ANNUAL REPORT
1997 - 1998

The Honourable Andy Scott, P.C., M.P.
Solicitor General of Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

Dear Mr. Scott:

Pursuant to Section 45.34 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, I hereby transmit the annual report of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Commission for the fiscal year 1997-98, for tabling in Parliament.

Yours very truly,

Shirley Heafey
Chair

June 1998

 Minister of Public Works and Governement Services
Cat. No. JS77-1/1998
ISBN 0-662-63672-4

Editing and translation: Prosebusters Communications
Design and layout: Accurate Design & Communication Inc.

Table of Contents

Message from the Chair

A Tribute to J. Bertrand Giroux

Part One: About the RCMP Public Complaints Commission

The Role of the Commission
Context of Complaints
The Investigation and Review of Complaints
Reporting on Reviews of Complaints
Public Hearings
The Membership of the Commission

Part Two: The Year in Review

Activities of the Commission
Caseload
Hearings and Public Interest Investigations
Public Interest Hearing into the APEC Demonstrations
Public Interest Investigation in St-Simon and St-Sauveur, New Brunswick
Professional Activities

The Chair and the Executive Director
Members
Staff
Budget
Structure and Organization

Part Three: Findings and Recommendations

Findings

Use of Force
Control of Access to Firearms
Arrest and Detention

Adequacy of RCMP Complaint Investigations

Enforcement Policy and Guidance to Officers
Compensation for Complainants
Disclosure of Corrective and Disciplinary Measures

The Role of the Commission in Raising Constitutional Issues

Part Four: Year-Over-Year Trends and Observations

Distinguishing Civil Disputes from Crimes
Officers' Attitudes
Importance of Continuous Training

Part Five: The Years Ahead

The Commission's Priorities

Backlog of Cases
Less Formality and More Flexibility
Streamlined Commission Hearings
Increased Public Awareness of the Commission
High-speed Chases and Other Pursuits
Use of Force

Conclusion

Appendix A: Members and Staff

Appendix B: The Budget of the Public Complaints Commission

Appendix C: Summaries of a Sample of Cases Reviewed by the Commission in 1997-98

Message
from the
Chair

Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

Our role at the RCMP Public Complaints Commission is to help to maintain the harmonious relationship that must exist between the public and the RCMP. The Commission's primary mandate is to ensure that the public complaints process is conducted with impartiality and fairness both to members of the public and members of the RCMP.

Those values of impartiality and fairness are immutable. Yet, after a decade of existence, the Commission's process has become, in many cases, unwieldy. In striving to be judicious, we are too often litigious; in trying to promote harmony, we frequently produce confrontation. The corollary has been a backlog of unresolved cases over the years. The net effect on Canadian society has been to restrict the benefits that flow from the resolution of disputes, disagreements and misunderstandings.

The staff of the Commission has coped admirably for a number of years with a punishing workload due to an unforgiving process no longer responsive to the needs of its clients. They now look ahead with renewed enthusiasm and I welcome their much-needed energy in the years to come.

The culture and operation of the Commission must be aligned more closely with the principles of accessibility, timeliness and relevance. To that end, since my appointment as Chair in October of 1997 following three years as a member-at-large of the Commission, I have undertaken, with the support of a new Executive Director, a restructuring to focus more sharply on effective results.

The restructuring means, in simple terms, that the Commission must always seek the least formal and most efficient options to resolve complaints, without compromising the values of impartiality, fairness and transparency.

We are working toward developing dispute resolution alternatives to the lengthy and burdensome processes that have frustrated, to varying degrees, the good will and best intentions of all parties. Fortunately, both senior RCMP personnel and the members of the Commission - most of them experienced lawyers who are appointed on a part-time basis - have expressed enthusiasm in our discussions about alternatives. I look forward to moving in this direction with the co-operation of the public and the RCMP alike.

Many cases can be resolved through a simple exchange between the complainant and the police. Often, the Commission, as a neutral third party, is able to pinpoint the cause of disharmony between the public and the police, with the result that both parties can acknowledge and accommodate their differences.

The Commission is not a court of law, nor is it the disciplinary body of the RCMP. The Commission exists to ensure that any member of the public may give voice to a complaint about the conduct of any RCMP member while on duty; it exists to ensure that members of the RCMP and the public are treated fairly.

Even in more challenging disputes, we must not lose sight of the fact that the Commission's public hearings are, essentially, inquiries of public interest; the Commission should not be fettered by the kind of precise rules that govern criminal and civil trials. Timeliness and efficiency contribute to the credibility of our response.

In order to fulfill my mandate and deliver value to Canadians, I have begun, in 1997-98, a revitalization that in the year ahead will strengthen the Commission's ability to make positive and constructive contributions to Canadian society. I could not do this without the extraordinary dedication of exceptional people at the Commission.

Shirley Heafey
Chair, RCMP Public Complaints Commission

A Tribute to
J. Bertrand
Giroux
 
 
Commission Executive Director 1988-97

Commission Chairman June-October 1992

Bert Giroux died at his Ottawa home on September 6, 1997, close to his beloved family as he wished, after a courageous struggle with both leukemia and Parkinson's disease. He had been the heart and soul of the Commission since it came into existence 10 years ago. For several months in 1992, he was Commission Chairman, having agreed to take on that task while the government sought a permanent chairman.

Loyalty, devotion to duty, pursuit and achievement of excellence, leadership, an ability to reach out with understanding to those around him, honesty and shining integrity, intelligence and a searching mind, and a capacity to turn new acquaintances from all parts of the world into friends - these qualities made Bert Giroux a unique and remarkable person. He was respected and loved by everyone who knew him.

Bert was born 68 years ago in Saint-Prime, a Saguenay village on the shores of Lac-Saint-Jean, about 280 kilometres north of Québec City. After finishing high school, he trained as a forester, but then decided to join the RCMP and ventured west for recruit training in Regina. In those days, the Academy gave its program only in English. Bert spoke only French, but he persevered (as he always did) and graduated. He continued his studies and completed a Bachelor of Arts in the mid-1970s.

For almost 50 years, Bert served Canada and the federal government devotedly and with distinction. He rose through the ranks of the RCMP to become Deputy Commissioner, and was the last member of the Force to be Director General of the Security Service before 1984, when that branch of the RCMP became the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Bert traveled and worked throughout Canada. He knew his country well and loved it. Bert left his mark. He was a great Canadian and a special human being.

We miss him.

Part One

About the RCMP
Public Complaints
Commission

The RCMP receives about 2,600 complaints
each year from members of the public, most of which are resolved
with satisfactorily without input from the Commission.

The Role of the Commission

The RCMP Public Complaints Commission is an independent body, and not part of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It receives complaints from members of the public about the conduct of members of the RCMP, and reviews how the RCMP deals with those complaints.

