Darell T. Rankin

Under subsection 45.43(1) of the RCMP Act the Commission Chairman, where he considers it advisable in the public interest, may institute a public hearing to inquire into a complaint whether or not it has been investigated or reported upon or dealt with by the Force. The Commission Chairman will then assign members of the Commission to conduct that hearing and those members will be considered the Commission for the purposes of the hearing. Section 45.45 of the Act sets out some of the rules governing the hearings such as that any person giving evidence at a hearing may be represented by counsel. When the hearing is completed, the Commission, that is, the members comprising the panel that conducted the hearing, will prepare an interim report setting out their findings and recommendations about the complaint and that report is sent to the Solicitor General of Canada, the RCMP Commissioner and to all parties and their counsel appearing at the hearing.

Upon receipt of the interim report, the RCMP Commissioner is required to review the complaint in light of the report's findings and recommendations. The Commissioner must then notify the Chairman of the Commission of any further action that has been or will be taken with respect to the complaint or his reasons for not acting on any of the findings or recommendations.

After considering the Commissioner's notice, the Chairman of the Commission will prepare a final report setting out such findings and recommendations with respect to the complaint as he sees fit. That report is sent to the Solicitor General of Canada, the RCMP Commissioner and to all parties and their counsel appearing at the hearing.

II. INTERIM REPORT

Interim Report and Commissioner's Notice

In the present case, the Interim Report dated October 24, 1993, setting out findings and recommendations, was sent to the Solicitor General and the Commissioner. The Commissioner gave notice of the action he would be taking in a letter to the Chairman dated December 9, 1993.

The present report is the Chairman's final report with respect to this complaint. It contains, as a background to any final findings and recommendations, the contents of the Interim Report, which includes a summary of the complaint, the Force's investigation of the complaint, the general observations, and the interim findings and recommendations. This Final Report also includes the Commissioner's letter of December 9, 1993.

III RCMP COMMISSIONER'S NOTICE

As stated under subsection 45.46(2) of the Act, the Commissioner forwarded the following notice to the Commission Chairman, the content thereof reads as follows:

I acknowledge receipt of the interim report of October 24, 1993, file references 2000-PCC-89060/89083, 89G-0443, and materials relevant to the complaint of Mr. Darell Rankin.

The conclusions have been examined and the following notice is provided pursuant to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

I concur with the findings. With respect to recommendations #1 to #5 inclusively, policy has been developed since 1989 addressing these recommendations.

Regarding recommendation #6, I am instructing that the Commanding Officer of "A" Division communicate with Mr. Rank in order to provide him with an explanation for the unfolding of the events of the day in question. He will inform Mr. Rankin of the need for controlling demonstrators and demonstrations during visits of a Head of State due to the need for greater security measures.

I disagree with recommendation #7. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for the infringement of certain rights when in the public interest. The Courts have supported the infringement of the right to demonstrate when the security of a dignitary may be compromised. In my opinion, a regulation is not required to bring any future decisions or actions of the RCMP during visits by Heads of State within section 1 of the Charter.

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

IV. CHAIRMAN'S FINAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The two-member Commission Hearing Panel that completed the hearing into this complaint presented a comprehensive Interim Report in this matter. The Panel members made findings and recommendations with respect to two complaints. I wish therefore, after having considered the Commissioner's Notice reproduced in Part III herein, to state my final conclusions and recommendations with respect to these complaints.

I have noted the opening statement of the Commissioner to the effect that he concurs with the findings of the Commission Panel.

I have also noted the Commissioner's indication that Recommendations # 1 to # 5 have already been addressed in policy that has been developed since 1989. I am quite pleased with this result which would seem to indicate a rapid response to Mr. Rankin's complaints dated February 1989.

In its sixth recommendation, the Commission Panel suggested that the RCMP issue "a formal apology to Mr. Rankin for not having contacted him in advance of the day of the President's visit and advising him of the restricted areas for such demonstration on that day". In reply to that recommendation, the Commissioner stated as follows:

Regarding recommendation #6, I am instructing that the Commanding Officer of "A" Division communicate with Mr. Rankin in order to provide him with an explanation for the unfolding of the events of the day in question. He will inform Mr. Rankin of the need for controlling demonstrators and demonstrations during visits of a Head of State due to the need for greater security measures.

I have nothing to add to the Commissioner's reply to that recommendation.

In a seventh recommendation, the Commission Panel suggested that the RCMP take the necessary steps that would lead to the promulgation of a regulation to bring any future decisions of the RCMP, in respect of limiting demonstrations during state visits, within section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Commissioner responded as follows:

I have reviewed the Commission Panel's analysis that leads to this recommendation. The Panel concluded that by wishing to apply the February 6 directive, which was not prescribed by law, or was not law in and of itself, Staff Sergeant Bergeron infringed Mr. Rankin's Charter rights. That conclusion was arrived at applying Chief Justice Lamer's conclusions in the Commonwealth of Canada case [1], as regards the specific distinction between internal government directives and government regulations with respect to the test under section 1 of the Charter. But the Commission Panel concluded, as well, that the Directive imposing the restriction on the right to demonstrate was a proper and reasonable security measure taken in order to protect a visiting Head of State.

1. Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v. Canada. [1991] 1 S.C.R. 139.4

In reaching that conclusion, the Commission Panel appears to have been swayed by two factors. The first one being the hypothesis of 1000 lone demonstrators at different locations along the route of the President's motorcade, which would result in a security nightmare; and the second, the case law which is analyzed at page 27 of its report. In that latter regard, the Commission Panel states quite clearly that it considers that case law to be relevant to the case before it.

If that is the case, then, why would the Commission Panel recommend the promulgation of a regulation so as to bring any future action limiting demonstrations within section 1 of the Charter? Stated another way, if the February 6 directive was proper - and thus, presumably, prescribed by law - why recommend the promulgation of a regulation to bring future similar police action within section 1 of the Charter?

In my view, the answer to these questions lies in the case law that was analyzed by the Commission Panel. We must accept as a legal proposition that the word "law" as found in the expression "by law" in section 1 of the Charter includes not only statutes or regulations but, as well, the Common Law or case law. Thus, the Commission Panel must have found "law," in the case law it analyzed, sufficient to make it conclude that the police action in issuing its February 6 directive was proper, and therefore lawful.

Having reviewed that case law, I now have a better understanding of the Commission Panel's recommendation. It is trite to point out at the outset that, generally, court decisions tend to refer to very specific facts.

The Abbey and Stapleton case [2] is certainly authority for the proposition that the police act correctly when they arrest an individual who participates in a demonstration, at the doorway of a room where the Prime Minister of Canada is expected to give a speech, and is seen to be hiding something inside her coat, which she refuses to show to a police officer upon request to do so. Therefore any allegation that the individual's Charter rights, under paragraph 2(b), may have been unlawfully restricted is not sustainable. True, the rights were restricted but this restriction was "a reasonable limit prescribed by law," that is to say, the Criminal Code which permits a police officer to arrest someone who is obstructing the duties of a peace officer.

2. Unreported, B.C. Supreme Court SC 9613, January 21, 1991, maintained in the B.C. Court of Appeal CA 13571, November 23, 1992. Erroneously identified as being from New Brunswick's Court of Queen's Bench in the Interim Report.5

In Murphy, Keating and Boudreau [3], the police arrested a demonstrator who, the Court determined, had more then merely demonstrated, but had been a participant in a riot. Thus, here again, any restriction to his Charter rights was viewed as a reasonable limit prescribed by law, i.e., the provisions of the Criminal Code authorizing a police officer to arrest a participant in a riot.

The Knowlton case [4] can be said to stand for the proposition that an individual who refuses to abide by a police order not to cross a cordoned area in which the head of a foreign government was to appear, may be arrested for obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty. Here, there was no question of the application of the Charter since the incidents took place more than 10 years before its advent. But the Commission Panel concluded that, since the case dealt with an individual who attempted to cross an established security parameter, it was significant to the case involving Mr. Rankin, who wished to demonstrate along the President's motorcade route that had been designated, save for one location, as a non-demonstration area.

I have read that case and I believe it would be useful, for the present discussion, to quote a passage at page 447 of the judgment:

According to the principles which, for the preservation of peace and prevention of crime, underlie the provisions of s. 30, amongst others, of the Criminal Code, these official authorities were not only entitled but in duty bound, as peace officers, to prevent a renewal of a like criminal assault on the person of Premier Kosygin during his official visit in Canada. In this respect, they had a specific and binding obligation to take proper and reasonable steps. The restriction of the right of free access of the public to public streets, at the strategic point mentioned above, was one of the steps - not an unusual one - which police authorities considered and adopted as necessary for the attainment of the purpose aforesaid. In my opinion, such conduct of the police was clearly falling within the general scope of the duties imposed upon them.

(emphasis added)

I have to come to the view that, while the Knowlton case may be said to be authority for the proposition that police may certainly cordon off a strategic point where an important state visitor will make an appearance, that case may not resolve the question of whether the police may cordon off a motorcade route of eight to ten kilometres long, save for one specific area.

3. Unreported, New Brunswick 's Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, M/C/861/88, January 29, 1992.

4. Knowlton v. The Queen [1974] S.C.R. 443.

5. At page 445 of the judgment, the strategic point is described as follows:" ... an area in front of the entrance of the hotel [the Chateau Lacombe] which included part of the side walk on the south side of MacDonald Drive."

The question we must ask ourselves is whether the cordoning off of such a large area by way of the directive of February 6 can be said to have been "prescribed by law," that is to say, the case law alluded to above?

In my view, the Commission Panel members were ready to answer that question in the affirmative. Yet they were not entirely convinced that they were connected, as can be verified by the language in their recommendation:

... that the RCMP take the necessary steps that will lead to the promulgation of a regulation that would, without doubt bring any future decisions or actions of the RCMP in respect of limiting demonstrations during visits by Heads of State, within section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

(emphasis added)

The words "without doubt" are significant

What the Panel was in effect recommending, in my estimation, is that the RCMP have the matter examined by its legal counsel with a view to ensuring that, when they next consider issuing a directive similar to that of February 6, they be on solid foundation in terms of section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That solid foundation being a clear regulation in respect to limiting demonstrations during visits by Heads of State. If I am right in that assumption, then, I consider that the recommendation of the Commission Panel was a wise one and I would invite the Commissioner to reconsider it in that light.

