McFarlane

Part VII of the RCMP Act provides that any member of the public may make a complaint concerning the conduct, in the performance of any duty or function under the RCMP Act, of any member of the Force or any other person appointed or employed under the authority of the RCMP Act. The Force has the initial responsibility to investigate complaints and to respond to complainants. Where a complainant is not satisfied with the Force's disposition of a complaint, the complainant may refer the complaint to the Commission for review.

Where, after reviewing a complaint, the Chairman of the Commission is not satisfied with the disposition of the complaint by the Force or considers that further inquiry is warranted, the Commission Chairman may, among other things, institute a hearing to inquire into the complaint. In such a case, the Chairman of the Commission assigns the member or members of the Commission to conduct the hearing and gives a notice in writing of the decision to institute a hearing to the Solicitor General of Canada, the Commissioner of the RCMP, the member whose conduct is the subject-matter of the complaint and the complainant. The members assigned to conduct the hearing must include the member of the Commission appointed for the Province in which the conduct occurred.

Part VII of the RCMP Act requires that a hearing be held in public. At a public hearing the complainant, the member who is the subject of the complaint, and the Force itself through an officer known as the "appropriate officer" are, in person or by legal counsel, entitled to present evidence, to cross-examine witnesses, and to make representations. In addition, any other person who satisfies the Commission that they have a substantial and direct interest in the complaint is entitled to the same procedural rights. The hearing is an inquiry. It is not a civil or criminal trial.

On completion of a hearing, the members of the Commission conducting the hearing are required under the RCMP Act to prepare and send to the Solicitor General and the Commissioner of the RCMP a report in writing setting out such findings and recommendations with respect to the complaint as they see fit. These reports are characterized in the RCMP Act as "interim reports". The Commission has adopted a practice, in the case of public hearings, to make these interim reports available to both the parties to the hearing and the public.

The Commissioner of the RCMP is required to review the complaint in light of the findings and recommendations set out in the Interim Report. The Commissioner of the RCMP must then notify the Solicitor General and the Chairman of the Commission, in writing, of any further action that has been or will be taken with respect to the complaint. Where the Commissioner of the RCMP decides not to act on any findings or recommendations set out in the Interim Report, the Commissioner is required to include the reasons for this decision in the notice given to the Solicitor General and the Chairman of the Commission.

The notice received from the Commissioner of the RCMP is considered by the Chairman of the Commission. The Chairman of the Commission is required to prepare and send to the Solicitor General, the Commissioner and the parties to the hearing a final report in writing setting out such findings and recommendations with respect to the complaint as the Chairman of the Commission sees fit. The Commission is adopting the practice, in the case of public hearing, of making these final reports public.

2. Background to the Final Report

Mr. McFarlane, over a period of eight or nine months, filed some 19 complaints against members of the RCMP.

By notices of decision to institute a hearing and assignment of hearing members dated December 8, 1989, Dr. Richard Gosse, the then Chairman of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, instituted hearings into those 19 complaints in accordance with the authority contained in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. 1986.

In the notices of decision, Dr. Gosse identified, as parties, Commissioner Norman Inkster, Deputy Commissioner D.K. Wilson, Chief Superintendent A.G. Clarke, Superintendent C. Robitaille, Superintendent W.A Dellebuur and Sergeant K.J. Holmberg.

The notices assigned Allan Williams, Q.C., Mrs. Rosemary Trehearne, and John U. Bayly, Q.C., as members of the Commission panel to conduct the hearing. Mr. Allan Williams is the member of the Commission appointed for the province of British Columbia.

The hearing convened and was held in public at Vancouver, B.C. on March 20, 21, 22 and 23, 1990.

The parties to the hearing were the complainant and the five members of the RCMP identified above.

On October 9, 1990, the Commission panel produced its report, containing findings and recommendations, which was submitted to the Solicitor General of Canada and the Commissioner of the RCMP. The Commissioner provided notice to the Solicitor General and the Chairman of the Commission of the action taken or to be taken on the Commission panel's findings and recommendations by letter to the Commission chairman dated March 22, 1991.

While I was considering the Commissioner's notice, Mr. Peter Leask, counsel for the complainant, wrote to Dr. Richard Gosse requesting a copy of the Commissioner's notice under subsection 45.46(2) of the RCMP Act. He went on to state as follows:

"My client is concerned about the final report that you will be preparing. In particular, he is anxious to have an opportunity to answer any factual assertions or argument made by the Commissioner in his notice. Fundamental fairness would seem to require that you hear my client before making any final decision affecting him.

The RCMP and its members had an opportunity to hear and cross-examine my client as well as make submissions before the Commission panel. The Commissioner has had more than enough time to consider and reply to the panel's report. Preventing my client from commenting on the notice risks perpetrating the idea that the RCMP is immune from scrutiny by the ordinary Canadian citizens ... "

In view of the paucity of the language in subsection 45.46(3) of the RCMP Act, the Chairman sought from Mr. John Evans, one of the most highly regarded Canadian authority in administrative law, an opinion as to whether the Chairman of the Commission was under an obligation to seek the comments of the parties on the Commissioner's notice prior to writing his final report. Professor Evans answered in the affirmative. In view of this, a copy of the Commissioner's notice was forwarded to ad hoc counsel representing the Commission at the hearing, counsel representing the complainant as well as counsel representing the appropriate officer and the members involved in the complaint. Comments were received from counsel for the appropriate officer and the members. None were forwarded by ad hoc counsel or counsel representing the complainant.

On reviewing the Commission panel's report as well as the evidence in that case, some questions arose in my mind with respect to the panel's conclusion on its finding 3A.8 and its recommendations 3A.9 and 3A.11. I, therefore, requested the views of the same counsel on these matters by letter of June 18, 1991. We received some comments from ad hoc counsel as well as counsel representing the appropriate officer and the members involved in the complaint, but none were forwarded by counsel acting for the complainant.

The present report is the final report of the Commission Chairman, as is provided for in Part VII of the RCMP Act. Reproduced as Appendix I is the Commission panel report and as Appendix II, the Commissioner's notice dated March 22, 1991.

II. COMMENTS AND CONCLUSIONS ON THE COMMISSIONER'S NOTICE

For greater clarity, I have reproduced each of the Commissioner's comments on the findings and recommendations that were made in the Commission panel report. These will be reproduced in turn and will be followed by my comments and conclusions.

Complaint against Superintendant W.A. Dellebuur

Finding 3A.8

Although this finding is technically correct, it is my judgement that both parties were responsible for the failure to address the subject matter of the complaint during the meeting of October 3, 1988. This meeting came to an abrupt end when Mr. McFarlane left and informed Supt. Dellebuur that he would take the matter to the Public Complaints Commission. While Supt. Dellebuur may have been in position to approach the issue with more patience and tenacity, both parties must accept responsibility for the failed attempt.

The Commission panel has found that Superintendent Dellebuur failed to carry out the direction given to him by Deputy Commissioner Wilson in a memorandum of September 20, 1988, thereby failing to discharge the undertakings which had been given by Deputy Commissioner Wilson to Mr. McFarlane. As a consequence, an opportunity was lost to resolve Mr. McFarlane's concerns. The Commission panel recognized the difficulty in dealing with Mr. McFarlane but stated that, however onerous, it was incumbent upon the Superintendent to overcome the difficulties which might arise. The Commissioner has simply stated that he agrees that both the Superintendent and Mr. McFarlane must accept responsibility for the failed attempt at resolution.

Deputy Commissioner Wilson's September 20, 1988 memorandum states that he undertook with Mr. McFarlane to have the Superintendent convene a face-to-face meeting with him at which time he would put before the Superintendent all the concerns which he presently has. A second undertaking which Deputy Commissioner Wilson gave was that the meeting would result in a written communication to him outlining his concerns as the Force understands them and the Force's position with respect to each of those concerns.

The Commission panel report describes how the meeting with the Superintendent broke down. The result of the meeting was an October 5, 1988 report by Sergeant Holmberg to the Superintendent discussing Mr. McFarlane's complaints. Sergeant Holmberg's report was sent by the Superintendent to the officer in command of "E" Division's Complaints and Internal Investigation Section, under cover of a memorandum dated October 14, 1988. The Superintendent observed that since part of Mr. McFarlane's complaints concerned him, he was of the view that he should not be the one informing Mr. McFarlane of the results of the investigation. The Superintendent believed that the response should come from "E" Division Headquarters. This led to a letter from Deputy Commissioner Wilson to Mr. McFarlane, dated October 18, 1988, advising that the Force's position with respect to all of his complaints was that the complaints were either "unsubstantiated" or "unfounded". A later letter from Deputy Commissioner Wilson to Mr. McFarlane dated February 13, 1989 also speaks to the various complaints in the same manner. That is, the complaints are identified and it is simply stated in respect of each of them that the complaint is either "unfounded" or "unsubstantiated".

The very brief form of written response to Mr. McFarlane is unfortunate. Sergeant Holmberg's October 5, 1988 report contains much information with respect to the Force's rationale for finding each of the complaints to be unfounded or unsubstantiated. Sergeant Holmberg's discussion of the complaints reflects a genuine concern for Mr. McFarlane's well-being and demonstrates an objective effort to bring each of the complaints to a successful conclusion. In many cases, Sergeant Holmberg had discussed his findings with Mr. McFarlane. However, as Deputy Commissioner Wilson's memorandum of September 20, 1988 recognized, what was required was a written communication to Mr. McFarlane making it clear why the Force took the position which it did.

Deputy Commissioner Wilson's letters indicating that the Force found the complaints either to be unfounded or unsubstantiated reflect the practice of the Force in the early days of the Part VII process. The Force has since recognized that more complete explanations in letters to complainants better achieve the objective of the Part VII process, namely, the resolution of complaints.

