Porlier's report. His lack of attention to detail is perhaps typified by his initial misreading and misreporting of the toxicology report relating to Guy Bellefleur's blood and urine analysis. While I do not attach a great deal of significance to that particular error (which was later partially corrected), my overall conclusion based on the entirety of the available evidence is that Constable Porlier's investigation of this accident was superficial and did not conform to RCMP policy.

With respect to the conduct of the other RCMP members involved in this investigation, I find it to be reasonable. I accept that Constable Simard only played a secondary role and that he properly considered Constable Porlier (his senior in terms of police service) as the lead investigator. I also find that it was reasonable for Corporal McSween, as the detachment team leader, to leave the investigation initially in the hands of Constable Porlier whom she knew to be an experienced police officer. Unfortunately, it appears that Corporal Fullerton's return to duty as team leader in September caused a break in continuity with respect to the supervision of the detachment members. This may have caused some delay in the detection of the deficiencies in Constable Porlier's investigation, but I do not ascribe this to any fault on the part of either Corporal McSween or Corporal Fullerton.

Once Corporal Fullerton became aware of the problem, I find that it was appropriate for him to direct Constable Porlier to complete the investigation. The fact that Constable Porlier was unable to do so resulted in part from his assignment elsewhere as a tactical team member and in part from his subsequent sick leave. When it became apparent that Constable Porlier was not going to be able to conclude the investigation, Corporal Fullerton took it over himself, while still supervising the detachment. This unfortunately led to further delay. However, I am satisfied that Corporal Fullerton did what he reasonably could to complete the investigation, notwithstanding the fact that some avenues of that investigation had become closed over time.

The complaint in this case contains a specific allegation that the investigation of the accident would have been properly conducted had the accident not occurred on land belonging to the Irving Corporation. I have examined the file carefully with this allegation in mind and can find no evidence whatsoever that the identity of the land owner affected the investigation in any way.

A related allegation is that Corporal Fullerton was stopped from sending the investigation file to Crown counsel for an opinion on criminal charges. As set out in the above chronology, Corporal Fullerton spoke with Crown counsel about the file on November 2, 2001 and he appears to have contemplated seeking Crown counsel's opinion at the conclusion of his investigation. However, in January of 2002, Sergeant Latour apparently decided that an opinion would initially be sought from "J" Division's legal advisor. That opinion addressed the issue of whether any criminal charges should be laid and it specifically addressed whether or not the criminal charge suggested by Mr. Bellefleur's counsel (section 263(2) of the Criminal Code - leaving an unguarded excavation on land) was appropriate. It concluded that no charges were warranted. In particular, it pointed out that section 263(2) imposes a duty to guard excavations "in a manner that is adequate to prevent persons from falling in by accident." It added that the accident in question did not involve the deceased falling into an excavation.

The RCMP is entitled to exercise discretion in deciding what investigation files it forwards to Crown counsel for an opinion. In this case, after obtaining an opinion from its own legal advisor that charges were not warranted, the RCMP decided not to seek Crown counsel's opinion. I do not find this to be an unreasonable decision on the facts of this case and I see no evidence that it was made for any improper motive. I note that obtaining an opinion from Crown counsel may have helped allay some of the suspicions about RCMP conduct already expressed by the complainants in this matter. However, that being said, the RCMP was not obliged to seek such an opinion.

SECOND ALLEGATION: RCMP staff and officials have attempted to cover up the flawed investigation.

Apart from the bare allegation made in the letter of complaint, I see no evidence of any member of the RCMP attempting to cover up the flaws in this investigation. On the contrary, in the written material provided to the Commission, in the testimony provided at the inquest and in statements made to the Commission investigator, several members of the RCMP (including Constable Porlier himself) openly admitted a number of deficiencies in the investigation. It may be that this allegation stems from the refusal of the RCMP to provide its entire investigation file to the Bellefleur family, as requested by their counsel on September 19, 2001. However, the RCMP is under no obligation to provide members of the public with its investigative material and, in fact, there are a number of privacy concerns that preclude such disclosure. I am satisfied that Corporal Fullerton dealt with this issue appropriately in his written response to counsel for the Bellefleur family.

COMMENTS

Mr. and Mrs. Bellefleur have lost their son in a tragic accident. Words cannot adequately express my deep sympathy for their loss. The lack of certainty with respect to the exact sequence of events that led to their son's death has no doubt exacerbated their grief.

It is not my role to re-investigate the accident itself but only to examine and evaluate the conduct of the RCMP members who carried out the original investigation. I have concluded that there were a number of steps that should have been taken but were not taken during the course of that investigation. However, I am unable to say whether or not the taking of those steps would have resulted in any clearer conclusions about the exact cause of the accident.

After a public interest investigation into the complaint pursuant to subsection 45.43(1) of the RCMP Act, I hereby submit my report in accordance with subsection 45.43(3) of the Act.

Endnotes

1.  The name of Guy Bellefleur's friend has been removed because he is a youth. He is referred to as "friend" throughout the report.

2.  "J" Division Operational Manual, II.10.F.1.b and F.2.c

3.  "J" Division Operational Manual, II.9.G.13 and 14

4.  This second friend's name has been removed as well.

5.  "J" Division Operational Manual, II.9.G.2.a.1

6.  "J" Division Operational Manual, II.9.G.2.a.2

7.  "J" Division Operational Manual, II.9.G.13.i

8.  "J" Division Operational Manual, II.9.G.13.i and G.14.a

9.  "J" Division Operational Manual, II.9.G.15.a.4