Chairman

March 2, 1994

Jean-Pierre Beaulne, Q.C.
Chairman
RCMP Public Complaints Commission
P.O. Box 3423, Station "D"
Ottawa, Ontario
K1P 6L4

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

APPENDIX I

Part VII

Subsection 45.45(14)

COMMISSION INTERIM REPORT

Following a Public Hearing

Into the Complaints

Darell T. Rankin

PANEL

Gina S. Brannan, Q.C.

Gisèle Côté-Harper, Q.C.

October 24, 1993

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

October 24, 1993

TO: THE HONOURABLE DOUGLAS G. LEWIS, P.C., MINISTER DESIGNATE OF PUBLIC SECURITY

TO: COMMISSIONER NORMAN INKSTER, ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE

The undersigned were appointed on December 8, 1989 by Richard Gosse, the then Chairman of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Public Complaints Commission, pursuant to the authority vested in him under Part VII of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, to conduct a public hearing to inquire into the complaints of Darell T. Rankin.

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,

Gina S. Brennan, Q.C.

Gisèle Côté-Harper, c.r.

I. HEARING PROCESS

By Notice of Decision to Institute a Hearing and Assignment of Hearing Members dated December 8, 1989, Richard Gosse, the then Chairman of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Complaints Commission ("the Commission"), instituted hearings to inquire into two complaints by Darell T. Rankin in accordance with the authority contained in subsection 45.43(1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act (the "RCMP Act"). By that Notice, Richard Gosse assigned Mr. Graeme T. Haig, Q.C., Ms. Gisèle Côté-Harper, Q.C., and Ms. Gina S. Brannan, Q.C. as members of the Commission to conduct hearings in accordance with the authority contained in subsection 45.44(1) of the RCMP Act. Hearings are conducted pursuant to section 45.45 of the RCMP Act.

In the Notice of Decision, the then Chairman identified the following persons as parties:

Darell T. Rankin; the Complainant; and

Staff Sergeant J.P.R. Bergeron, RCMP "A" Division, Ottawa.

Pursuant to subsection 45.45(5) of the RCMP Act the Royal Canadian Mounted Police ("the RCMP") was also afforded status as a party to this hearing.

The hearings took place in Ottawa on April 11 and 12, 1990; May 22 and 23, 1990; and January 18 and 19, 1993.

All three members of the Commission presided at the hearings held in April and May, 1990. Mr. Graeme T. Haig presided as Chairman of the Commission Panel.

In the course of its hearings on May 22 and 23, 1990, the Commission issued an Order to the RCMP that it bring forth for inspection the following documents:

(a) File No. P.O.B. - 200 - an RCMP intelligence file;

(b) RCMP intelligence file referred to in the testimony of Sergeant Angelo Fiore of the Ottawa City Police Force; and

The RCMP objected to the disclosure of the above information on the grounds of a specified public interest pursuant to subsection 37(1) of the Canada Evidence Act.

At the request of the Commission, the RCMP filed a Certificate of Objection on the basis that the disclosure of the information would be injurious to the public interest, namely, the sound and effective functioning of the RCMP and of other police and security forces in Canada in the conduct of criminal investigations and the implementation of criminal law. The RCMP also added that some documents it was ordered to bring forth contained information, the disclosure of which would be injurious to the national security of Canada and international relations.

The Commission subsequently filed an application pursuant to section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act in order to have the Federal Court determine the validity of the objection.

This application was heard by Mr. Justice Denault on September 25, 1990. The decision of the Federal Court was rendered on October 9, 1990. See Rankin (Re) [1991] 1 F.C. 226.

The Court first concluded that the Commission's application was inappropriate. Referring to a certain line of cases, the Court concluded that the Commission was under the obligation to be, and appear to be, impartial as a quasi-judicial body; it was therefore inappropriate for the Commission to take the initiative of making the application to the Federal Court.

However, because such a position would be less than useful to the parties in terms of the question they wished to have resolved, the Court decided to look at the merits of the issue. It weighed the competing interests in disclosure and non-disclosure in order to decide whether to maintain the Certificate of Objection. This meant inquiring into whether one of the parties, the complainant, would be prejudiced by a denial of access to the documents requested. The Court concluded that the public interest did not require disclosure. It also concluded that the public interest would be ill served if sensitive material were disclosed when it was not crucial to findings of fact that the Commission would be called upon to make.

The Commission decided to appeal the Judgment to the Federal Court of Appeal. One of the grounds of appeal was that the Court misdirected itself in concluding as it did. The Commission had made its application to the Court for the very purpose of finding out whether it had jurisdiction to hear the evidence in question. The Commission, it seemed, was therefore properly before the Court based on the very case law relied upon by the Court.

On appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the conclusion of Mr. Justice Denault on the appropriateness of the Commission's application to the Court was in the nature of obiter dictum. It therefore refused to deal any further with that aspect of the question. However, since Mr. Justice Denault had in fact dealt with the merits of the case, The Court of Appeal, on reviewing the merits, confirmed the disposition of Mr. Justice Denault and concluded that he had properly understood and applied the provisions of sections 37 and 38 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The hearing of the Commission reconvened on January 18 and 19, 1993, in Ottawa with Ms. Gisèle Côté-Harper, Q.C., and Ms. Gina S. Brannan, Q.C., presiding. It should be explained that by way of a document entitled "Determination" dated September 15, 1992, Mr. Graeme Haig, Q.C., concluded that he was no longer able to continue hearing the case by reason of his health. In consultation with both Ms. Côté-Harper and Ms. Brannan, it was determined that the hearing should continue without Mr. Haig's participation on the condition that the parties to this hearing were all in agreement with the Commission Panel proceeding in that fashion. The parties signified their acquiescence, in writing, to the hearing continuing with Ms. Côté-Harper and Ms. Brannan presiding.