I cannot disagree that Superintendent Dellebuur failed to discharge the undertakings given by Deputy Commissioner Wilson. There were two undertakings given. The first was for a face-to-face meeting. That meeting was conducted albeit unsuccessfully. I agree with the Commissioner that both Mr. McFarlane and Superintendent Dellebuur must accept responsibility for the failed attempt although I am inclined to the view that, by that time, the attempt was doomed to failure. The second undertaking was to provide Mr. McFarlane with a written response to his complaints setting out the Force's position. Superintendent Dellebuur did not provide such a written response. But he did not do so because, by that time, he had become a subject of some of the complaints. The Commission has repeatedly stressed the importance of objectivity and impartiality in the preparation of responses to complainants. On balance, I believe it was prudent for Superintendent Dellebuur to disassociate himself from the preparation of the response to Mr. McFarlane. Superintendent Dellebuur requested "E" Division Headquarters to give the written response. While Deputy Commissioner Wilson's letters to Mr. McFarlane did state the position of the Force, they did not provide any explanation but instead relied on the oral explanations previously given. A more fulsome response would have been desirable.

Finding 3A.8 (supplementary)

Your finding may be correct, however, it is my view that while it is open to the Commission to comment on its perception of the problem underlying Mr. McFarlane's complaint, i.e. the allegedly erroneous record maintained by the House of Commons security section, the Commission is not entitled to make a finding in that regard. The Commission is bound to restrict findings to the complaint itself, not a related concern or problem. Accordingly, it would be inappropriate to give effect to this finding.

The Commission panel found that the root problem of Mr. McFarlane's complaints remains the matter of the record concerning Mr. McFarlane which is maintained by the Security Section of the House of Commons in Ottawa. The panel found that until this issue is resolved and any inaccuracies in the record corrected, Mr. McFarlane will remain dissatisfied with the manner in which the Force has discharged the responsibilities which it has undertaken in this respect.

The Commissioner has stated that, while the finding may be correct, it is his opinion that the Commission panel is not entitled to make a finding in this regard. The Commissioner takes the view that the Commission panel is bound to restrict its findings to the complaint itself and not a related concern or problem. As a result, the Commissioner takes the position that it would be inappropriate to give effect to the finding.

The Commissioner's very technical approach to this finding can hardly be expected to contribute to the resolution of the complaint. In my view, the Commission panel's finding with respect to the root cause of the complaint is every bit as relevant to the resolution of the complaint as the findings concerning the role Mr. McFarlane's personality played in these complaints.

Mr. McFarlane's involvement with the Force in British Columbia begins with his complaint of criminal conduct, forgery or fraud, in connection with the records maintained by the Security Section of the House of Commons. That complaint led to a criminal investigation and it was Mr. McFarlane's dissatisfaction with that investigation which triggered a cascading series of other complaints. Where a public complaint under Part VII of the RCMP Act arises from some action by the Force then, subject only to considerations and notice to those members who may be involved, it is entirely appropriate for a Commission panel to address that matter. Here the contact with Mr. McFarlane was through Sergeant Holmberg and Sergeant Holmberg was a party to the hearing. The origins of Mr. McFarlane's involvement with Sergeant Holmberg were also a matter of evidence in the hearing.

I would, therefore, invite the Commissioner to reconsider his approach to this matter.

Recommendation 3A.9

Similarly, this is not directly related to the complaint. As the records in question are maintained by personnel employed by the House of Commons and not the Force, it would be inappropriate for me to give effect to this recommendation. However, I will inform the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons concerning the issues raised in your finding 3A.8 and recommendation 3A.9, but any possible follow-up action must be left to his discretion.

The Commission panel recommended that the Richmond Detachment should complete its investigation into the records maintained by the Security Section of the House of Commons, identify the manner in which those records are maintained and used, rectify any inaccuracies therein, and provide Mr. McFarlane with a written report of the results of this action. If it were found that the records contain inaccuracies, then the Security Section of the House of Commons in Ottawa should be requested to provide written confirmation that the inaccuracies have been rectified and any improper entries deleted.

The Commissioner, in essence, takes the position that the records held by the Security Section of the House of Commons are a matter within the jurisdiction of the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House of Commons and that it would be inappropriate for the Commissioner to give effect to the recommendation. The Commissioner has, however, undertaken to inform the Sergeant-at-Arms concerning the issues raised in Finding 3A.8 and Recommendation 3A-9 but any action must be left to the discretion of the Sergeant-at-Arms.

The evidence indicates that Sergeant Holmberg did conduct an investigation of Mr. McFarlane's allegations of criminality, forgery or fraud, in connection with the records maintained by the Security Section of the House of Commons. Mr. McFarlane had advised Sergeant Holmberg that various people would confirm that the records contained the inaccuracies as alleged by Mr. McFarlane. Sergeant Holmberg made inquiries of at least some of those people and determined that their evidence did not support Mr. McFarlane's view of the matter. Sergeant Holmberg also directed that inquiries be made from the Force's offices in Ottawa. Such inquiries were made and it was determined by the Force's Ottawa Investigator, and duty reported to Sergeant Holmberg, that the records did not contain the inaccuracies alleged by Mr. McFarlane. Sergeant Holmberg advised Mr. McFarlane of this although Mr. McFarlane has not accepted that the matter has been investigated to his satisfaction.

I would note that the decision to initiate a criminal investigation, the manner in which the investigation is conducted, and the decision to terminate a criminal investigation are all matters involving judgment and discretion. As discussed above, the question for the Commission in a complaint involving judgment and discretion is whether judgment and discretion have been exercised unreasonably or on the basis of some improper consideration. The evidence indicates that Sergeant Holmberg conducted or directed a diligent investigation which, in my opinion, met the test of reasonableness. I would be inclined to conclude that Sergeant Holmberg acted out of genuine concern for Mr. McFarlane and made every reasonable effort to help him.

While the Force should have explained the results of its investigation to Mr. McFarlane in writing, I am satisfied, on the other hand, that Sergeant Holmberg did explain the results of the investigation and the reasons for terminating the investigation to Mr. McFarlane. That being the case, should the Force provide Mr. McFarlane a written report as recommended by the Commission panel? I am inclined to think so. While I agree that the complainant seems to have been fully briefed by Sergeant Holmberg on his investigation and findings, Mr. McFarlane received no detailed written corroboration, from the Force, of Sergeant Holmberg's investigation and findings. He should have. And I recommend that the Force send him such a report.

I agree with the Commissioner that any correction to records held by the Security Section of the House of Commons is a matter within the jurisdiction of the Sergeant-at-Arms.

Recommendation 3A.10

Although this recommendation is not directly related to the complaint, I will instruct the Director of Personnel to examine and review the issue of complaint investigations as an internal matter.

The Commission panel recommended that when complaints are made with respect to the conduct or performance of duties by a member of the RCMP, such complaints should be forwarded promptly to the Complaints and Internal Investigation Section of the Force for investigation and that the investigation be carried out without the involvement of the member or members against whom the complaint is made or the Detachment to which the member is assigned.

The Commissioner has stated that the recommendation is not directly related to the complaint but that he will instruct the Director of Personnel to examine and review the issue of complaint investigations as an internal matter.

The Force receives a great many complaints over the course of a year. These complaints run through a great range of matters, some more serious than others. The Commission has expressed a preference that complaints be investigated by specialized complaints investigators. The Commission's view on this matter, however, has been tempered by experience. Many complaints can be entirely adequately resolved at the Detachment level. Indeed, prompt and effective resolution of complaints at the Detachment level promotes better relations with the community. Some complaints, however, are sufficiently serious that public confidence can only be maintained if a fully independent investigation is carried out. The Commission has recently released a public final report in the Robinson/Farewell matter which illustrates the importance of prompt but fully independent investigations of serious complaints such as assaults. That Final Report also expresses the Commission's view that the adequacy of the investigation of a complaint is an important aspect of the review of the complaint itself.

The Commission will continue to comment on the adequacy of the Force's investigations of complaints. The Commission also expects the Commissioner to keep the Commission advised of changes in the Force's procedures for dealing with complaints.

Recommendation 3A.11

I will ensure that Appropriate Officers discharge their responsibilities pursuant to section 45.39 of the Act. With respect to record keeping of events at meetings, I will instruct the Director of Personnel to examine this issue as an internal matter.

The Commission panel recommended that, upon receiving a complaint, the Commissioner should ensure that the complainant is informed of the process to be adopted in the investigation of the complaint and the statutory reporting requirements contained in the RCMP Act. In addition, the Commission panel indicated that it would be desirable, at any meeting between members of the Force and the complainant, to ensure that an accurate record of the meeting is made with a copy of such record provided to the complainant

The Commissioner has stated that he will ensure that Appropriate Officers discharge their responsibilities pursuant to section 45.39 of the RCMP Act. I am satisfied with the Commissioner's reply to that recommendation. The Commissioner also states that he will instruct the Director of Personnel to examine the issue of record keeping at meetings as an internal matter.

Good record keeping is vital to all of the Force's functions. Indeed, the absence of proper records when one would expect to find such records, is likely to raise questions in the review of a complaint. Here, the concern of the Commission panel is with respect to the conflicting evidence which the panel heard concerning the meeting between Mr. McFarlane and Superintendent Dellebuur. I suppose the task of preparing the record of a meeting which will satisfy all present - especially if the meeting risks being acrimonious - is not without difficulties. But it is not insurmountable. In fact, it is desirable that such record be prepared when there is a sense that the meeting may be confrontational. Having said that, I am satisfied the Commissioner recognizes the necessity to treat these situations as required and that the proper directives will be issued in that regard. It follows, of course, that a copy of such record should always be made available to the complainant.