The Commission is not a decision-making body; it makes recommendations to the Commissioner of the RCMP concerning complaints from members of the public. It also makes recommendations for improvements in RCMP practices to the Commissioner and to the Solicitor General, the Minister of the Crown responsible for the RCMP.

The RCMP receives about 2,600 complaints each year from members of the public, most of which are resolved satisfactorily without input from the Commission. Each year, the Commission reviews approximately 300 of these complaints, at the complainants' request and, in most cases, supports the conclusions drawn by the RCMP when it investigated the complaints. In about 25 percent of these review cases, the Commission disagrees with the RCMP findings and makes recommendations for further action, including action to satisfy complainants and to remedy shortcomings of policy and procedure. These recommendations result in a range of corrective actions applied to specific situations, and in broader policy changes that affect the entire Force.

The Commission acts as objectively as possible - evaluating complaints is not a science. The Commission must use judgement and base its findings on a balance of probabilities.

Context of Complaints

Canada is a peaceful, law-abiding country. Canadians are fortunate in their society and institutions, which are among the most stable in the world. Surveys confirm what Canadians know: that they live under the rule of law, and that their police forces respect human rights and the law, and are, in turn, respected by the public. This enviable situation creates a positive, progressive context for the Commission's functions.

Parliament established the RCMP Public Complaints Commission to reinforce confidence in the RCMP. The Commission acts in the public interest both to protect human rights and to protect RCMP officers from groundless accusations of improper conduct. Complaints about RCMP officers normally arise from the stresses of policing. Usually, the issue is more about degrees of conduct than about true violations of Canadian standards and values.

The Commission focuses its attention on the relatively few cases in which the conduct of members has fallen short of society's expectations. Society's expectations of the RCMP are relatively high, and these exceptional cases should not detract from the record of exemplary policing the Force has earned across Canada. The Commission exists to enhance that record by helping the RCMP resolve complaints and, in so doing, live up to its high reputation.

The Investigation and Review of Complaints

Cases arise as follows:

• complaints from members of the public, directly to the RCMP;

  
   

• complaints from members of the public, to the Commission or to provincial policing authorities; and

  
   

• complaints initiated by the Chair of the Commission.

Each complaint is dealt with as follows:

• first, the RCMP conducts an investigation;

  
   

• then, the Commissioner of the RCMP reports the results of the investigation to the complainant.

If the complainant is not satisfied with the RCMP report, and has asked for a review by the Commission:

• the Commission Chair may ask the RCMP to investigate further, if the investigation seems to have been inadequate;

  
   

• the Commission Chair may initiate her own investigation; or

  
   

• the Commission Chair may institute a public hearing.

The Commission Chair can also decide to initiate an investigation or a hearing in the public interest without a prior investigation by the RCMP.

Reporting on Reviews of Complaints

If the Chair of the Commission is satisfied with the investigation of a complaint, the Chair reports this finding in writing to the complainant, the RCMP members involved, the Commissioner of the RCMP, and the Solicitor General.

If the Chair of the Commission is not satisfied, she sends an interim report to the Commissioner of the RCMP and to the Solicitor General. This report is treated as follows:

• the Commission members informs the Chair and the Solicitor General in writing of any action to be taken in response to the Chair's findings and recommendations, including the rationale for decisions not to take action; and, following this,

  
   

• the Chair prepares a final report that includes the text of the Commissioner's response, as well as the Chair's final recommendations, and sends it to the complainant, the RCMP members involved, the Commissioner of the RCMP, and the Solicitor General.

Public Hearings

The Chair of the Commission may order public hearings before a panel of Commission members, usually only after weighing the information gathered during investigation by the RCMP or the Commission. As a rule, a hearing panel consists of three members of the Commission, one of them from the province or territory where the complaint originated. The panel's task is to establish the facts by questioning the parties to the dispute, the witnesses to the original incident, and relevant experts. The panel then makes findings and recommendations based on a balance of probabilities; it does not use the criminal law standard of "beyond reasonable doubt."

The panel's findings and recommendations are transmitted to the Commissioner of the RCMP, the Solicitor General, the complainant, other interested parties, and members of the public who make such a request from the Commission.

The Commissioner is obliged to respond to the panel's recommendations through the same process used for recommendations flowing from the review of complaints by the Chair of the Commission.

The Membership of the Commission

The legislation establishing the Commission provides for a Chair, a Vice-Chair, and up to 27 other members. The Chair serves full-time; the others may serve either full-time or part-time. At least one member attends from each province or territory that contracts the RCMP to provide policing services (i.e., all provinces and territories except Ontario and Quebec). The Commission also includes up to three members-at-large. All members except the Chair may be represented by an alternate.

The Chair, Vice-Chair, and members of the Commission are appointed by the federal government for a fixed term of up to five years. The current members of the Commission and the staff of the Commission are listed in Appendix A to this report.

The Chair is the Chief Executive Officer of the Commission, and is responsible for the overall management of the work of the Commission and its staff.

Most Commission staff work at the head office in Ottawa. The Western Region Office in Surrey, British Columbia, has six full-time positions.
 

The Commission acts in the public interest
both to protect human rights and to
protect RCMP officers from groundless
accusations of improper conduct.

Part Two
The Year in Review
 

During 1997-98, 251 reports on RCMP
investigations of complaints gave rise to
requests from the complainants for review
by the Commission.

Activities of the Commission

Caseload

In 1997-98, members of the public made 2,636 complaints to the RCMP. Of those, 1,260 complaints were made directly to the Commission - a 26-percent increase in volume from the previous year. As described earlier, the RCMP investigates all complaints, and the Commissioner of the RCMP reports the results to the Commission and to the complainant. During 1997-98, 251 reports on RCMP investigations of complaints gave rise to requests from the complainants for review by the Commission.

In 1997-98, 85 reviews ended with the Commission issuing a report stating that it was satisfied with the RCMP's disposition of the complaint. The Commission also issued 32 interim reports including recommendations for further action by the RCMP. The Commissioner of the RCMP is required to respond to each interim report with a statement of the action that has or will be taken on the Commission Chair's findings and recommendations. These responses from the Commissioner of the RCMP are addressed in the final reports of the Commission, 41 of which were issued in 1997-98.

Figure 1
Number of Complaints per Year, 1995-96 to 1997-98

Figure 2
Number of Requests for Review per Year,
by Province or Territory, 1995-96 to 1997-98

Casework does not divide neatly into fiscal years. Complaints may be launched in one fiscal year and the final report issued in another. During 1997-98, 123 report files were closed.

During 1997-98, the Commission received 1,123 general inquiries, many of them not related to its mandate. Wherever possible, the staff of the Commission refers such inquiries to the appropriate authorities.

Hearings and Public Interest Investigations

The Commission did not hold any hearings in 1997-98, but did report on two cases that involved public hearings in 1996-97.