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

- for the Commission, Mr. Simon Noël, Q.C.;

- for Mr. Darell T. Rankin, Ms. Elizabeth Thomas;

- for Staff Sergeant Raymond Bergeron, Mr. Richard Mongeau; and

- for the RCMP, Mr. André Morin and Mr. Mark McCombs.

The Commission acknowledges the support services of:

- Mr. Normand Philippe, Clerk Registrar

II. EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE COMPLAINTS

Mr. Darell Rankin is a Canadian citizen and, at the relevant time, was a member of the Ottawa Disarmament Coalition Group ("the Coalition"). He had been a member since 1982. He explained that the objects of the Coalition are to foster processes that will lead to world disarmament and promote policies supporting peace. It is a non-profit organization. The group is funded through the efforts of its members and supportive individuals in the city of Ottawa.

Since 1982, Mr. Rankin had participated in or helped organize a few dozen demonstrations. His work for the Coalition is not full time. He is, however, hired by the Coalition to do some work on a part-time basis. Mr. Rankin carries out contract work for various other organizations and also takes on odd jobs in the construction industry.

In January 1989, the Coordinating Committee of the Coalition heard about President Bush's visit to Ottawa. The Coalition thereafter decided to demonstrate during the President's visit. Mr. Rankin was then mandated to do what was necessary to organize the demonstration.

Mr. Rankin called the Prime Minister's Office ("the PMO") in order to make inquiries about the itinerary for the presidential visit. A member of the PMO staff gave Mr. Rankin the President's arrival time and the route leading to the meeting place that day. With that information in hand, the complainant and his group chose to demonstrate in front of the Lester B. Pearson building on Sussex Drive from approximately 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

Mr. Rankin phoned the RCMP and spoke with Inspector Bradford, who was apparently the person responsible for security during President Bush's visit. He informed him of the possibility of his group's participating in a march down Sussex Drive. Inspector Bradford informed him that he was not sure how far the march could proceed on Sussex Drive. Mr. Rankin said that he would advise Inspector Bradford if the group decided to proceed with the march.

Some time later, Mr. Rankin was called by Sergeant Hammell of the Ottawa City Police. Sergeant Hammell suggested to Mr. Rankin that he obtain a permit from the Transportation Department of the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton ("RMOC"). Mr. Rankin proceeded to obtain such a permit.

Mr. Rankin identified, before the Commission, a letter dated February 7, 1989, that had been handed to him by Mr. Ted Yabsley from the RMOC. The letter was addressed to Mr. Rankin and was signed by Mr. J.E. Sheflin, the Transportation Commissioner of the RMOC.

It is useful for our purposes to replicate, for the most part, the letter in question:

Please be advised that approval is hereby granted for your group to conduct a demonstration on the Regional right-of-way subject to the following conditions:

a. The demonstration shall commence at 10:00 a.m. and shall terminate at 2:00 p.m. on Friday, 10 February 1989.

b. The demonstration shall be restricted to Sussex Drive in the vicinity of the External Affairs building.

c. No sound amplification equipment or equipment such as loudhailers, etc., shall be permitted.

d. All signs carried by your group shall be made of cardboard and supported by cardboard or softwood supports no larger than one inch by one and one-half inches (1" x 1-1/2").

e. The demonstration shall continually keep moving on the sidewalk only and shall not interfere with the passage of pedestrians.

j: Police supervision must be secured for this event. In this regard please call the Chief of Police of the Ottawa Police Force at 236-0311 to make the necessary arrangements.

The Statement of Indemnification has been signed and is satisfactory.

If this Department can be of further assistance please contact Mr. Ted Yabsley at 560-1253.

Yours truly,

As part of this demonstration, Mr. Rankin had prepared a banner that consisted of six white bed sheets. When strung together, one could read the message "GEORGE TAKE YOUR MISSILES HOME." The banner measured approximately twenty-five feet by five feet.

On February 10, 1989, Mr. Rankin arrived at the Lester B. Pearson building on Sussex Drive, at approximately 10:30 a.m. After having parked his car, he proceeded to the front of the building, where he looked for other participants. Not finding any other participants, he then crossed Sussex Drive (across from the Lester B. Pearson Building) and on an embankment proceeded to assemble the banner.

Once on the site chosen, he proceeded to lay out the bed sheets and to string them together with safety pins. While he was doing so, an RCMP police vehicle pulled up in front of him on Sussex Drive. The driver of the vehicle asked Mr. Rankin what he was doing. Mr. Rankin informed him that he was intending to hold his banner up while the President's motorcade passed by. He told the police officer he was expecting a group to join him. The officer explained that he would not be able to go through with his plan. Mr. Rankin replied that he had a permit and that he had spoken to Mr. Bradford from the RCMP, who had indicated to him that there would be no problem in regards to the demonstration. Furthermore, he had followed all the proper procedures in obtaining permission to hold a demonstration at this location at this time.