Complaint against Sgt. K.J. Holmberg

Finding 3B.4

I agree with this finding. Based on Sgt. Holmberg's own testimony, he made an unsupported and unjustified assessment of Mr. McFarlane's mental health.

Sergeant Holmberg concluded that Mr. McFarlane was mentally ill. The Commission panel found that Sergeant Holmberg's conclusion was unjustified and unsupported.

The Commissioner has accepted the Commission panel's finding and I am satisfied with this aspect of the disposition of the complaint.

I should, however, observe that I am satisfied that Sergeant Holmberg Acted throughout his dealings with Mr. McFarlane in an effort to resolve Mr. McFarlane's concerns and at no time was Sergeant Holmberg motivated by anything other than concern for Mr. McFarlane.

Finding 3B.6 Finding 3B.6

I share your finding that Sgt. Holmberg's letter of May 5, 1989, contained unsupported, unjustified, and unprofessional dissemination of his unqualified opinion.

Sergeant Holmberg communicated his view regarding Mr. McFarlane's mental health to the Superintendent of Air Traffic Control. The Commission panel found that this was an unwarranted, improper and unprofessional dissemination of his unqualified opinion.

The Commissioner has accepted the Commission panel's finding and I am satisfied with this aspect of the disposition of the complaint.

I should, however, observe, as did the panel, that Sergeant Holmberg's comments to the Superintendent of Air Traffic Control concerning Sergeant Holmberg's views of Mr. McFarlane's mental health played only a minor role in the decision not to employ Mr. McFarlane. The evidence at the hearing indicated that the principal reason for denying Mr. McFarlane further consideration in the employment process arose as a consequence of Mr. McFarlane's persistent inquiries to a number of officials in Air Traffic Services with the result that strong recommendations were made that Mr. McFarlane not be considered for further consideration. It might also be noted that Mr. McFarlane gave Sergeant Holmberg as a reference without discussing the matter first with Sergeant Holmberg. Sergeant Holmberg was not the only reference given by Mr. McFarlane in this manner. Subject to the question of whether a person in Sergeant Holmberg's position should give a reference at all, when a reference is given, it must be given honestly. Sergeant Holmberg's mistake in the reference which he gave was to go beyond what anyone could fairly say about Mr. McFarlane, namely that he has a personality which leaves something to be desired, and to offer an unqualified clinical opinion as to the reason for this behaviour.

Finding 3B.7

Although this finding is not directly related to the complaint, it is my view that the Commissioner's Standing Order, as outlined in the Administration Manual I.4.C.5.e., does not address the giving of personal references that are negative in nature. I will, however, instruct the Director of Personnel to examine this particular policy, as an internal matter, in order to ensure the intent of this policy is clearly reflected.

The Commission panel has observed that the Force's Administration Manual prohibits a member from providing any endorsement, recommendation or support with respect to any person using information obtained by virtue of being a member of the RCMP. Sergeant Holmberg had given a negative personal reference on Mr. McFarlane. The panel considered that this Action was in conflict with the Administration Manual. The Commissioner has advised that this provision of the Administration Manual does not address the giving of negative personal references. The Commissioner advises that Action will be taken to ensure that the intent of the policy is clearly reflected. It is ambiguous whether the Commissioner will ensure that the Administration Manual does prohibit the giving of negative personal references based on information obtained by virtue of being a member of the RCMP, or whether the Commissioner will ensure that the Administration Manual is revised to clearly permit the giving of such negative personal references. It appears clear that it was the view of the Commission panel that the giving of a negative personal reference based on information obtained by virtue of being a member of the RCMP was inappropriate. I share that view and I recommend that the Commissioner ensure that the Administration Manual is revised to prohibit the giving of a negative personal reference based on information obtained by virtue of being a member of the RCMP.

Recommendation 3B.9

The Privacy Act provides for procedures by which an individual may seek correction of personal information in possession of government institutions. However,I accept your recommendation and will instruct the Director of Information Access to correct references relating to diagnoses made by Sgt. Holmberg. I will also instruct the Director of Information Access to point out to officials of the Department of Transport to take appropriate steps.

The Commission panel has recommended that the Force take the necessary steps to expunge from its records any reference to the mental health of Mr. McFarlane and that the Commissioner, to the fullest extent possible, arrange for a similar correction to be made in the records of the Department of Transport. The Commissioner, while making what in the circumstances is an unnecessary reference to the Privacy Act has accepted the recommendation. I am, therefore, satisfied with this aspect of the disposition of the complaint.

Recommendation 3B.10

I accept this recommendation. I will write to Mr. McFarlane to acknowledge the unjustified and unsupported assessment of Mr. McFarlane's mental health and apologize on behalf of the Force for any embarrassment or distress which may have resulted. Sgt. Holmberg will be encouraged to write and apologize as well.

The Commission panel recommended that the Commissioner and Sergeant Holmberg apologize to Mr. McFarlane in connection with the comments concerning Mr. McFarlane's mental health. The Commissioner has accepted this recommendation and I am satisfied with this aspect of the disposition of the complaint

Recommendation 3B. 11

While this recommendation is not directly related to the complaint, I will address this issue, as an internal matter, by instructing the Director of Training to examine your recommendation to ensure a high level of objectivity is maintained in reports and to avoid unqualified conclusions.

The Commission panel recommended that the Commissioner take steps to incorporate in the training program of the Force materials which will improve the level of objectivity in reports made by members. The Commissioner has observed that this recommendation is not directly related to the complaint. However, the Commissioner has stated that he will address the issue as an internal matter by instructing the Director of Training to examine the recommendation to ensure a high level of objectivity is maintained in reports and to avoid unqualified conclusions. I am satisfied with the action which the Commissioner proposes to take.

Recommendation 3B.12

While this recommendation is also not directly related to the complaint, I will address this issue, as an internal matter, by instructing the Director of Personnel to examine this in light of current policy.

The Commission panel recommended that the unauthorized disclosure by a member of the Force of information obtained during the course of an investigation be grounds for disciplinary action. The Commissioner has stated that this recommendation does not directly relate to the complaint. He adds that he will address the issue as an internal matter by instructing the Director of Personnel to examine the matter in light of current policy.

I have already observed that the Commission does not agree with the Force on what may properly be the subject of a finding or recommendation "with respect to" a complaint. I will not repeat that here or elsewhere where the Commissioner expresses the view that a finding or recommendation is not directly related to the complaint. I do, however, note that the recommendation of the Commission panel flows from the finding that Sergeant Holmberg gave a negative personal reference to the Department of Transport concerning Mr. McFarlane. Mr. McFarlane gave Sergeant Holmberg as a reference, and as a result, Sergeant Holmberg was contacted for his views. To this extent it may be said that Mr. McFarlane authorized Sergeant Holmberg to express an opinion about Mr. McFarlane's suitability for employment as an air traffic controller.

The Commission panel also found that, in its opinion, Sergeant Holmberg's action violated the Administration Manual. However, the Commissioner has taken the position that this matter is not addressed in the Administration Manual. One may debate whose view of the Administration Manual is correct, but the Commissioner has the control and management of the Force. Such that his views as to what the Administration Manual states in that regard would, so to speak, be the last word. But whoever is right as to the proper interpretation to be given to the manual in these circumstances is not the real concern here. What matters is whether it is correct for a member of the Force, who is asked to give a personal reference about an individual he knows, to communicate information gathered while in the course of an investigation. In my opinion, it is not. And if the Administration Manual does not contain any prohibition in that regard, it should be revised to include such prohibition. Once that situation has been rectified, the question of ascribing disciplinary action for the failure to abide by that prohibition is one that should follow the prescriptions of good management practices. To that extent, I agree with the recommendation of the Commission panel.

Complaint against Deputy Commissioner D.K. Wilson

Finding 3C.5 Finding 3C.5

I share your findings that Deputy Commissioner Wilson did not display an uncooperative attitude towards Mr. McFarlane. I agree that he complied with Force policy and procedures invoked under Part VII of the RCMP Act. It was neither his duty nor was it appropriate for him to engage in further meetings with Mr. McFarlane. I also accept the finding that delivery of Sgt. Holmberg's report to Mr. McFarlane was not a duty imposed upon Deputy Commissioner Wilson by the RCMP Act.

The Commission panel found that the evidence did not support the complaints against Deputy Commissioner Wilson. The Commissioner has agreed with the findings of the panel. I am satisfied with this aspect of the disposition of the complaint.

Recommendation 3C.6

While it is not directly related to the complaint, I will address this issue, as an internal matter, by instructing the Director of Informatics to examine record keeping procedures in respect of persons making complaints.

The Commission panel recommended that the Commissioner ensure that a "chronic complainers" list not be maintained by any of the Divisions of the Force and that any such record which may be in existence be destroyed. The Commissioner has stated that Action will be taken to examine record-keeping procedures in respect of persons making complaints. The Commissioner does not state clearly that the purpose of this review will be to ensure that the keeping of records of complaints does not result in individuals who have been persistent complainers being labelled in such a way which may make it difficult for them to obtain a proper response to their legitimate concerns. The Commission has commented on this issue in the past and has observed the positive steps by the Force in the direction of giving guidance to members that legitimate concerns must be properly handled regardless of the identity of the complainant. I trust that the Commissioner's action in this most recent case will reflect the same positive approach.

Complaint against Chief Superintendant A.G. Clarke

Finding 3D.3

I accept your finding that Mr. McFarlane misinterpreted the Actions of Sgt. Douglas in delivering the letter and the purpose in Chief Superintendent Clarke having the letter delivered personally.