Donna Wilson

Ms. Wilson, the complainant, was a friend of a person who died while being held in the cells of the RCMP Detachment at Whitehorse, Yukon. Ms. Wilson alleged that the police were told at the time of arrest that the detained person was subject to seizures. Ms. Wilson complained that, although the police had this knowledge, the detained person was not properly looked after between the time he was arrested and his death. The panel carefully examined the circumstances of the deceased's arrest and detention, and concluded that proper care might have prevented his death. The panel was very critical of the RCMP officers and employees involved, and made a significant number of recommendations to the Commissioner of the RCMP. The Commissioner accepted most of the panel's recommendations but questioned, inappropriately, some findings of fact the panel made on hearing the evidence. In this case, the complaint process produced valuable results and functioned as originally envisioned. The RCMP responded in good faith to the major recommendations, and the complainant announced publicly that she was satisfied with the RCMP response to those recommendations.

Stephen Peter-Paul and Theresa Brake

These complaints arose from an incident that occurred when the RCMP responded to a reported disturbance near Halifax, Nova Scotia. One complainant alleged that he was unlawfully arrested, and both alleged that certain RCMP officers used excessive force. The panel concluded that the complaints about the conduct of the three RCMP officers were unjustified. The Commission recently sent an interim report, containing findings and recommendations, to the Commissioner of the RCMP, and will issue a final report when the response from the Commissioner of the RCMP is received.

Public Interest Hearing into the APEC Demonstrations

After the demonstrations at the University of British Columbia during the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Conference in November 1997, the Commission received a large number of complaints about the conduct of certain RCMP officers who were involved in those events. As a consequence, the Chair established a public interest investigation on December 9, 1997, and, on February 20, 1998, the Chair instituted a public interest hearing. To deal as completely as possible, with the public concern in the matter, the Chair set the hearing for mid-April 1998. However, because of circumstances related to the numerous parties involved, the Commission adjourned the hearing to September 14, 1998. This hearing will look into:

• the events that took place during, or in connection with, demonstrations during the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation ("APEC") Conference in Vancouver, B.C., between November 23 and 27, 1997, on or near the UBC campus and subsequently at the UBC and Richmond Detachments of the RCMP;

  
   

• whether the conduct of members of the RCMP involved in the events was appropriate to the circumstances; and

  
   

• whether the conduct of members of the RCMP involved in the events was consistent with respect for the Fundamental Freedoms guaranteed by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Public Interest Investigation in St-Simon and St-Sauveur, New Brunswick

In February 1998, the Commission received reports that numerous residents of St-Simon and St-Sauveur, New Brunswick, provincial government announced that schools would be closed. By mid-March, a large number of complaints had been This investigation is currently under way, and the next annual report will release its results.

Professional Activities
 

The professional activities of the members of the Commission and the Commission staff include participating in a variety of conferences, publishing articles, and meeting with Canadian and foreign experts in the areas dealt with by the Commission. Since its inception in 1988, the Commission has been involved with the work of the International Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement. The Commission and its staff helped organize the association's successful 1997 world conference, which was held in Ottawa. The Commission and its staff were also active in the annual conference of the Canadian Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement.

The Commission and Its Staff

The Chair and the Executive Director

During 1997-98, several important changes were made in the Commission and its staff. The previous Chairman, Jean-Pierre Beaulne, ended his five-year term in October 1997, and was succeeded by Shirley Heafey, a lawyer who had served as a member-at-large of the Commission from 1995 to 1997. The Commission noted with regret the illness and subsequent death of its Executive Director, Bertrand Giroux, and welcomed his successor, Horst Intscher, formerly the Assistant Deputy Solicitor General of Canada.

Members

During 1997-98, a new member, Vina Starr, joined the Commission from British Columbia.

Staff

During 1997-98, the General Counsel of the Commission and the Director of the Commission's Prairie and Northwest Territories Regional Office both retired. The Prairie and Northwest Territories Regional Office was closed and, consequently, four staff members left.

Budget

The Commission's budget during the year in review was $3,901,000 (see Appendix B).

Structure and Organization

In January 1998, the Prairie and Northwest Territories Regional Office of the Commission was merged with the British Columbia and Yukon Regional Office. The new office, called the Western Region Office, is in Surrey, British Columbia. It receives complaints from the four western provinces and from Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories.

Part Three

Findings and
Recommendations

Findings

The Commission made findings in a wide range of cases during the year under review; Appendix C summarizes a sampling of them. Three particularly important areas bear specific mention:

• Use of force. Complaints in this area require the Commission to determine whether the degree of force used by RCMP officers was reasonable. RCMP officers can choose from a wide range of force options, from bare hands to firearms.

  
   

• Control of access to firearms. Complaints in this area require the Commission to determine whether the RCMP has responded appropriately to the possession of firearms by individuals known for violent behaviour.

  
   

• Justification for and method of arrest and detention. Complaints in this area require the Commission to determine whether the RCMP had reasonable grounds to believe that a person had committed a crime, or whether a person constituted a threat to others or to himself or herself.

Use of Force

The Commission reviewed several complaints concerning the use of force. The Commission concluded in some cases that inappropriate or excessive force was used. In one case, an officer stopped a driver that he suspected of being impaired. He ordered the driver to step out of the car and she did so with her young child in her arms. The suspect became belligerent with the officer. He used pepper spray to subdue her. The Commission found that this was a dangerous and inappropriate use of force by this officer given the lack of physical threat to the officer and in light of the fact the suspect had a child in her arms. During 1998-99, the Commission will pay particular attention to RCMP policies on the authorization and application of force, with emphasis on the use of pepper spray and police service dogs.

Control of Access to Firearms

The Commission reviewed some complaints of inadequate control of firearms in the possession of potentially dangerous individuals. In one case, the Commission found that an RCMP officer responsible for firearms control had deleted a Canadian Police Information Centre file reference to a person's conduct as "dangerous to police." The Commission Chair concluded that this officer had erred seriously and also concluded that another officer had failed to take appropriate action after the RCMP had received reports of violent behaviour by the person in question. The Commissioner of the RCMP agreed with the Chair's findings and recommendations and ensured that the RCMP officers who had erred in this case would be given appropriate guidance and training.

Arrest and Detention

The Commission also reviewed complaints about unnecessary arrest and detention. Several of them involved arrests for drunkenness made with no determination of whether the arrested person posed a threat to others or to himself or herself.

Other cases indicated that RCMP officers do not always distinguish evidence that creates a suspicion from evidence that constitutes reasonable grounds for believing that a person has committed a crime. In general, the Commission Chair has recommended that members who have erred be given guidance with respect to the grounds for an arrest. The Commissioner of the RCMP has concurred and implemented such recommendations.

The Commission also found cases of improper detention, and cases in which a brief period of detention was justified, but unjustified detention occurred when the person's right to leave was not respected. For example, in one case, a man who had been involved in a single-vehicle crash was asked to sit in a police vehicle while the RCMP officer questioned him about the crash. The man decided he wanted to get out of the vehicle and asked for the door to be opened. The RCMP officer refused to let him out and threatened to charge him with "creating a disturbance." The man complained. The Commission Chair recommended that the officer be instructed on the impropriety of using threats of unjustified police action. The Commissioner of the RCMP concurred with the Commission Chair.
 