The police officer ordered Mr. Rankin in a firm way to fold his banner and move to a different location. Mr. Rankin, who was unhappy about this situation, requested to speak to Mr. Bradford. He was concerned that the order being given by the police officer might not be a proper one.

The RCMP member advised Mr. Rankin that he would confiscate the banner if he did not fold it. The member apparently started bundling the banner and then stopped. He returned to his patrol car to use his radio.

At some point (and it is not particularly clear at what point this occurred), Mr. Rankin showed the member the permit he had received from the RMOC. The member then wrote down some details from it in his notebook. The permit had been retrieved from a briefcase that was situated next to the banner on the ground.

Having finished his conversation on the radio, the member left his vehicle and walked directly towards Mr. Rankin, and there then ensued a number of incidents, which Mr. Rankin complained about.

For the purpose of clarity, the member involved in the incident that led to this complaint was later identified as Staff Sergeant Raymond Bergeron.

III. THE COMPLAINTS OF DARELL T. RANKIN

(A) Complaint File No. 2000-PCC-61050

On February 10, 1989, Mr. Rankin contacted the Commission and complained that:

On February 10, 1989, at or near the City of Ottawa, province of Ontario, "A" Division RCMP Member Raymond Bergeron used excessive force against Mr. Rankin, a member of the Ottawa Disarmament Coalition, who was involved in a demonstration protesting cruise missile testing in Canada. The excessive force complained of is that he was pressed up against an RCMP vehicle and his arm was twisted behind his back.

The demonstration took place rn front of the External Affairs Department at 125 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, during the visit of American President George Bush, whose motorcade drove by that location. This excessive use of force caused great embarrassment to Mr. Rankin.

The Evidence

Evidence of Mr. Rankin

Mr. Rankin states that the member, after having exited his vehicle following a radio communication, walked directly towards him, grabbed hold of one of his arms and twisted it behind his back. Some two or three steps may have been taken towards the car before Mr. Rankin was pressed against the car. Mr. Rankin stated that his top torso was actually bent over the trunk of the car. He felt no pain. At that point, the President's motorcade appeared over the horizon and eventually drove by about twenty feet away from the police cruiser.

After a few cars had passed by, Mr. Rankin was taken away from the side of the car and was, according to him, forced to enter the police vehicle. The door was opened for him and while his arm was being twisted behind his back, he stated, he was forced to enter the car and sit in the back seat. After the motorcade had completely gone by, the door of the police vehicle was opened and the member allowed Mr. Rankin out of the police vehicle.

Mr. Rankin then insisted on obtaining the member's badge number, feeling that he had been treated wrongly and therefore intending to complain about this matter. During his conversation with Staff Sergeant Bergeron, another police vehicle arrived at the scene as well as a T.V. camera crew. Mr. Rankin could not remember whether the other police vehicle belonged to the RCMP or the Ottawa Police. He did speak, however, to the other police officer about his displeasure in being detained by Staff Sergeant Bergeron.

Although Mr. Rankin stated that he advised the member, prior to the passing of the motorcade, that he had a permit to demonstrate in this location, he could not recall with any certainty at what point in time he showed this permit to the member.

In cross-examination Mr. Rankin specified that he had not initiated a conversation with the camera crew nor did he recall if they asked him any questions.

Evidence of Staff Sergeant Raymond Bergeron

Staff Sergeant Bergeron stated that he had taken courses on crowd control and that he had been a member of a group of body guards for the Prime Minister of Canada at the time of the FLQ crisis. During these courses he had studied the subject of crowd psychology and the way to conduct himself with demonstrators and dignitaries.

On the day of President Bush's visit, his role was to supervise Sussex Drive starting from Colonel By Drive all the way to 24 Sussex Drive, the residence of the Prime Minister of Canada.

He gave evidence in respect of a meeting that took place on February 6th in the Ottawa Police Headquarters. The meeting was chaired by Inspector Jim Carroll. At this meeting it was determined that the only area where demonstrations would be allowed would be at the corner of Sussex Drive and Alexander Street. Alexander Street is almost directly in front of the Prime Minister's residence.

While driving his car on Sussex Drive, on February 10th, Staff Sergeant Bergeron stopped his vehicle in front of an individual who was standing on the north side of the street with something next to him on the ground. He exited his vehicle, went towards the gentleman, said hello and asked him what he was planning on doing. The gentleman informed him that it was his intent to display a banner for the President to see when driving by. Staff Sergeant Bergeron advised Mr. Rankin that he could not demonstrate in that particular area. He further advised Mr. Rankin that there was a reserved area for the demonstrations at the corner of Alexander Street and Sussex Drive.

The individual, unknown to him at the time, indicated that he had a demonstration permit. Staff Sergeant Bergeron asked to see the permit. Then the individual, being a little upset, stated: "I will demonstrate at this location; I'm in a free country, you are not going to move me out of here." The permit was not produced. Had one been produced, Staff Sergeant Bergeron, as per his instructions, would have called the "Quick Response Team," which takes care of cases that are out of the ordinary. The team would have made sure that nothing happened to that demonstrator, and would have prevented any embarrassing situation caused by the individual. [1] But, be that as it may, Mr. Rankin was again informed that he could not conduct a demonstration in that particular place and that the only area where he could demonstrate was at the corner of Alexander Street and Sussex Drive. The member offered to drive him there. He invited him to fold his banner right away because he could not be allowed to demonstrate at that site. At this point, Mr. Rankin started using insulting words, adding that he would not fold his banner. Staff Sergeant Bergeron decided that he would fold the banner. Mr. Rankin objected by grabbing the member's arm. The motorcade was fast approaching and it was at this point that Staff Sergeant Bergeron formed the opinion that Mr. Rankin might decide to run towards the motorcade.