The Commission panel found that Mr. McFarlane misinterpreted the Actions of Sergeant Douglas in delivering a letter and the purpose of Chief Superintendent Clarke having the letter delivered personally. The Commissioner agrees with the findings of the panel. I am satisfied with this aspect of the disposition of the complaint.

Finding 3D.4 and recommendation 3D.4

Although the finding and the recommendation are not directly related to the complaint, I will, however, address these issues internally by instructing the Director of Personnel to examine them in light of sensitivity that surrounds the processing of public complaints.

The Commission panel observed that, in light of the sensitivity that surrounds the processing of public complaints, it appeared to be unwise for a member who may be associated with the investigation of a complaint to become involved in discussions with the complainant which are not clearly identified as part of the investigation of the complaint. The Commission panel recommended that every caution be taken to ensure that no Activity on the part of a member in respect of a complainant is capable of being misconstrued and that any meeting be formally convened and the proceedings be recorded and made available to the complainant. The Commissioner states that he will address these issues by instructing the Director of Personnel to examine them in light of sensitivity that surrounds the processing of public complaints.

These Finding and Recommendation are related to Recommendation 3A-11 and the observations made in respect of that recommendation are equally applicable here. The procedures necessary for dealing with exceptionally unreasonable people should not become the norm for all public complaints otherwise the effective and prompt disposition of complaints in a great many cases may be frustrated.

III. FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Pursuant to subsection 45.46(3) of the Act, I hereby recommend that:

1. the Force forward to Mr. McFarlane a report of its findings as a result of its investigation of Mr. McFarlane's allegation of criminality, forgery and fraud in connection with the records maintained by the Security Section of the House of Commons;

2. the Commissioner ensure that the Administration Manual is revised to prohibit the giving of a negative personal reference based on information obtained by virtue of being a member of the RCMP; and

3. the Commissioner be guided by the prescriptions of good management practices on the question of ascribing disciplinary action for the failure to abide by the prohibition discussed in Recommendation 2 above.

This report has been prepared by the acting Chairman as authorized under subsection 45.3(2) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

Fernand Simard
Acting Chairman

Dated at OTTAWA, this 30th day of August, 1991.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPENDIX I

ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE PUBLIC COMPLAINTS COMMISSION

Part VII

Subsection 45.45(14)

Public Hearing Into the Complaints

James A. McFarlane

COMMISSION REPORT

Allan Williams, Q.C.
Rosemary Trehearne
John U. Bayly, Q.C.

October 9, 1990

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TO:THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CADIEUX, SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CANADA

TO:COMMISSIONER NORMAN INKSTER, ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE

The undersigned were appointed on December 8, 1989 by Dr. Richard Gosse, Q.C., Chairman, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Commission, pursuant to the authority invested in him under Part VII of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, to conduct a public hearing to enquire into the complaints of James A. McFarlane.

We have the honour to submit our report in accordance with subsection 45.45(14) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

All of which is respectfully submitted,

Allan Williams, O.C.

Rosemary Trehearne

John U. Bayly, Q.C.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

1. HEARING PROCESS

2. BACKGROUND OF COMPLAINTS

3. THE COMPLAINTS

3A Complaint Against Suptintendent W. A. Dellebuur 4

3B Complaint Against Sergeant K. J. Holmberg 10

3C Complaints Against Deputy Commission D. K. Wilson 17

3D Complaint Against Chief Superintendent A. G. Clarke 20

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. HEARING PROCESS

By Notices of Decision to institute a Hearing and Assignment of Hearing Members dated December 8, 1989, Doctor Richard Gosse, O.C., instituted hearings into 19 complaints of James A. McFarlane in accordance with the authority contained in Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act 1986.

In the Notices of Decision, Doctor Gosse identified, as parties, Commissioner Norman Inkster, Deputy Commissioner D. K. Wilson, Chief Superintendent A. G. Clarke, Superintendent C. Robitaille, Superintendent W. A. Dellebuur, and Sergeant K. J. Holmberg.

The Notices assigned Allan Williams, O.C., Ms. Rosemary Trehearne, and John U. Bayly, O.C. as members of the Commission to conduct the hearings.

The hearings convened and were held in public at Vancouver, B.C. on March 20, 21, 22, and 23, 1990.

Throughout the hearing the Commission was assisted by the following counsel:

Counsel for the Commission - Donald J. Sorochan;

Counsel for James A. McFarlane - Robert E. Ross;

Counsel for the RCMP and the appropriate officer - Michael Duffy and Nancy Irving.

2. BACKGROUND OF COMPLAINTS

James A. McFarlane was born in 1952 and following graduation from high school in 1971 was enrolled in a number of training courses including attendances at the Canadian Army Officers' Training School and the University of Windsor. In 1978 he commenced employment in the fighting of forest fires in Northern Alberta. This occupation was seasonal in nature and, during the winter months, was supplemented by employment as a commercial fisherman in British Columbia.

In 1984 Mr. McFarlane interrupted this employment pattern to engage in federal political campaign activities on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party. This activity took him to Ottawa through the summer of 1984 until the election in September of that year.

After the election, Mr. McFarlane believed that he would be assisted in finding employment with the federal government or in government-related service by those with whom he had been associated during the election campaign. In particular, he sought employment in the fields of forestry and fisheries with which he felt he had some experience. Pursuing these opportunities led him to meet with a number of cabinet ministers, members of parliament, and senior government officials. He became a frequent visitor to government offices in Ottawa which were the subject of supervision by the security service of the House of Commons.

Mr. McFarlane was unsuccessful in gaining employment with the government and by 1986 had moved to Montreal. He nonetheless continued to seek employment with the government service and continued to look for support from cabinet ministers, members of parliament, and senior government officials. According to Mr. McFarlane, he began to encounter increasing difficulty. In arranging appointments with persons whom he felt could be of assistance to him. As a result of persistent efforts on his part, an appointment was arranged for him with the Honourable Tom Siddon on October 6, 1986. Mr. McFarlane travelled to Ottawa from Montreal on that day and presented himself for admission at the Confederation Building for the purposes of the meeting. On so doing he was advised by the security officer that he would not be allowed access to offices in the building. Mr. McFarlane demanded to know why he was being refused entry and, in the course of a somewhat heated exchange with the security officer, he took from that officer a document which, as alleged by Mr. McFarlane, recorded that he was connected with organized crime, was a member of a terrorist organization, had been a member of a U.S. army assassination squad in Vietnam, and in his youth had been a member of an outlaw motorcycle gang. All of this record of activities is denied by Mr. McFarlane.

In addition, the document allegedly recorded objectionable conduct on the part of Mr. McFarlane in relation to employees in some of the government offices he had visited. According to the testimony of Mr. McFarlane at the hearing, there was justifiable basis for some of these recorded incidents regarding his conduct.

Mr. McFarlane made extensive and determined efforts to ascertain how the erroneous record of his activities had come into the possession of the House of Commons security service, and he met with senior officials in an attempt to have the erroneous information removed from the security file. He also attempted, unsuccessfully, to obtain a written admission of the error and an apology. He did, however, receive oral assurance that the errors would be rectified.

Mr. McFarlane was apparently satisfied with the results of his efforts to clear the record, and he moved to British Columbia in search of employment. However, in January of 1988, in the course of pursuing employment opportunities with the government of British Columbia, an incident occurred which led Mr. McFarlane to believe that the House of Commons security record had not been corrected and that the erroneous information about him had been communicated to government officials in British Columbia.

At about this time, Mr. McFarlane took up residence in Richmond, British Columbia and, in the course of his activities, became involved in an incident with the staff of the constituency office maintained by the Honourable Tom Siddon. This incident gave rise to a complaint to the RCMP Detachment in Richmond, B.C. and, as a result, Mr. McFarlane received a call from Sergeant K. J. Holmberg. In the course of the investigation of the complaint filed by the office staff of the Honourable Tom Siddon, Sergeant Holmberg received from Mr. McFarlane allegations of the erroneous security report in the hands of the Security Service of the House of Commons and this matter became a part of the investigation undertaken by Sergeant Holmberg.

Thus began a relationship between Mr. McFarlane, Sergeant Holmberg, and other members of the RCMP in "E" Division which, over the succeeding eight or nine months, resulted in the filing of the 19 complaints by Mr. McFarlane in respect of which this hearing was convened.

The Commission records that at the commencement of the hearing on March 20, 1990, counsel for Mr. McFarlane and counsel on behalf of the RCMP and the appropriate officer, with the agreement of counsel for the Commission, gave notice that 14 of the complaints had been disposed of and that no evidence would be called in respect of those complaints.

The complaints disposed of are as follows:

(1) seven complaints against Commissioner Norman Inkster; the Commission was advised that the resolution of these seven complaints, which allege failure to observe certain statutory time limits relating to the handling of complaints, was accepted by Mr. McFarlane with a letter of apology from Commissioner Inkster;

(2) two complaints against Deputy Commissioner D. K. Wilson;

(3) two complaints against Chief Superintendent A. G. Clarke;

(4) two complaints against Superintendent C. Robitaille;

(5) one complaint against Superintendent W. A. Dellebuur.

Counsel for the RCMP and the appropriate officer and counsel for Mr. McFarlane have filed written confirmation of the disposition of these complaints. By reason of the manner in which these complaints have been disposed of, the circumstances which gave rise to those complaints did not form part of the record of the hearing and have not been taken into account by the Commission for this report.

The hearing proceeded to receive evidence with respect to the five remaining complaints.

3. THE COMPLAINTS

The five complaints in respect of which the Commission heard evidence at the public hearing concern themselves with incidents arising during the course of the investigation by members of the Richmond Detachment of the RCMP into a variety of matters alleged by Mr. McFarlane. With the exception of the complaint against Sergeant K. J. Holmberg, the complaints arise from Mr. McFarlane's view that the matters which he presented to the RCMP were not dealt with in a timely, efficient, and competent manner, and that he was denied fActual reports on the progress and results of the investigations into the matters.