 
 

Observations

Adequacy of RCMP Complaint Investigations

When reviewing RCMP investigations, the Commission considers factors such as the thoroughness, completeness, and objectivity of the investigation. In 1997-98, the Commission observed that the vast majority of complaints investigations that it reviewed were done thoroughly and objectively. However, it also found some flawed investigations.

In some cases, the RCMP responded to a complaint by noting that a coroner's inquest had taken place but did not report to the complainant the RCMP's views about the conduct of the officer in question. In others, the investigation began and ended with a failed attempt to interview the complainant, or with no attempt to interview the RCMP come of a criminal trial, and never investigated when the trial is over.

In some cases, although the RCMP made a thorough investigation, it delivered an inadequate report to the complainant. The Commission notes that the RCMP has made efforts to prevent this situation from recurring by giving police officers written guidelines for responding to complainants appropriately and completely. The Commission will monitor this issue and report on it again.

Recommendations

The Chair makes recommendations to the Commissioner of the RCMP.

During 1997-98, the Chair's recommendations to the Commissioner of the RCMP fell into the following categories:

• correcting certain improper police conduct by changing RCMP enforcement policy and providing police officers with clearer guidance on carrying out their duties; and

  
   

• compensation to complainants in cases of improper conduct by RCMP officers.

Enforcement Policy and Guidance to Officers

The Commission Chair recommended that the RCMP amend its policies concerning the handling of informants and agents with the objective of ensuring that activities are planned and approved in advance, and comply with RCMP policy. It has also recommended that the RCMP establish a policy on selecting informants and agents who are on parole or otherwise under the jurisdiction of the correctional system. The Commissioner of the RCMP agreed with these findings and recommendations, and advised the Chair that the RCMP, Correctional Service Canada, and the National Parole Board are working to finalize a joint protocol on handling such cases.

With regard to control of access to firearms, the Commission Chair has recommended that the RCMP improve its procedures for responding to reports of violent behaviour by individuals who possess firearms. The Commissioner of the RCMP agreed with this recommendation, and advised that the Force would endeavour to develop a policy to deal more effectively with Mental Health Act occurrences in the Canadian Police Information Centre and the Police Information Retrieval systems, and ensure that there is a five-year retention period for this kind of information.

To discourage improper conduct of police officers, the Chair recommended that the RCMP establish policies that require officers involved in an investigation to give their names when asked to do so. In a particular case, the Chair found that three officers refused to identify themselves when asked by a complainant. This was improper. The Chair recommended action to ensure that the three officers involved in that incident are aware that an RCMP officer has a duty to identify himself or herself when asked to do so. The Commissioner agreed with this recommendation, and indicated that the commanding officer of the division would ensure that the three officers are aware of their duty to identify themselves when asked to do so.

Compensation for Complainants

Complainants sometimes suffer property damage and incur expenses as a result of improper police conduct. The Commission Chair has recommended that complainants be compensated as follows:

• the cost of legal fees resulting from an improper arrest;

  
   

• the cost of legal fees arising from action taken as a result of an injury inflicted by an improperly handled RCMP service dog; and

  
   

• the cost of correcting property damage caused by the carelessness of police officers conducting a lawful search for narcotics.

Disclosure of Corrective and Disciplinary Measures

Since its inception, the Commission has been dissatisfied with the failure of the RCMP to provide information about disciplinary action taken against a police officer whose conduct has been found to be below expectations following the investigation of a complaint. The RCMP has based its position on the need to protect the privacy of members facing disciplinary measures. The Commission believes that this practice undermines the credibility of the complaints process and is a disservice to both the RCMP and the complainant.

In a recent case heard by the Ontario Court of Justice (Southam v. The Attorney General of Canada [November 5, 1997]), the Attorney General of Canada argued that the proceedings of an adjudication board considering the conduct of RCMP officers should be held in private because they involved private matters between employer and employee, that is, disciplinary measures. Mr. Justice Rutherford concluded, however, that members of the RCMP are public officers carrying out public duties that can involve people and transactions of great public interest.

Mr. Justice Rutherford held that Parliament had provided for a very formal, court-like procedure in respect of alleged disciplinary lapses, and that these matters were of such public importance that such proceedings had to be open to "the press and other media of communication" to comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Arguably, if such proceedings are open to the media, the disciplinary action is a public matter not protected by the Privacy Act.

Prior to Mr. Justice Rutherford's decision, the Commission had begun to prepare a reference to the Federal Court of Canada for the purpose of demonstrating that the RCMP, as a matter of law, is required to provide information to the Commission respecting disciplinary action taken against members who are the subject of a public complaint. Just before the end of this fiscal period, the Commissioner of the RCMP asked the Chair of the Commission to delay the filing of its reference to the Federal Court until he could review this issue with his officials. The Commissioner subsequently wrote to the Chair indicating that he had "instructed the RCMP's Director of Human Resources to facilitate, through the Privacy Act, the release of informal disciplinary action taken as a result of a public complaint." He further indicated that he would provide the Chair of the Commission "with updates as this initiative progresses." The Commission is temporarily putting a hold on its reference to the Federal Court until the Commissioner clarifies in more detail his position on this important issue for Canadians.

Action on Particular Recommendations Made in Previous Years

The Role of the Commission in Raising Constitutional Issues

The Commission's annual report for 1996-97 reported the then-Chair's finding that Parliament lacks the constitutional power to delegate to the RCMP the authority to enforce the Criminal Code of Canada. This finding was made in the context of an interim report on a complaint from a resident of Vanier, Ontario. The Chair raised the issue because he doubted that the RCMP had the authority to carry out the investigation that was the subject of the complaint. The interim report also recommended that the RCMP adjust its policies to reflect this finding. In his formal response to the interim report, the Commissioner of the RCMP rejected both the finding and the recommendation.

That Chair had not issued the final report on this matter when his term expired in 1997. The new Chair decided to obtain opinions from constitutional experts before issuing a final report.

One expert concluded that the legislation conferring authority on the RCMP to enforce the Criminal Code is constitutionally valid. Another opinion was more complex, but recommended that the matter be left to the courts to determine.

Professor Peter Hogg, in his texts on constitutional law in Canada, takes the position that Parliament and the provincial legislatures have concurrent authority to enact legislation to provide for the enforcement of the Criminal Code.

The thinking of these three experts demonstrates the complexity of the issue and the validity of different approaches. On the basis of these observations, the final report signed by the new Chair of the Commission made no finding or recommendation on the constitutional issue. The final report also withdrew the finding and recommendation of the interim report. The Chair also concluded that, although the Commission may need to address legal issues, including constitutional ones, that are not expressly raised by a complainant, the Commission should confine its review to the legal issues that arise from complaints about the conduct of RCMP officers and employees.