1. Further on during his questioning by Mr. Noël, Staff Sergeant Bergeron stated again, at p. 257 of the transcript, as to how he would have reacted had he been shown the permit prior to intervening as he did:

A ce moment-là le monsieur aurait déjà été enregistré, il aurait dejà été connu, j'aurais su son nom, j'aurais su les conditions de son permis. A ce moment-là j'aurais feit venir une equipe. Je n'aurais pas nécessairement dit: Ecoute, t'es pas au bon endroit-- ou ces choses-là, selon son permis. Mais etant donné que le permis semblait -. je ne l'avais pas vu à ce moment-là, mais à ce moment-là j'aurais amen6 des hommes tout simplement pour faire sur que - - pour prévenir. Etant donné que cela n'a pas arrivé, c'est moi-même qui a fallu qui le fasse, etant donné qu'il m'a accroché par le bras.

Staff Sergeant Bergeron described his taking hold of Mr. Rankin as follows. After Mr. Rankin grabbed his arm when he was about to fold the banner, he saw that the motorcade was fast coming and took hold of Mr. Rankin's arm using two fingers, moving him towards the vehicle next to the trunk. He then grabbed both his arms and put them just above the right buttock. He was then held against the car until the motorcade had gone by.

Once the motorcade had gone by, a T.V. camera crew arrived on the scene. Mr. Rankin did something that prompted the officer to say: "Are you trying to make a scene because they (the media) are coming over?" While opening the door of the car, he said,".. why don't you have a seat and give me your identification." He sat down. The man had no piece of identification. However, he indicated he had a demonstration permit, which he later retrieved from a briefcase or a bag next to where the banner had been left on the ground.

Staff Sergeant Bergeron then contacted Staff Sergeant Farnham by radio to indicate that Mr. Rankin had a permit to demonstrate. Staff Sergeant Farnham confirmed that no demonstration could take place in that area, and this was then communicated by Staff Sergeant Bergeron to Mr. Rankin. Staff Sergeant Bergeron then suggested that they drive to where Mr. Bradford was situated to discuss the situation.

During further examination Staff Sergeant Bergeron indicated that Mr. Rankin was never placed under arrest. According to the officer, Mr. Rankin never complained of having any pain. The officer maintains that he never pressed Mr. Rankin against the trunk of the car. Staff Sergeant Bergeron admitted to not having stopped demonstrations by people who did not have permits to demonstrate. To a question put by counsel as to whether there was any security threat posed by Mr. Rankin standing there with his sheets on the ground, he responded: "Absolument pas."

Evidence of Mr. Patrick Dunn

Mr. Patrick Dunn, the Ground Supervisor for the British High Commission, was at the south entrance of the External Affairs building when the incident between Mr. Rankin and Staff Sergeant Bergeron took place. He had first walked to the northern entrance where he saw Mr. Rankin, whom he advised, after having just spoken to a City Police Officer, that they were not supposed to be on the street. Mr. Rankin advised him that he had a permit and then proceeded to the spot where he eventually was joined by a police officer. Mr. Dunn then noticed that there was some kind of discussion going on.

Then, within a very short period of time, Mr Dunn saw a real flurry of activity. He saw an RCMP officer "ripping" the cloth out of Mr. Rankin's hands. The door of the police car was then opened and Mr. Rankin was put in the car. Mr. Dunn noticed some force being exerted on Mr. Rankin but nothing that would injure him. In Mr. Dunn's view, Mr. Rankin had been shoved and then put into the car.

Mr. Dunn repeated, in cross-examination, that he had a very good view of the incident. At no time did he see Mr. Rankin touching the police officer, at least from his vantage point. He described the taking of Mr. Rankin to the police vehicle as a forced come-along.

Evidence of Mr. Allan Stephens

The Commission then heard from Allan Stephens, a cameraman for the CTV National News. He arrived with the rest of the crew and they positioned themselves on the grounds of the External Affairs Building. They did so because there were two groups of protesters: one was protesting against acid rain and the other group was opposed to cruise missile testing. At one point, journalist Kevin Newman, who was also with them, drew their attention to an incident across the street. They therefore ran quickly to the NRC lawn where the incident was taking place.

Mr. Stephens reported seeing Mr. Rankin holding a banner that was folded up. The officer was trying to question Mr. Rankin, who was talking loudly although not yelling. The officer then grabbed Mr. Rankin and escorted him over to the car and placed him in the back of the police vehicle. Mr. Stephens could not hear what the officer and Mr. Rankin were talking about. In his view, the officer's hold on Mr. Rankin, while firm, was not in any way violent. Mr. Rankin was placed in the back seat of the police vehicle. Mr. Stephens went across the street in front of External Affairs to film the motorcade. After the motorcade had passed by, he saw that the incident involving Mr. Rankin was still going on. He crossed the street a second time and witnessed further conversation between Mr. Rankin and the officer. In his opinion the conversation was civilized and was about going to see a superior officer in a different location.