If there is any relationship between the complaints, it is to be found in the pursuit by Mr. McFarlane of information about matters which he had brought to the attention of the RCMP. This position was taken at the outset by counsel for Mr. McFarlane, and the evidence given at the hearing leaves no doubt that the persistence of Mr. McFarlane in these efforts lies at the root of all the complaints.

The Commission also wishes to note that Mr. McFarlane's conduct in seeking information was a reflection of his personality. On his own evidence he admits that he is aggressive, verbose, loud, and obnoxious, and that he uses foul language. He agrees with his doctor's comment that his personality leaves a little bit to be desired.

3A COMPLAINT AGAINST SUPERINTENDENT W. A. DELLEBUUR

The Notice of Decision to Institute a Hearing, dated December 8, 1989, specified the following complaint:

Mr. McFarlane complains that on October, 3, 1988 at 10 a.m., he met with Supt. Dellebuur in his office at the Richmond Detachment of the RCMP. He said that he had sought from Dellebuur an update on the status of the ongoing investigation into his previous complaints. Specifically, he said they were obliged to provide a receipt for documentation provided to the RCMP (which would show the lack of action taken so far). Supt. Dellebuur responded in the negative. Then, in response to Mr. McFarlane's statement "In this country, we all have to follow the law," Supt. Dellebuur allegedly said "I don't have to do anything you ask me to do ... I only have to do what my superior officers tell me to do". When Mr. McFarlane inquired when he would be receiving something, Dellebuur allegedly said "when we get it done in our good time, then you will be notified". Mr. McFarlane became upset by these statements, lost his temper and left the meeting with Ms. Barbara Potter (a friend who had accompanied him to the meeting, and confirmed to the undersigned when and where the meeting took place).

This complaint was made by Mr. McFarlane by telephone to a complaints officer of the Commission on October 3, 1988 following a meeting with Superintendent W. A. Dellebuur. As the testimony unfolded, it became clear that there were events which preceded the meeting on October 3, 1988, and incidents which occurred at that meeting, which have a bearing upon the complaint and give rise to issues which the bare words in the complaint do not disclose.

3A.1 The involvement of Mr. McFarlane with members of the Richmond Detachment of RCMP which commenced in mid-February, 1988 had, by August 30, 1988 and before the proclamation of Part VII of the RCMP Act, given rise to 19 complaints by Mr. McFarlane alleging delay, incompetence in investigations, unprofessional conduct, offensive language, failure to follow instructions, and assault against several members of the Richmond Detachment RCMP. Seeking satisfaction of these complaints, Mr. McFarlane communicated with the office of the Commissioner of the RCMP in Ottawa, the Commanding Officer of "E" Division, the Complaints & Internal Investigations Section of "E" Division, and the Officer Commanding the Richmond Detachment. He also sought the assistance of officials of the Corporation of the Township of Richmond, Crown Counsel, and the Chairman of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission. None of these efforts gave Mr. Mcfarlane the satisfaction which he sought. His persistence did result in a brief meeting with Deputy Commissioner D. K. Wilson, Commanding Officer "E" Division, in the course of which Deputy Commissioner Wilson undertook to convene a face-to-face meeting between Mr. McFarlane and the officer in charge of Richmond Detachment at which Mr. McFarlane could present all his concerns. Mr. McFarlane understood that this meeting would be followed by a written report listing his several concerns and the RCMP position with respect to each of them.

3A.2 The undertaking given by Deputy Commissioner Wilson to Mr. McFarlane was committed to a memorandum to Superintendent Dellebuur dated September 20, 1988. This memorandum was entered as an exhibit at the hearing. In that memorandum Superintendent Dellebuur was advised of the undertakings given to Mr. McFarlane, and it was suggested that the meeting be attended by the members of the RCMP who had been associated with Mr. McFarlane through the period of his involvement with the Detachment. The memorandum concluded with the words, "I shall look forward to receiving from you the results of the meeting and a copy of the correspondence which you prepare to Mr. McFarlane."

Deputy Commissioner Wilson testified that, subsequent to his receipt of that memorandum, Superintendent Dellebuur discussed with him the suggested arrangements for the meeting on at least two occasions. On the first occasion, Superintendent Dellebuur questioned the wisdom of having all of the persons identified in the memorandum in attendance. Deputy Commission Wilson agreed that this might be counterproductive and accordingly left the matter to the discretion of Superintendent Dellebuur. On another occasion Superintendent Dellebuur discussed with Deputy Commissioner Wilson the desire of Mr. McFarlane to have his lawyer present at the meeting. On this subject, Deputy Commissioner Wilson testified that he told the Superintendent that he did not think that it was anything to make an issue about but, since it was the Superintendent's meeting, he could convene it as he wished.

Otherwise, Deputy Commissioner Wilson did not accede to any other change in the suggestion which he made to the Superintendent with respect to the conduct and purpose of the meeting or his undertakings to Mr. McFarlane.

3A.3 As a result of the memorandum from Deputy Commissioner Wilson and the matters subsequently discussed with Superintendent Dellebuur, a meeting was arranged between the Superintendent and Mr. McFarlane to be held September 29, 1988. After this arrangement was made, the issue of the attendance of Mr. McFarlane's lawyer was raised and the Superintendent refused to permit his attendance. A dispute arose over this matter and as a result Mr. McFarlane changed the meeting date to October 3, 1988. It is this meeting which gave rise to the complaint under consideration.

3A.4 The meeting was convened on October 3, 1988 at 10 a.m. in the office of Superintendent Dellebuur in the Richmond Detachment offices. Present at the meeting were Mr. McFarlane, Barbara Potter, with whom he resides, Superintendent Dellebuur, and Sergeant Holmberg. It is clear from the testimony of Mr. McFarlane that, as he understood the oral undertakings given to him by Deputy Commissioner Wilson, the purpose of the meeting was to review the several complaints made by Mr. McFarlane, and he understood that he would receive a report with respect to each of them. On the part of Superintendent Dellebuur, however, it was his view that the purpose of the meeting was to explain to Mr. McFarlane the process that was being followed by the Richmond Detachment RCMP with respect to his various complaints and to make him aware that the results of the investigation would be referred to Complaints & Internal Investigations Section who would in turn provide a response to Mr. McFarlane. In his view, Superintendent Dellebuur firmly believed that it would be inappropriate for the Richmond Detachment to respond to Mr. McFarlane with respect to complaints against the Richmond Detachment. This opinion held by Superintendent Dellebuur was contrary to the intent of the "suggestion" made by Deputy Commission Wilson in his memorandum of September 20, 1988 and, once allowed to govern the meeting process, would prevent the fulfilment of Deputy Commissioner Wilson's undertakings and compliance with the terms of that memorandum.

3A.5 The meeting commenced with an enquiry from Superintendent Dellebuur to Mr. McFarlane, "What can I do for you?" or words to that effect. This provoked an immediate and angry response from Mr. McFarlane and from that moment the exchanges between the persons present can best be categorized as "heated." There were demands by Mr. McFarlane for Superintendent Dellebuur to comply with the law and responses by the Superintendent that he would conform to the instructions from his senior officers. There were exchanges between Superintendent Dellebuur and Mr. McFarlane about the delivery to Mr. McFarlane of written reports, but the evidence with respect to this issue is unclear and conflicting. From all the testimony it is clear to the Commission that, from a poor beginning, the meeting rapidly deteriorated into a heated, argumentative conflict between Mr. McFarlane and Superintendent Dellebuur which served only to intensify already-strained relations. As a result the meeting, which lasted about five minutes, did not fulfil the expectations of Mr. McFarlane and did not accomplish the objectives of Superintendent Dellebuur. It ended when Mr. McFarlane angrily informed Superintendent Dellebuur that he would take the matter to the Public Complaints Commission and left the office with Barbara Potter.

3A.6 The Commission is obliged to deal specifically with one incident alleged to have occurred at the meeting. Mr. McFarlane testified that, in the course of the angry exchange between himself and Superintendent Dellebuur, the Superintendent spoke to Barbara Potter and referred to Mr. McFarlane as an "asshole". Barbara Potter's testimony confirmed this, and she responded to Superintendent Dellebuur that she thought that Mr. Mcfarlane was an honest individual but that he may not fit the image of what is acceptable in our society. At this juncture, it is the testimony of Mr. McFarlane and Barbara Potter that Superintendent Dellebuur referred to her as being a "stupid slut." This testimony is vehemently denied by Superintendent Dellebuur, and Sergeant Holmberg testified that Superintendent Dellebuur directed no remarks to Barbara Potter and that he heard none of the alleged rude and vulgar remarks. The Commission, in view of the conflict in testimony, is unable to make a finding with respect to the truth of the allegation, or the denial, but records it as a clear indication of irrational attitudes which destroyed any prospect for the meeting to achieve positive results for the participants and which had to be overcome if there was to be any satisfactory resolution of the complaints of Mr. McFarlane.

3A.7 In result, the meeting of October 3, 1988 accomplished nothing, and the complaints made by Mr. McFarlane were left to be dealt with in accordance with the process followed by the RCMP at that time. This process concluded with a lengthy letter from Deputy Commissioner D. K. Wilson to Mr. McFarlane dated February 13, 1989 which contained a review of 20 allegations and the findings of the RCMP with respect to each of them. That letter formally advised Mr. McFarlane of his statutory entitlement for a review of the complaints by the RCMP Public Complaints Commission under Part VII of the RCMP Act.