Part Four

Year-Over-Year
Trends and
Observations

The Public Complaints Commission has existed for almost 10 years. During that time, it has noted specific trends in the character of the incidents and police conduct that give rise to complaints. This part of our report examines these trends and the progress made in community relations.

The focus of the Commission's work is the conduct of RCMP officers in their regular dealings with the public. Relations between the RCMP and the communities it serves have generally improved, and the overwhelming majority of police-public interactions are conducted in a fully satisfactory manner. Nevertheless, a few cases generate enough dissatisfaction or distress to cause a member of the public to lodge a complaint against the RCMP.

The Commission has noted several themes in its work over the past decade. Among the prominent ones are the following:

• the problems RCMP officers face in deciding whether a particular incident is civil or criminal in nature, as only a criminal incident may be handled with the aid of police powers;

  
   

• the role played by the attitudes of some RCMP officers in triggering public complaints; and

  
   

• the importance of training in preparing RCMP officers to deal with complex situations in a way that does not give rise to complaints.

Distinguishing Civil Disputes from Crimes

RCMP policy requires that members intervene in civil disputes and other non-criminal situations only to keep the peace, if that is necessary. Repossession of property in a civil dispute can be mistaken for theft. If police are present during a property dispute, one of the parties might feel obliged to turn over an item in dispute even though the police are there only to keep the peace. The line is often a fine one.

Sometimes police consult their superior officer before intervening in a dispute in which the line between civil and criminal is hard to define. In several cases, the Commission has found that police officers do not always receive sound advice on this issue. The Commission reviewed several cases involving civil disputes, two of them involving RCMP officers who had a faulty grasp of the limits of their authority as peace officers to deal with non-criminal matters. In both these cases, the Commissioner of the RCMP accepted the Chair's recommendation that the members concerned and their superior officers take steps to acquire the correct understanding of the law. Consequently, there has been a noticeable improvement in this regard in the past year. The Commission will continue to pay close attention to this issue.

Officers' Attitudes

The Commission has observed that some complaints are triggered by rude or inconsiderate behaviour by RCMP officers. In examining complaints of excessive use of force, the Commission has often found the complaint unjustified but also found that the officer's attitude often contributed to the escalation of events. These complaints take a lot of policing time, and could be avoided if police officers were polite and responsive when mistakes are made.

RCMP officers are often placed in stressful situations as they carry out their various duties as peacekeepers, counselors, and investigators. Some people's behaviour may be particularly trying for a busy RCMP officer, but that does not justify failure to stick to professional standards of conduct. The RCMP provides training designed to help its members exercise patience, tolerance, and common sense in the conduct of their duties. Constant risk to officers' safety and health, and the unremitting need for self-control when provoked, are daily realities in police work.

Instant decision making under extreme stress requires a specific attitude on the part of police officers. They must think carefully and respond rationally despite the high emotional content of the emergencies in which they are so often involved.

RCMP officers need to be alert to the fact that many people are frightened when approached by a police officer. Police are authority figures, and people often interpret a police request as an order. The official status of a police constable has considerable impact on people's behaviour, and police need to bear this in mind.

A sincere apology offered in person early in the complaint process will often satisfy the complainant and permit a file to be closed. The review of a complaint may include a recommendation that an apology be made to the complainant. The Commission believes that such apologies are most effective when made by the RCMP officer involved; sometimes a simple acknowledgement by the officer that a misunderstanding took place will satisfy a complainant.

Importance of Continuous Training

RCMP officers need to keep up to date on developments in criminal law, especially those that affect the use of police powers, acceptable methods of gathering evidence, and the rights of accused persons. In reviewing complaints, the Commission frequently concludes that the police officer in question was unaware of an important element of the law he or she was attempting to enforce. This shortcoming is not confined to junior officers of the Force; some supervisors have given unsound advice to police under their command because they failed to consider all relevant provisions of a law.

The Commission notes that policing is becoming more complex as case law increases the detail of the legal regime that governs the rights of the accused and the admissibility of evidence. The Commission is concerned that resources be committed so that RCMP officers may be provided with regular opportunities to train and, thus, keep pace with this growth in complexity.

Part Five

The Years Ahead

The Commission's Priorities

The Commission has identified five priorities to guide its work for the years ahead. These are:

• eliminating the backlog of complaint cases;

  
   

• speeding up the complaints review process by increasing the flexibility of Commission procedures;

  
   

• developing an alternative dispute-resolution method of settling complaints;

  
   

• improving the overall efficiency of Commission hearings; and

  
   

• increasing public awareness of the responsibilities and activities of the Commission.

In reviewing complaints, the Commission will also pay particular attention to the following areas:

• RCMP policy on high-speed pursuits; and

  
   

• the authorization for and application of force.

Backlog of Cases

The Auditor General's Report for 1996-97 included a chapter on the work of the Commission. The report was critical of the backlog of complaint cases, which stretched back five years. In response to this criticism, the Chair of the Commission has undertaken to overhaul the processes for handling complaints with the objective of reducing to four months the time required to complete a review. As part of this overhaul, the database for tracking complaints will be upgraded and more efficient ways to forecast the time requirements of individual reviews will be developed.

Less Formality and More Flexibility

The Commission will increase its emphasis on simpler, faster ways to review and resolve complaints. This should help improve service to the public, including helping to clear the backlog. It will also hasten resolution of cases, contributing both to the credibility of the complaints process and the efficiency of the RCMP. With this in mind, the Commission is planning to develop an alternative dispute-resolution method for handling complaints. This method will rely heavily on cooperation from both complainants and the RCMP, and their willingness to settle their issues amicably.

Streamlined Commission Hearings

Most Commission members come from legal backgrounds, but they still need training as adjudicators if they are to carry out their complex, demanding job. The first training sessions for new members began in February 1998, and they will continue in the year ahead. This training program is one of the Chair's positive responses to the findings of the Auditor General's 1997 review of the Commission; another is the Commission's undertaking to examine how it might formulate broad terms of reference as a focus for the handling of hearings. In principle, this is a desirable goal, but it must be approached cautiously to protect the fact-finding purpose of the hearings conducted by Commission members.

Increased Public Awareness of the Commission

The Commission is conscious of the need to raise the level of public awareness about its responsibilities and activities. The public needs to know that the Commission exists to provide an independent review of complaints about the conduct of RCMP officers and employees. To achieve this objective, the Chair, Commission members and senior Commission staff will seek opportunities to speak about the Commission. A concerted effort will be made to disseminate information to all communications media across Canada. These measures will form part of a comprehensive communications strategy that is being developed during 1998-99.

High-speed Chases and Other Pursuits

Accidents, injuries, and deaths resulting from high-speed chases are a long-standing public concern and the subject of complaints received by the Commission. Public concern has led police forces throughout North America to develop policies to control the conduct of high-speed pursuits.