During further questioning Mr. Stephens indicated that the officer had held his hand on Mr. Rankin prior to seating him in the back seat of the police vehicle. In Mr. Stephens view, it was the arm that was being held by the police officer. As he described it: "It was an escort. The officer was obviously escorting Mr. Rankin to the car. It wasn't a push. It was a continual motion."

Mr. Stephens, who was about ten feet away from the scene, remembered Mr. Rankin saying he had a permit and going to his bag on the ground to get out a folded piece of paper which he displayed to the officer and then put back into the side pocket. Mr. Stephens does not recall any reaction by the police officer on seeing the piece of paper. It was Mr. Stephens' recollection that this exchange took place prior to Mr. Rankin's being taken to the police car.

Evidence of Mr. Robert Philips

The Commission next heard from Mr. Robert Philips, who works at External Affairs and who was on the third floor of the building some ten or fifteen minutes before the President's motorcade was to arrive. From his vantage point (he was about 500 feet from the incident) he saw a police cruiser coming up Sussex Drive and stop. Its driver approached Mr. Rankin. He noticed an exchange of words between the two and then saw Mr. Rankin being led away by the arm in the direction of the cruiser. He was put in the back seat of the car and the door was closed. Just after the motorcade had gone by, the door was opened and Mr. Rankin was let out.

He believes that Mr. Rankin was grabbed by the elbow and led to the cruiser. He described Mr. Rankin as being upset (judging from his body language) prior to being led to the police car. Mr. Philips came forward as a witness after being handed a flyer that had been circulated in the Department of External Affairs. The flyer headlined "Witnesses! Witnesses!" and invited individuals who might have witnessed the incident to volunteer information as to what they had seen. The flyer contained Darell Rankin's name and a telephone number.

Evidence of Kevin Newman

CTV newscaster Kevin Newman was also questioned. He was about one hundred yards away from the scene of this incident. He could not hear the conversation but noticed that the protester appeared agitated or angry. He then turned his attention to the motorcade and came back to the scene, where he noticed that the demonstrator was being held against the police cruiser with the officer behind him; he then recalled the protester being placed into the police cruiser and the motorcade going by shortly thereafter.

Mr. Newman stated that he did not see any use of excessive force during the incident. He interviewed Mr. Rankin after the incident. Mr. Rankin appeared agitated. The nature of his comments were, to a large extent, that he had a right to protest and that he had a document that gave him that right. To a question put by Mr. Mongeau as to whether he had seen the licence or the permit, Mr. Newman stated that he never actually read it but he had a recollection of a piece of paper "but whether it was a permit or licence I don't know."

Evidence of Sergeant Angelo Fiore

Sergeant Angelo Fiore, a member of the City of Ottawa Police was also questioned. Sergeant Fiore and his partner, Constable Lamarche, an RCMP member, were travelling in a police car when, at one point, they observed "an RCMP cruiser and an RCMP officer stopped." Sergeant Fiore saw a large banner on the grass area about fifteen to twenty feet north of the sidewalk. He could not recall if it was partially up or down. It was quite large and very noticeable. At that point, he noticed that the member and the individual were involved in a loud exchange of words. He stopped his vehicle for approximately forty-five seconds to a minute to allow his partner to take photographs. It was not a hostile situation, so they continued on their way.

A little further on, they decided to make a "U" turn and come back to the scene. The discussion was still going on between the member and the individual. Photographs were again taken by his RCMP partner. The situation appeared calmer. They again left to come back after the motorcade had gone by.

Sergeant Fiore noticed that there was a demonstration ongoing on the south side of Sussex Drive, with other demonstrators being interviewed by the media.

Evidence of Corporal Joseph Laurent Claude Daviault

Corporal Joseph Laurent Claude Daviault, a member of the RCMP, was also examined. He had been asked by Staff Sergeant Farnham, also of the RCMP, to watch for President Bush's motorcade. He had parked his vehicle in front of a partition that divides a common entrance to the offices of the British High Commission and a parking lot at the back of the National Research Council. His vehicle was therefore perpendicular to Sussex Drive and positioned on the same side as the complainant. Corporal Daviault was about two hundred feet from the location of the incident in question.

Corporal Daviault noticed a police vehicle come to a stop in front of the demonstrator. The officer exited the vehicle and approached the demonstrator. He could see that the demonstrator was upset. He saw him pointing to the white bundle on the ground. Later on, the police officer, holding the demonstrator's left hand, proceeded towards the police cruiser parked by the sidewalk on Sussex Drive. Corporal Daviault then turned his attention to the motorcade and, when it had reached the External Affairs Building entrance, he observed the demonstrator beside the police cruiser with the police officer. Corporal Daviault said he noticed the demonstrator's upper chest was against the back door of the police cruiser.

Evidence of Mr. Robert Lamarche

Mr. Robert Lamarche, who was, at the relevant time, a Constable in the RCMP, also gave evidence.

On the day of the visit of President Bush he had been instructed to attend the demonstration of the Marxist Leninist Group. His role, along with Sergeant Fiore, was to circulate in crowds and attempt to identify the demonstrators.