3A.8 The Commission finds, based on all of the evidence, that with respect to the subject matter of this complaint, Superintendent Dellebuur failed to carry out the direction given to him by Deputy Commissioner D. K. Wilson in his memorandum of September 20, 1988 thereby discharging the undertakings which had been given by Deputy Commissioner Wilson to Mr. McFarlane. It is appreciated that Superintendent Dellebuur had strongly- held views with respect to the extent to which the Richmond Detachment should be involved in the resolution of the concerns of Mr. McFarlane, but this does not justify the failure. Mr. McFarlane had no way of knowing of this opinion and was entitled to expect that the meeting convened for October 3, 1988 would conform to the assurances which he had received from Deputy Commissioner Wilson. The Commission appreciates that Mr. McFarlane exhibits characteristics which make it difficult to deal with his demands, but this propensity was known to Superintendent Dellebuur as it was to other members of the Richmond Detachment. However onerous, it was incumbent upon the Superintendent to draw upon his lengthy experience and professional training to overcome any difficulties which might arise. As a consequence of this failure, an opportunity was lost to resolve the concerns of Mr. McFarlane. It may be that the meeting would never have resulted in such resolution, but the lost opportunity has served only to delay resolution and leave satisfaction to be dealt with through the processes provided in Part VII of the RCMP Act.

The Commission also finds that, irrespective of the form in which this complaint has been stated, the root of the problem still remains the matter of the record with respect to Mr. McFarlane maintained by the Security Section of the House of Commons in Ottawa. Until this issue is resolved and any inaccuracies in such record corrected, Mr. McFarlane will understandably remain dissatisfied with the manner in which the RCMP has discharged the responsibilities which it has undertaken in this respect.

3A.9 The Commission accordingly recommends that the RCMP Richmond Detachment complete its investigation into these records maintained by the Security Section of the House of Commons in Ottawa, identify the manner in which such records are maintained and used, rectify any inaccuracies therein, and provide Mr. McFarlane with a written report of the results of this action. If it is found that the records contain inaccuracies, then the Security Section of the House of Commons in Ottawa should be requested to provide written confirmation that the inaccuracies have been rectified and any improper entries deleted.

3A.10 The Commission further recommends that when complaints are made with respect to the conduct or performance of duties by a member of the RCMP, such complaints be forwarded promptly to the Complaints & Internal Investigations Section for investigation, and that the investigation and all subsequent proceedings with respect to such complaints be carried out without the involvement of the officer or officers against whom the complaint is made or the Detachment of which such officer is a member.

3A.11 The Commission further recommends that, upon receiving the complaint, the Commissioner should ensure that the complainant is informed of the process to be adopted in the investigation of the complaint and the statutory reporting requirements contained in Section 45.39 of the RCMP Act. It is essential that the Commissioner adopt procedures which will assure the complainant that the matter is not being ignored. The Commission believes that it is desirable that any meeting between members of the RCMP and the complainant in connection with the investigation or resolution of a complainant should be attended by persons who can accurately record such events as transpire at the meeting. A copy of such record should be made available to the complainant.

3B COMPLAINT AGAINST SERGEANT K. J. HOLMBERG

The Notice of Decision to Institute a Hearing, dated December 8, 1989, specified the following complaint:

The complainant complains that Sergeant Holmberg without medical evidence or qualifications communicated personal opinions regarding the complainant's mental health in an RCMP report and correspondence with officials of the federal ministry of Transport, all with serious consequences to the complainant's employment prospects and the conduct of investigations into his previous complaints against the RCMP.

This complaint was submitted in writing by Mr. McFarlane to the Commission on October 30, 1989, and was transmitted to the Commissioner of the RCMP and received by him on November 7, 1989. The following is the full text of the complaint.

R.C.M.P.Public Complaints Commission
Attention:Fernand Simard

Sir:

This is a formal complaint against Sgt. Kenneth Holmberg, who on October 5, 1988 was a member of the Richmond, B.C. Detachment of the R.C.M.P.

On October 5, 1988 Sgt. Holmberg prepared a written report in which he stated that I suffer from a "paranoid personality disorder" and "paranoid delusion". In the report he also said that I "suffer(s) from a mental illness".

In arriving at those conclusions, Sgt. Holmberg had no evidence based on any medical professional who had examined me. He did consult with a psychologist who had NOT examined me.

Sgt. Holmberg has no medical qualifications that would entitle him to form such an opinion on a proper basis.

Sgt. Holmberg did not at that time nor any time since then, inform me of his opinion so that I could demonstrate to him and his superiors, the error of his conclusions.

Sgt. Holmberg used his unfounded assertion of my mental illness as a justification for an inadequate investigation into previous complaints against the R.C.M.P., including complaints against his own previous activities.

Subsequently, in May 1989, Sgt. Holmberg wrote to officials of the Federal Ministry of Transport that I suffered from a "paranoid personality disorder". His statement was partly responsible for me not being given consideration for employment with the Department of Transport.

Considering how serious this complaint is and the history of R.C.M.P. response to my previous complaints, I ask that you recommend to the Chairman that a public hearing be ordered, to deal with this complaint forthwith.

Yours truly,

James A. McFarlane

3B.1 As earlier recorded in this report, Mr. McFarlane first became involved with the Richmond Detachment of RCMP in February, 1988. The matters of concern to him were investigated by and under the direction of Sergeant K. J. Holmberg who, at that time, was in charge of the General Investigation Section. From the testimony given by Mr. McFarlane and Sergeant Holmberg, it appears that over the succeeding months until September, 1988, Sergeant Holmberg was involved in investigating a number of matters with which Mr. McFarlane was associated. These include the complaint of Mr. McFarlane concerning the records maintained by the Security Service of the House of Commons in Ottawa as well as matters arising from incidents affecting the children of Barbara Potter, with whom Mr. McFarlane lived, and Barbara Potter's former husband. As a consequence of this association and the observations which he made in the course of his investigations, Sergeant Holmberg formed the opinion that Mr. McFarlane and the members of his family might require counselling assistance from some of the social service agencies which were operating In the municipality of Richmond. Accordingly, he met with Mr. Roger Neill who was the official in charge of the Richmond Mental Health Unit and discussed with him his observations of Mr. McFarlane's behaviour throughout the period of their association. As a result of this discussion, he learned that the behaviour exhibited by Mr. McFarlane might indicate that he suffered a paranoid personality disorder. Mr. Neill discussed with Sergeant Holmberg the indicators of this disorder, the type of investigation that might be necessary, and the degree of success that there might be in treating such a disorder. There was no further communication between Sergeant Holmberg and Mr. Neill with respect to Mr. McFarlane or this perceived disorder, and Sergeant Holmberg never sought or obtained any qualified professional opinion with respect to Mr. McFarlane's mental health. Notwithstanding this absence of professional opinion, and having no medical qualifications of his own, Sergeant Holmberg adopted the belief that Mr. McFarlane suffered a mental illness, which he identified as a paranoid personality disorder, and ascribed to that mental illness the conduct of Mr. McFarlane in the presentation to the RCMP of the multiplicity of complaints respecting the performance of duty by members of the Richmond Detachment. These conclusions were incorporated in an extensive report which Sergeant Holmberg made in respect of his involvement with Mr. McFarlane dated October 5, 1988. This result is serious enough, but the impact is exacerbated by the evidence that these conclusions concerning Mr. McFarlane's mental health had been communicated within the RCMP to the office of Deputy Commissioner R. G. Moffatt in Ottawa. Draft correspondence prepared for his signature prior to October 5, 1988 includes the following: "Mr. McFarlane suffers a psychic disorder and is need of professional help. On one occasion he agreed to a psychiatrist; however this failed to materialize." These unconfirmed statements appear in two drafts of a letter intended to be transmitted to Dr. Gosse, the Chairman of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, but were omitted from the letter which was sent.

3B.2 In the course of his testimony, Sergeant Holmberg acknowledged, and counsel for the RCMP formally admitted, that the conclusions reached by Sergeant Holmberg with respect to the mental illness of Mr. McFarlane were not based on the diagnosis of any medical professional who had examined him, that Sergeant Holmberg had no medical qualifications that would entitle him to form such an opinion, and that Sergeant Holmberg did not at any time inform Mr. McFarlane of his opinion and enable Mr. McFarlane to demonstrate the error of his conclusions.

3B.3 At the public hearing, counsel for Mr. McFarlane introduced as an exhibit a medical report from Dr. Maelor Vallance, M.B., who carries on a medical practice in his specialty of psychiatry in Vancouver, B. C. The report indicates that Mr. McFarlane was interviewed on October 2, 1989, and again on October 18, 1989, at which time a full psychiatric history was obtained and a standard mental status examination was undertaken. Dr. Vallance reports as follows:

From my interviews with Mr. McFarlane and with his father I found no evidence of mental illness. There were no psychotic features either in his current presentation or in his past history and nothing to suggest a pathological mood disorder. Similarly there was nothing to suggest that he suffered from a paranoid personality disorder. He may well have been considered by some as a troublemaker and they may consider that at times his attitude has left something to be desired. However, that does not by itself indicate any psychiatric illness. In the circumstances that he described to me he would certainly appear to have been under considerable stress but there is nothing to suggest that his mental health has in any way decompensated.

3B.4 The Commission finds that Sergeant Holmberg made an unjustified and unsupported assessment of Mr. McFarlane's mental health and, without justification, concluded that he suffered a paranoid personality disorder. This view of Mr. McFarlane's mental condition was incorporated in the report which Sergeant Holmberg made in respect of the various complaints of Mr. McFarlane and interfered with the objectivity of his assessment in such a way as to diminish the credibility of his conclusions.