The Commission's review of complaints stemming from police pursuits has included an examination of the policies already in place, and the extent to which police officers follow them when they undertake a pursuit. The Commission intends to carry out an in-depth review of high-speed pursuits in the year ahead, focusing particularly on the comprehensiveness of RCMP policies on this issue.

Use of Force

The Commission is also interested in the RCMP's policies and procedures for authorizing and managing the use of force during public disturbances, especially the use of pepper spray and police service dogs. Two events in 1997 gave rise to complaints that will provide an opportunity to examine this issue:

• the handling of demonstrators at the APEC summit at the University of British Columbia, which led to complaints that will be considered at a public interest hearing in the autumn of 1998; and

  
   

• the handling of disturbances on the Acadian Peninsula in New Brunswick, which are currently the subject of a public interest investigation being carried out by Commission staff.

Recommendations for the Solicitor General

The Solicitor General is the Minister of the Crown responsible for the RCMP. The Solicitor General meets regularly with the Commissioner of the RCMP, who is accountable to the Solicitor General for the management of the Force and its overall conduct. At present, the Solicitor General receives copies of all the Commission's findings and recommendations, which are addressed to the Commissioner of the RCMP. The Commission will continue this practice, which is prescribed in statute. Henceforth, however, the Commission intends also to exercise its statutory authority to make recommendations to the Solicitor General about RCMP practices and policies. Such recommendations would be made following close consultation with the Commissioner of the RCMP to ensure a full understanding of the recommendations in question.

Conclusion

The Commission's priorities for 1998-99 have two focuses. The first is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Commission by simplifying procedures, making it more accessible to its clients, and improving the timeliness of its responses. The second is to help the RCMP develop policies and procedures that will assist its members to maintain the highest standards of professional behaviour and avoid public complaints.

Appendix A

Members and
Staff

Chair

Shirley Heafey

Before being appointed Chair of the Commission on October 16, 1997, Ms. Heafey served as a member-at-large of the Commission. Ms. Heafey was a barrister and solicitor in private practice in Ottawa and specialized in administrative and human rights law. She also served as counsel to the City of Ottawa and as ad hoc counsel to the Security Intelligence Review Committee.

Jean-Pierre Beaulne, Q.C.

Mr. Beaulne's term as Chair of the Commission ended on October 14, 1997.

Other Members

British Columbia
 

Vina Starr

Ms. Starr is a lawyer in private practice. Before opening her own law office, Ms. Starr worked 10 years with the Faculty of Law at the University of British Columbia's Indian Self-Government Program. She has a strong background in native legal issues.

Alberta

Joyce E. Webster

Ms. Webster is the owner/publisher of the Coronation Review, a community newspaper. She is a former president of the Alberta Weekly Newspaper Association and was honoured with Coronation's "Business Person of the Year Award" in 1989.

Alternate

Scott Farnham
 

Mr. Farnham was admitted to the Alberta Bar in 1979 and is a partner in a law firm in Camrose, Alberta. 

Saskatchewan 
 

Gerald M. Morin

Mr. Morin is a partner in a law firm in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, and has been a member of the Northern Justice Society since 1989.

Gerald M. Morin

Manitoba

Currently Vacant

McDougall Allen

Mr. Allen resigned from the Commission in February 1998. 
  
 

McDougall Allen

New Brunswick 
 

Richard Gorham

Mr. Gorham served for many years in Canada's diplomatic service and had numerous postings abroad, including that of ambassador to the People's Republic of China from 1984 to 1987. He was awarded an honourary doctorate of law by the University of New Brunswick in 1988.
 

Nova Scotia 
 

Currently Vacant
 

Alan Tufts

Mr. Tufts resigned from the Commission when he was appointed judge of the Nova Scotia Provincial Court on January 21, 1998.

Prince Edward Island
image

Graham W. Stewart, Q.C.

Mr. Stewart is a partner in a Charlottetown law firm. He is a former Deputy Attorney General of Prince Edward Island and is active in many community organizations. 
  
 

Newfoundland 

Ronald S. Noseworthy, Q.C.

Mr. Noseworthy was admitted to the Bar of Newfoundland in 1969 and is a partner in a law firm in St. John's. He is also the Director of the Salvation Army Grace General Hospital.
 

Yukon Territory 
 
John Wright

Mr. Wright was formerly a major in the Canadian Armed Forces specializing in military policing. He has been involved in several community criminal justice programs and is a labour arbitrator, mediator and was chief federal land claims negotiator in the Yukon Territory. 

Alternate
 

Cheryl McLean

Ms. McLean is a board member of several Yukon institutions and is the Executive Assistant of the Council for Yukon Indians.
 
 

Cheryl McLean

Northwest Territories

John U. Bayly, Q.C.

Mr. Bayly has practised law in Yellowknife since 1974. He has a special interest in native rights law and has represented several Aboriginal organizations. Mr. Bayly was the first Executive Director of the Northwest Territories Legal Services Board. He chaired the territorial government's Task Force on Spousal Assault in 1984-1985.

John U. Bayly

Members-at-large

Richard Bell

Mr. Bell is a barrister and solicitor in private practice in Fredericton, New Brunswick. He served several years as Executive Director and Legal Counsel for the New Brunswick Police Commission. 
  

Richard Bell

Line Ouellet

Ms. Ouellet was admitted to the Bar of Québec in 1980 and is a member of a Québec City law firm. She has extensive experience in civil, administrative, and commercial law, and has published several legal texts.
 
 
 

Line Ouellet

Commission Staff

Executive Staff

Chair - Shirley Heafey (appointed October 16, 1997)

Executive Director - Horst Intscher

Director General, Complaints - Célyne Riopel

General Counsel - Pierre-Y. Delage
 
 

Other Commission Staff

(listed alphabetically)

Ottawa Office

Western Region Office

Prairie and Northwest Territories Regional Office
(closed January 1998)

Appendix B

The Budget of the
Public Complaints
Commission

Summary of Spending by Standard Object ($000)
 
 

Appendix C

Summaries of a
Sample of Cases
Reviewed by the
Commission in
1997-98

Use of Force

RCMP officers responded to a call to a house where several youths had "crashed" a party and were causing a disturbance. Seeing a group of teenagers standing on the street outside the house, one of the officers assumed that an egg that struck the house was thrown by one of the group. The officer approached the youth, lectured him, and broke an egg over the youth's head. The officer then escorted the youth to the police vehicle. Moments later, the youth turned around and faced the officer who responded by grabbing the youth by the throat.

The Commission found that the officer's actions in dealing with the youth constituted an improper use of force. The Commissioner of the RCMP concurred with the Chair's findings and informed the Chair that corrective action would be taken with the officer in question.