3B.5 At the hearing, evidence was given which exemplified the far-reaching consequences of this erroneous opinion.

In June, 1988, Mr. McFarlane applied to the Department of Transport for employment as an Air Traffic Controller. In his application he gave the name of Sergeant Holmberg as a reference. He did not ask Sergeant Holmberg if he might use him as a reference, but he testified that he "told" Sergeant Holmberg that he had used his name for that purpose. The testimony from Sergeant Holmberg was that he did not know that his name had been offered as a reference until he received a telephone call from an official of the Department of Transport asking for the reference.

Mr. McFarlane pursued his application for employment as an Air Traffic Controller and on August 31, 1988 wrote the exam which was a preliminary requirement for the position. In September, 1988, he received a letter from the Ministry of Transport advising him that he had not been successful in his application. Mr. McFarlane immediately telephoned an official of the Ministry of Transport to obtain a reason for this refusal and was told that the decision not to advance his application was based upon his personal conduct and the personal references. As a result of this, Mr. McFarlane went to the Public Service Commission Investigations Branch and requested an investigation into the appropriateness of the handling of his application. This resulted in a request being made by the Superintendent of Air Traffic Control to Sergeant Holmberg to provide written confirmation of information which he had previously supplied orally. In response, Sergeant Holmberg sent a letter dated May 5, 1989 to the Superintendent of Air Traffic Control in Vancouver, B.C., the contents of which are as follows:

"Without Prejudice"

May 5, 1989

Supt. of Air Traffic Control
Tower Operations
P.O. 220 - 800 Burrard
Vancouver, B.C. V6J 2J8

Dear Sir:

Re: James A. McFARLANE (B 52-01-19) Applicant for ATC position

I understand from speaking with your department and later Mr. Jim McFarlane that he used my name as a reference in his application to seek employment as an air traffic controller.

Regrettably Mr. McFarlane listed myself as a reference without consulting me prior to.

I have known Mr. McFarlane in a professional manner only while I occupied the General investigation Section Commanders position at Richmond Detachment of the R.C.M. Police for approximately 1 year.

For the following reason I cannot support Mr. McFarlane for the job of Air Traffic Controller:

1. On many occasions I have observed him loose (sic) his temper without reason.

2. I believe he suffers a paranoid personality disorder. He suffers delusions, paranoia and lack of reality.

3. I do not believe Mr. McFarlane could operate efficiently in the very often stressful environment of air traffic control.

I retain a commercial pilots licence and have know (sic) many fine people from your organization. I believe this allows me some insight into the requirements of the position and I cannot support Mr. McFarlane. He does not possess the calm logic, team player ability, personality to safely fulfill the position.

Last September I was called by your department in a follow up to his application and I verbally addressed what I am now putting in writing. Afterwards I discussed same with Mr. McFarlane. He is aware I would not support him and suggested it would have been appropriate that he call me prior to giving myself as a reference. This would have saved the embarrassment.

Respectively (sic),

K.J. HOLMBERG, Sgt.
R.C.M.POLICE

3B.6 During the course of the hearing, the Commission received the testimony of Andrew Vasarins who was, at the times material to this complaint, the Superintendent of Tower Operations, Pacific Region, of the Department of Transport. In that capacity, Mr. Vasarins was responsible for processing applications for employment such as that submitted by Mr. McFarlane and determining whether or not applicants should be interviewed for further training and consideration for employment as Air Traffic Controllers. It was his evidence that Mr. McFarlane was not, in September, 1988, denied employment but rather that he was not selected for interview and further processing towards the employment stage. In the end, the result was the same. It is clear, however, from Mr. Vasarins' testimony that the principal reason for denying Mr. McFarlane further consideration in the employment process arose as a consequence of Mr. McFarlane's persistent enquiries to a number of officials in Air Traffic Services in Personnel, Finance, Administration, and Public Affairs. These persistent enquiries resulted in strong recommendations to Mr. Vasarins from his colleagues that Mr. McFarlane not be considered for advancement. In pursuit of this employment opportunity, Mr. McFarlane appears to have been his own worst enemy. The Commission finds that the letter of May 5, 1989 given by Sergeant Holmberg to the Superintendent of Air Traffic Control in confirmation of his earlier reference in which he made mention of Mr. McFarlane's mental health was an unwarranted, improper and unprofessional dissemination of his unqualified opinion. The indication that this recommendation may have played only in a minor part in the decision of Mr. McFarlane does not excuse this disclosure.

36.7 In the course of the hearing, the Commission was informed that the provisions of the Administrative Manual of the RCMP prohibited a member from providing any endorsement, recommendation, or support with respect to any person using information obtained by virtue of being a member of the RCMP. The only exception to the prohibition applies to an official recommendation provided to another member, ex-member, or employee of the RCMP with that person's consent to a prospective employer, but the views expressed must be identified as being personal views and not those of the RCMP. The Commission finds that the statements made by Sergeant Holmberg in the letter of May 5, 1989 and the oral information he provided to the Department of Transport in September of 1988 were in direct conflict with the prohibition in the Administrative Manual and leave no question that the views which he has expressed are as a result of information which came to him in the course of his duties.

36.8 In addition to the testimony given by Sergeant Holmberg, there was introduced in evidence his report dated October 5, 1988 which is a comprehensive compilation of all of the matters which had been taken under investigation by Sergeant Holmberg from the onset of his relationship with Mr. McFarlane. A review of that report leaves no room for doubt that Sergeant Holmberg was, at an early stage in his investigation, concerned about the behaviour of Mr. McFarlane and that, from the time of his interview with Roger Neill of the Mental Health Office in Richmond and his assumption that Mr. McFarlane suffered a paranoid personality disorder, he permitted these factors to influence the investigation of Mr. McFarlane's complaints. The Commission accepts that Mr. McFarlane was not an easy person to deal with but also finds that his complaints warranted careful consideration and professional response.

3B.9 The Commission recommends that steps be taken by the RCMP to expunge from its records any reference to the mental health of Mr. McFarlane as assessed or characterized by Sergeant Holmberg. The Commission further recommends that the Commissioner, to the fullest extent that it is possible for him to do, arrange with the officials of the Department of Transport to expunge from their records any medical opinion or diagnosis concerning Mr. McFarlane which they received as a result of communications with Sergeant Holmberg.

3B.10 The Commission further recommends that the Commissioner and Sergeant Holmberg, separately, write to Mr. McFarlane to acknowledge the unjustified and unsupported assessment of Mr. McFarlane's mental health and to apologize to him for any embarrassment and distress which this conduct may have caused.

3B.11 The Commission further recommends that the Commissioner take appropriate steps to incorporate in the training programmes of the RCMP materials which will improve the level of objectivity in reports made by members and, in particular, the avoidance of conclusions which are not supported by qualified and competent professional opinion.

3B.12 The Commission further recommends that the unauthorized disclosure by a member of the RCMP of information obtained during the course of an investigation, or of conclusions drawn from such information, be grounds for disciplinary action.

3C COMPLAINTS AGAINST DEPUTY COMMISSIONER D.K. WILSON

Under date December 8, 1989, two Notices of Decision to institute a Hearing were issued to specify the following complaints:

The complainant complains that on the afternoon of January 19, 1989, during a telephone conversation with Mr. McFarlane, Deputy Commissioner Wilson displayed an uncooperative attitude. Mr. McFarlane asked Mr. Wilson if he would be contacting Mr. McFarlane's lawyers to arrange for a date when Mr. McFarlane could be interviewed by Deputy Commissioner Wilson about previously made complaints. Deputy Commissioner Wilson categorically refused to discuss this subject with Mr. McFarlane in any way.

The complainant complains that on the afternoon of January 19,1989, during a telephone conversation with Mr. McFarlane, Deputy Commissioner Wilson displayed an uncooperative attitude. Mr. McFarlane, on the advice of his counsel, requested that he be provided with a copy of an investigative report prepared by Inspector (sic) Holmberg of "E" Division concerning previously made complaints. Deputy Commissioner Wilson refused to provide Mr. McFarlane with a copy of the document telling him this was a document he should not be allowed to see.

3C.1 These two complaints were submitted by Mr. McFarlane by telephone to the Commission on or about February 1, 1989. The evidence coming before the Commission leaves no doubt that the two complaints arose out of a single telephone conversation between Mr. McFarlane and Deputy Commissioner Wilson. In light of the similarity in the two complaints, the Commission proposes to deal with them as if they were a single complaint.

3C.2 Mr. McFarlane testified that the telephone conversation with Deputy Commissioner Wilson took place on January 19, 1989, and he recalls the date because it was his birthday. He also testified that he called the office of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission on the same day as the telephone call. The Commission finds this testimony to be unreliable as the evidence of Deputy Commissioner Wilson is that on January 19 and 20,1989, he was absent from his office in Vancouver, and the conversation could not have taken place on either of those two days. The Commission accepts that the conversation occurred and that it was some time prior to February 1, 1989.

3C.3 On the testimony of Mr. McFarlane, it appears that from about October 18, 1988, Mr. McFarlane called Deputy Commissioner weekly for the sole purpose of obtaining from him a copy of the report made by Sergeant Holmberg which was dated October 5, 1988. Mr. McFarlane persisted in these communications with Deputy Commissioner Wilson because, according to his own testimony, "He is the boss" and, "I went to Mr. Wilson because I felt reasonably sure that in his position he would be competent enough to do the right thing according to the RCMP Act." This course of conduct was pursued by Mr. McFarlane notwithstanding the receipt by him on October 18, 1988 of a letter from Deputy Commissioner Wilson stating the results of his review of the file comprising 20 allegations and advising him of the course of action which was available under Part VII of the RCMP Act.

3C.4 In the course of these several telephone conversations, Mr. McFarlane, in addition to attempting to receive a copy of the report of Sergeant Holmberg, also requested that the Deputy Commissioner communicate with his lawyer for the purpose of arranging a meeting at which Mr. McFarlane would be interviewed with respect to his numerous complaints. Deputy Commissioner Wilson testified with respect to these two issues and confirmed that he had refused to call Mr. McFarlane's lawyer for the purposes of arranging an interview and that he had also refused to deliver to Mr. McFarlane a copy of Sergeant Holmberg's report. The evidence of the Deputy Commissioner was that he had already intervened to arrange a meeting between Mr. McFarlane and Superintendent Dellebuur in August and September of 1988 and that the subsequent requests for a meeting in January, 1989, were subsequent to the letter to Mr. McFarlane reporting upon the review of his complaints. It was acknowledged by the Deputy Commissioner that on February 13, 1989, he sent a further letter to Mr. McFarlane which was more specific with respect to the review of complaints. On the matter of the delivery of a copy of the report of Sergeant Holmberg, it was the evidence of the Deputy Commissioner that investigative reports are deemed confidential and are not made available to any person who is not authorized to have access to the information produced as a result of the investigation.

3C.5 The Commission finds that, based on the evidence adduced at the hearing with respect to these two complaints, Deputy Commissioner Wilson did not display an uncooperative attitude in his dealings with Mr. McFarlane. To the contrary, over the number of months in which Mr. McFarlane had direct communications with Deputy Commissioner Wilson, the Deputy Commissioner exercised his authority and discretion in a manner which was conducive to the resolution of the complaints made by Mr. McFarlane. The Commission further finds that once the Deputy Commissioner had complied with the procedures adopted by the RCMP to deal with complaints, and further procedures had been invoked under Part VII of the RCMP Act, it was neither his duty nor was it appropriate for him to engage in further meetings or discussions with Mr. McFarlane on those subjects. The Commission further finds that the delivery to Mr. McFarlane of the report of Sergeant Holmberg was not a duty imposed upon Deputy Commissioner Wilson by the RCMP Act, and to do so would be an improper use of investigative information.

3C.6 In the course of the evidence coming before the Commission with respect to a number of the complaints made by Mr. McFarlane, the Commission was made aware that, within "E" Division, some record was maintained which was referred to as a "chronic complainers list." It appeared from the testimony of a number of witnesses that this record was for the sole purpose of identifying persons who had made a number of complaints with respect to the conduct of RCMP members. During the testimony of Deputy Commissioner Wilson, it appeared to the Commission that he was unaware that such a record was maintained and did not consider that the maintenance of such records was appropriate. It is the Commission's recommendation that the Commissioner take steps to ensure that no such record is maintained by any of the Divisions of the RCMP and that any such record which may be in existence be destroyed.

3D COMPLAINT AGAINST CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT A. G. CLARKE

The Notice of Decision to Institute a Hearing dated December 8, 1989 specified the following complaint:

The complainant complains that Chief Superintendent Clarke, Divisional Administration and Personnel Officer for "E" Division Vancouver, British Columbia, attempted to intimidate Mr. McFarlane by having Sergeant Douglas of "E" Division attend at Mr. McFarlane's residence, 13 - 7460 Moffatt Road, Richmond, B.C., on the 2nd of March, 1989, and hand deliver a letter of acknowledgement of receipt of previously made complaints. The letter was dated seven days previous to the delivery and previous acknowledgements had been sent by mail.

This complaint was submitted orally by Mr. McFarlane to the Ottawa office of the RCMP Public Complaints Commission.

3D.1 Mr. McFarlane testified that in the morning of March 2, 1989, Sergeant W. R. Douglas came to his home to deliver a letter to Mr. McFarlane from Chief Superintendent A. G. Clarke acknowledging receipt of some modifications of a complaint previously filed by Mr. McFarlane. Mr. McFarlane had previously met Sergeant Douglas during a visit to the offices of RCMP "E" Division. Mr. McFarlane testified that he construed this Action to be an attempt on the part of Chief Superintendent Clarke to intimidate him because the letter was insignificant and did not require personal delivery, and because Sergeant Douglas was believed by Mr. McFarlane to be the officer in charge of Internal Affairs for "E" Division. It was Mr. McFarlane's conclusion that the selection of Sergeant Douglas to deliver an insignificant letter was for the purpose of intimidation.

3D.2 The Commission received the testimony of Sergeant Douglas with respect to this incident. It was his evidence that he was directed by Chief Superintendent Clarke to have the letter delivered and because of his knowledge of the area, he undertook to make the delivery himself. He testified that, in March of 1989, the provisions of Commissioner's Standing Orders required that documents with respect to public complaints be personally delivered, and only after two unsuccessful attempts had been made could the documents be sent by mail. This Standing Order has since been rescinded, and such communications are now sent by mail.

3D.3 The Commission finds that Mr. McFarlane misinterpreted the actions of Sergeant Douglas in delivering the letter, and the purpose in Chief Superintendent Clarke having the letter delivered personally. There is no evidence on which the Commission can find any attempt on the part of Chief Superintendent Clarke to intimidate Mr. McFarlane.

3D.4 In the course of delivering the letter to Mr. McFarlane, Sergeant Douglas, having made the delivery, remained at the doorway to Mr. McFarlane's residence in case Mr. McFarlane had any questions with respect to the letter. In so doing, he declined the invitation of Mr. McFarlane to step inside the residence and, as a consequence, a disputatious conversation ensued which became increasingly heated and loud. The Commission finds that nothing directly turns upon this incident with respect to this specific complaint, but in light of the sensitivity that surrounds the processing of public complaints, it appears to the Commission to be unwise for a member of the RCMP who may be associated with the investigation of a complaint to become involved in any discussions with a complainant which are not clearly identified as part of the investigation. It is recommended that every caution be taken to ensure that no activity on the part of a member of the RCMP in respect of a complainant is capable of being misconstrued and that any meeting be formally convened and the proceedings be recorded and made available to the complainant.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPENDIX II

March 22, 1991

Dr. Richard Gosse, Q.C.
Chairman
RCMP Public Complaints Commission
P.O. Box 3423
Station "D"
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 6L4

Dear Dr. Gosse:

I have reviewed your interim report of October 9, 1990, and material relevant to the public complaints of Mr. James A. McFarlane of Richmond, B.C., references 2000- PCC-88002/88054 and 88G-0534/1335.

Your conclusions have been examined and the following constitutes my notice of the action I will be taking on the findings and recommendations:

Complaint against Superintendent W.A. Dellehuur.

Finding 3A.8Finding 3A.8

Although this finding is technically correct, it is my judgment that both parties were responsible for the failure to address the subject matter of the complaint during the meeting of October 3, 1988. This meeting came to an abrupt end when Mr. McFarlane left and informed Supt. Dellebuur that he would take the matter to the Public Complaints Commission. While Supt. Dellebuur may have been in position to approach the issue with more patience and tenacity, both parties must accept responsibility for the failed attempt.

Finding 3A.8 (supplementary)

Recommendation 3A.9Recommendation 3A.9

Recommendation 3A.10Recommendation 3A.10

Although this recommendation is not directly related to the complaint, I will instruct the Director of Personnel to examine and review the issue of complaint investigations as an internal matter.

Recommendation 3A.11Recommendation 3A.11

Complaint against Sgt. K.J. HolmbergComplaint against Sgt. K.J. Holmberg

Finding 3B.4Finding 3B.4

I agree with this finding. Based on Sgt. Holmberg's own testimony, he made an unsupported and unjustified assessment of Mr. McFarlane's mental health.

Finding 3B.4Finding 3B.4

I share your finding that Sgt.Holmberg's letter of May 5, 1989, contained unsupported, unjustified, and unprofessional dissemination of his unqualified opinion.

Finding 3B.7Finding 3B.7

Although this finding is not directly related to the complaint, it is my view that the commissioner's Standing Order, as outlined in the Administration Manual I.4.C.5.e, does not address the giving of personal references that are negative in nature. I will, however, instruct the Director of Personnel to examine this particular policy, as an internal matter, in order to ensure the intent of this policy is clearly reflected.

Recommendation 3B.9Recommendation 3B.9

The Privacy Act provides for procedures by which an individual may seek correction of personal information in possession of government institutions. However, I accept your recommendation and will instruct the Director of Information Access to correct references relating to diagnoses made by Sgt. Holmberg. I will also instruct the Director of Information Access to point out to officials of the Department of Transport that their records may contain incorrect or erroneous material which relate to Mr. McFarlane and request the Department of Transport to take appropriate steps.

Recommendation 3B.10Recommendation 3B.10

Recommendation 3B.11Recommendation 3B.11

Recommendation 3B.12Recommendation 3B.12

Complaint against Deputy Commissioner D.K. Wilson.

Finding 3C.5Finding 3C.5

Recommendation 3C.6Recommendation 3C.6

Complaint against Chief Superintendent A.G. Clarke.

Finding 3D.3Finding 3D.3

I accept your finding that Mr. McFarlane misinterpreted the actions of Sgt. Douglas in delivering the letter and the purpose in Chief Superintendent Clarke having the letter delivered personally.

Finding 3D.4 and recommendation 3D.4Finding 3D.4 and recommendation 3D.4

In order to ensure that all matters addressed in this notice are given full and proper attention, I will personally monitor their ultimate resolution. Specific results of actions taken with respect to issues not directly related to complaints will be reported to the Minister.

I thank you for your advice. I look forward to receiving your final report.

Sincerely,

N.D. Inkster
Commissioner.

Date 91/03/22


	Date Created: 2003-08-11 Date Modified: 2006-03-02	Important Notices