A young man organized a gathering of his friends at his parents' home. The party got out of control and the RCMP were called to the house. Several officers entered the house and used reasonable force in controlling the situation. People were escorted from the house; a few of them had been arrested and handcuffed. Outside the house, one of those arrested was sitting on the steps with his arms handcuffed behind him. It was dark, and there was much commotion on the steps. When Officer A tried to remove the young man from the steps, the youth shoved Officer A with his upper body; Officer A lost his balance and fell. As he got back on his feet, Officer A grabbed the youth and applied a carotid-control hold, commonly called a "chokehold." The young man lost consciousness for several seconds, and was placed in the police vehicle. A second youth, who was being restrained and handcuffed on the ground by Officer B, objected to both his own treatment and that of the youth who had been subjected to the carotid-control hold. When the second youth tried to get up, Officer B directed a short burst of pepper spray into his face.

The Commission found that, although Officer A did not know that the youth on the stairs was handcuffed, the threat he posed to Officer A was not sufficient to warrant a carotid-control hold, which is potentially lethal. With respect to the second youth, who was already handcuffed and on the ground, the Commission Chair found that Officer B's use of pepper spray was unnecessary and excessive in the circumstances. The Commissioner of the RCMP concurred with the Chair's findings and indicated that corrective measures would be undertaken.

A woman who was arrested and detained while her property was searched pursuant to the Narcotics Control Act complained that improper force was used and that the RCMP officers conducting the search damaged two personal items in her home. The Commission determined that the evidence did not indicate that excessive force was used during the incident; however, it also found that the RCMP did not investigate the property damage allegation as required by its own policy. The two officers who conducted the search were not asked specific questions about the two items in question or about the allegations of damage. RCMP policy requires that "every incident involving the loss, damage or theft of property [owned, leased, or in the care and control of the RCMP] must be investigated to clearly determine the cause of the incident and to facilitate determination of legal liability".

In cases of allegations inadequately explored by an RCMP investigation, the Commission usually requests further investigation. In this case, that option was not pursued because other factors would have prevented the Commission from making a clear determination of the facts. Because the investigators' failure to comply with RCMP policy had made it impossible to establish all the relevant facts, the Commission Chair recommended that the RCMP consider compensating the complainant for the damage to her property. The RCMP accepted the recommendation and reimbursed the complainant for the damaged items. In this case, the RCMP went the "extra mile" and wrote the complainant a formal apology.

Arrest and Detention

A man and two friends were sitting in the back seat of his vehicle, which was parked with the motor running behind a motel. No one was sitting in the front seat of the car. An RCMP officer arrived at the scene and, believing that one of the men (the complainant in this case) was intoxicated and had care and control of the vehicle, asked the man to get out of the car and sit in the back seat of the police vehicle. The man complied and sat in the police vehicle while his two friends stood outside. When the officer began to search the man's car, the man expressed distress by knocking on the window of the police vehicle. The officer returned to his cruiser and opened the rear door. The complainant got out and stated his objection to the search of his vehicle. The officer then grabbed the complainant, put him on the ground, arrested him, and made a breathalyzer demand; the RCMP officer indicated that he believed that the complainant was going to escape.

The RCMP responded to the complaint by advising the complainant that the officer's actions in restraining him were justified. The Commission Chair found that the officer had not arrested the complainant when the latter voluntarily sat in the back seat of the police vehicle. Although detained, the complainant had not been arrested and could, therefore, exit the police vehicle freely when the door was opened. When the officer grabbed the complainant and put him on the ground, the complainant was not under arrest nor had he received a breathalyzer demand. Under these circumstances, the officer had no right to prevent the complainant from getting out of the police vehicle. At that moment, the officer could have arrested the complainant, or warned him of an impending arrest (for obstruction), or could have made the breathalyzer demand, but he did none of these. The officer proceeded to restrict the complainant's liberty without justification and, therefore, any force used was unjustified. The Commissioner of the RCMP concurred with the Chair and indicated that the RCMP officer in question would be given guidance as to the proper method for arresting someone.

Some credit cards were stolen from a woman while she was a patient in hospital, and others were stolen later from her residence. There were no witnesses to the thefts. An RCMP officer obtained a partial description of a woman who had used one of the credit cards stolen at the hospital. After speaking with the victim of the theft and her daughter, the officer believed that a woman employed by the hospital (Woman A) fit the description of the person who had used the stolen credit card.

The RCMP officer went to Woman A's home and, based on her belief that Woman A had committed the theft, arrested her, brought her to the detachment, photographed her, and then released her. The arrest was made without a warrant. Several months later, Woman B was arrested and prosecuted for the offence. Woman A complained that she was improperly arrested.

The RCMP determined that the officer's action in arresting the complainant was reasonable and appropriate. In reviewing the complaint, the Commission stated that the law does not allow an arrest to be made on suspicion alone; the arresting officer must have reasonable grounds to believe that the person arrested has committed a crime. Based on the evidence, the Commission found that the RCMP officer did not have reasonable grounds to believe that the complainant had committed the theft. She was only a suspect, and was arrested during the information-gathering stage of the investigation. The complainant could have been interviewed without arrest. The Commission Chair found the arrest improper. The Commissioner of the RCMP concurred with the Chair and agreed that compensation be considered and that an apology be given to the complainant.

A man complained that RCMP officers improperly detained him and refused to identify themselves on request. The complainant had arrived by air at a Canadian airport and was changing planes. In the course of proceeding to his second plane, he was questioned by one RCMP officer about having the correct documentation to permit him access to his connecting flight. The complainant provided the proper information but the officer nonetheless called for backup. The reasons for that decision are not entirely clear. Two more officers arrived and, after some discussion among themselves, had the complainant removed from the airplane. The officers wanted to verify the complainant's identity because of what the first officer described as his "suspicious manner." Throughout his contact with the three RCMP officers, the complainant asked them to identify themselves.

The RCMP determined there was no evidence to support the complainant's allegations against the RCMP. In reviewing the complaint, the Commission found that the initial contact between the first police officer and the complainant for the purpose of verifying boarding documents was proper, but that the police improperly detained the complainant when they had him removed from the airplane without justification to question him about his identification. The Commission also found that all three police officers conducted themselves improperly by refusing to identify themselves when asked to do so by the complainant. The Commission Chair recommended that the members in question be given guidance as to the conditions for lawful entry into an airport and ensure that these members are made aware of their duty to identify themselves when requested to do so. The Commissioner of the RCMP concurred with these findings and recommendations.

A man complained that an RCMP officer conducted himself improperly at the scene of a car accident. The complainant was alone in his car when it went off the road on an icy, snow-covered highway. The police officer who attended the scene called a tow truck and then proceeded to take down information from the complainant. The officer asked the complainant to sit in the back seat of the police vehicle. The complainant complied but, after a time, asked the officer to open the door so he could get some fresh air. The officer refused. The complainant became upset and the officer told him that he could charge him with "creating a disturbance".

The RCMP investigated the complaint and concluded that it could not be substantiated because there were no independent witnesses to the incident. On reviewing the evidence, the Commission found that the RCMP officer acted improperly in that he (1) confined the complainant to the police vehicle when the complainant had not been arrested, and (2) threatened to arrest the complainant when the complainant simply asked to have the police cruiser door unlocked so he could get some air. There was no legal basis for such a charge. The Commission recommended that the officer be instructed on the impropriety of using threats of unjustified police action. The Commissioner of the RCMP concurred with the Commission.

Search and Seizure

A woman complained that an RCMP officer unlawfully entered her home and conducted an illegal search and seizure of property. The complainant and her child had previously shared residence with a second woman. The living arrangement failed and the complainant moved with her child to an apartment. Shortly after the move, the second woman reported to police that the complainant had stolen certain articles from her. The RCMP officer obtained a list of "missing items" and went with the woman's adult son to the complainant's apartment.

From evidence gathered from all parties to the dispute, the Commission determined that the RCMP officer intended to do more than simply question the complainant; he apparently intended to search for the "missing items" because he had brought the second woman's son along to identify them. In light of the information available, the Commission found that the complainant had not given informed consent to the officer's entry into her apartment. Accordingly, the entry and the search by the officer were improper. Moreover, the police officer acted improperly when he brought the second woman's son into the complainant's apartment to assist in the search. The evidence indicates that, although the officer realized part way through the search that the dispute between the two women was civil in nature, he still seized several items from the complainant's possession. The Commission Chair found the seizure to be improper, and recommended that the officer be instructed about obtaining "informed consent" from a person whose premises a police officer wants to search without the benefit of a warrant, and about the differences between civil property disputes and crimes. The Chair also recommended that the RCMP apologize to the complainant. The Commissioner of the RCMP agreed with the Chair and stated that further guidance on the policy and law relating to search and seizure would be provided to the officer in question.

Release of Personal Information

A man complained that an RCMP officer improperly released personal medical information to the employees of a corporation that was considering him for employment. The complainant alleged that this medical information was instrumental in his not getting the job. At the time of his job application, the complainant was an RCMP officer. He had previously been a colleague of the subject RCMP officer, of whom the corporation requested a reference check.

The RCMP agreed that an error in judgement on the part of the subject officer resulted in an improper release of medical information. That the subject officer had no access to the complainant's medical files, but only mentioned facts that he had learned during work-related contact with the complainant, was not relevant. The RCMP apologized to the complainant for the officer's error, but qualified this response by stating that the medical information in question was only "an indirect reason" in the corporation's decision not to hire the complainant.

After review, the Commission Chair found that the RCMP officer failed to comply with RCMP policy by giving medical information about the complainant to the corporation.

The Commission Chair also found that the RCMP had disposed of the complaint properly by apologizing to the complainant and by ensuring that the subject officer was aware of the restrictions placed on RCMP members by the Privacy Act and by RCMP policy.

Firearms

Controlling access to firearms is important to Canadians. The Commission has reviewed complaints relating to RCMP officers' actions with respect to the control of firearms. In one case, a complainant's father was shot and killed by a disturbed man who was in lawful possession of firearms. The complainant alleged that the RCMP had failed to take proper action with respect to previous reports of violent behaviour by this man. Testimony at the coroner's inquest revealed that the man had previously committed acts of violence that had been reported to the police. Although the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC) file had been amended to indicate that this person was "dangerous to police", an RCMP officer had deleted that entry.

The Commission found that the RCMP officer who had deleted the CPIC entry had committed a serious error. The Commission also found that another RCMP officer had neglected to take proper action with respect to the violent behaviour of the man who shot the complainant's father. The Commission Chair made several recommendations about the awareness, training, and supervision of RCMP officers involved in firearms control work. The Commissioner of the RCMP agreed with the Chair and stated that the RCMP officers who had erred in this case would be given appropriate guidance and training.

Observations about the Inadequacy of RCMP Investigations into Complaints

A man complained that RCMP members illegally entered his house and caused unnecessary damage during the entry and the search. In their efforts to investigate the complaint, RCMP officers made several unsuccessful attempts to interview the complainant. The RCMP then advised the complainant that, if he failed to contact either the RCMP or the Commission to provide the information required to deal with his complaint, his file would be closed. The evidence showed, however, that the complainant's initial letter stated his concerns clearly.

The Commission Chair determined that the RCMP could have investigated the complaint, and that the RCMP's letter of disposition neither answered the complainant's allegations nor met the requirements of an RCMP report under the RCMP Act. The Commissioner of the RCMP agreed with the Chair and directed the commanding officer "to proceed with this internal investigation".

A complaint was received about the improper conduct of one of three RCMP members involved in a high-speed pursuit that resulted in the death of the pursued driver. The RCMP responded to the complaint with a statement that the matter had been fully explored by a coroner's inquest that found the death to be an accident. Relying on paragraph 45.36(5)(c) of the RCMP Act, the RCMP therewith terminated the public complaint investigation and so informed the complainant. The complainant, in turn, asked the Commission to review that decision.

The Commission examined the documentary evidence, including the transcript of the coroner's inquest, copies of the audio and video records of the pursuit, and the RCMP policy on hazardous pursuits. The Commission found that, in his pursuit of the speeding vehicle, the RCMP officer acted in keeping with RCMP policy. The Commission also determined, however, that the coroner's inquest made no finding about the officer's conduct, and that Part VII of the RCMP Act was the proper authority on the conduct of RCMP officers. The Commission found that the RCMP did, in fact, have enough information to make a finding about the officer's conduct. Accordingly, the Commission Chair found that the RCMP's use of paragraph 45.36(5)(c) was inappropriate; the RCMP should have prepared a report that answered the complaint of improper conduct in full. The Commissioner of the RCMP agreed with this finding and stated that further guidance would be given to the RCMP officers responsible for responding to complaints.

Getting in Touch with
the Commission

Head Office

Office Address

60 Queen Street, 3rd Floor
Ottawa, Ontario

Mailing Address

RCMP Public Complaints Commission
P.O. Box 3423, Station 'D'
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6L4

Telephone

Western Region Office

Address

RCMP Public Complaints Commission
7337-137^th Street
Suite 102
Surrey, British Columbia V3W 1A4

Telephone

RCMP PUBLIC COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

Keep in Touch with us

Head Office

Office Address

60 Queen Street, 3rd Floor
Ottawa, Ontario

Mailing Address

RCMP Public Complaints Commission
P.O. Box 3423, Station 'D'
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6L4

Telephone

General inquiries (613) 952-1471
Toll-free for complaints: 1-800-267-6637
Fax: (613) 952-8045

Western Region Office

Address

RCMP Public Complaints Commission
7337-137^th Street
Suite 102
Surrey, British Columbia
V3W 1A4

Telephone

General inquiries:  (604) 501-4080
                            (604) 504-4091
Toll-free for complaints: 1-800-665-6878
Fax: (604) 501-4095