He remembers that, at around 11:00 a.m., in front of the Lester B. Pearson Building, on the south side of Sussex Drive, there were a number of demonstrators. He was charged with the responsibility of taking photographs of the demonstrators. While he was doing just that, he observed, on the other side of the street, Staff Sergeant Bergeron having a discussion with an individual next to a large size banner that had been set up. He noticed that Staff Sergeant Bergeron and the other individual were arguing and that, at one point, Staff Sergeant Bergeron removed the banner and threw it on the ground. Mr. Lamarche took a few photographs. Mr. Lamarche indicated that he moved his vehicle right behind that of Staff Sergeant Bergeron's and took a number of close-up shots of the demonstrator.

While he was doing that, he was, from time to time, looking over to the other side where there were other demonstrators in front of the External Affairs Building. When he heard the motorcade arrive, he and Sergeant Fiore left the premises. He took about two films of thirty-six exposures each. Apparently he had problems unwinding both films. The films were handed to Corporal Fink who, having processed them some time later, indicated to Mr. Lamarche that the films had been over-exposed.

During cross-examination, Mr. Lamarche indicated that there were about twenty individuals participating in the demonstration on the other side of the street at the same time that he saw the incident between Staff Sergeant Bergeron and Mr. Rankin. In his view, Staff Sergeant Bergeron and Mr. Rankin were having a discussion, possibly even arguing. Mr. Lamarche specified that of the seventy-two pictures he took, about fifteen were devoted to the incident involving Mr. Rankin and Staff Sergeant Bergeron.

During his testimony, Mr. Lamarche alluded to a telex he had been given at the beginning of the day, which indicated that a group headed by Mr. Rankin would be demonstrating on that day. He was to watch over that demonstration. A copy of the telex was filed as Exhibit 24.

Evidence of Staff Sergeant Robert Farnham

Although the evidence of Staff Sergeant Robert Farnham has been considered in greater detail in respect of the second complaint, the Commission is of the view that it is important to understand his involvement on the day of the incident in question.

Staff Sergeant Farnham stated that on the morning of the motorcade, he was driving a marked RCMP cruiser in the company of Inspector Jim Carroll of the Ottawa Police as well as some Ontario Provincial Police officers. He arrived on the scene of the incident involving Staff Sergeant Bergeron and the demonstrator and asked the officer if everything was under control. Staff Sergeant Bergeron said to him: "We have a demonstrator here; can he demonstrate?" "No," was Staff Sergeant Farnham's reply, "take him to the area. He further indicated that he had earlier mentioned to Staff Sergeant Bergeron, over the radio, that Mr. Rankin could not demonstrate there. He also told Staff Sergeant Bergeron to offer the man a ride to the demonstration area at Alexander Street and Sussex Drive.

Discussion of Evidence - Permit

When considering the member's response to Mr. Rankin's refusal to move to the demonstration area, it is important to consider the evidence as to when Mr. Rankin produced the RMOC permit to Staff Sergeant Bergeron.

In examination-in-chief, Mr. Rankin was not absolutely certain as to when he showed the permit to Staff Sergeant Bergeron. During cross-examination, Mr. Rankin attempted to be more certain in respect of the timing; however, his testimony became somewhat muddled. The Commission does not view Mr. Rankin's evidence in this regard as reliable.

Mr. Stephens, the CTV cameraman, gave evidence that Mr. Rankin showed Staff Sergeant Bergeron the permit before being taken to the police cruiser. He recalls that the permit was retrieved from a briefcase on the ground. Mr. Stephens ran across Sussex Avenue at least three times. His responsibility was to film the Presidential motorcade and the activities occurring in the vicinity of the Lester B. Pearson Building. Given Mr. Stephens' responsibilities on that day, the Commission is of the view that it cannot totally rely upon Mr. Stephens' evidence. It was the feeling of the Commission that Mr. Stephens' capacity to recall the incident was affected by his responsibilities on the day in question.

Staff Sergeant Bergeron gave his evidence as to when he first saw the RMOC permit, in a straightforward manner. He did not hesitate in his answers. He was certain that the first time he saw the RMOC permit was when Mr. Rankin retrieved the permit from his briefcase after the motorcade had passed.

The Commission was impressed with Staff Sergeant Bergeron's careful attempts to be fair and reasonable in what he had to say. Although this may not be readily evident from the written words contained in the transcripts, the actual capacity to listen and measure the witnesses' ability was certainly an important factor in the Commission's decision to prefer Staff Sergeant Bergeron's evidence in respect of the timing of the showing of the RMOC permit.

Findings - Complaint File No. 2000-PCC-81050

Having regard to the evidence described above, the Commission panel finds as follows:

1. Mr. Rankin had obtained a demonstration permit from the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and, by virtue of the wording in the permit, he was satisfied that he could demonstrate on the north side of Sussex Drive in front of the External Affairs Building between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Indeed, the wording in paragraph "b" of the permit describes the area of the demonstration as "in the vicinity of the External Affairs Building." In the opinion of the Commission this can reasonably be interpreted as including the south side of Sussex Drive facing the External Affairs building.

2. Staff Sergeant Bergeron participated at a meeting on February 6th at the Ottawa Police Headquarters, where it was decided that demonstrators would be allowed to demonstrate in only one area along the route of the motorcade, that is to say, at the corner of Alexander Street and Sussex Drive.

3. When confronted by Staff Sergeant Bergeron, the complainant, Mr. Rankin, refused to abide by his order to move to the official demonstration area. However, Mr. Rankin offered to show Staff Sergeant Bergeron the demonstration permit he had obtained from the RMOC, allowing him to demonstrate "in the vicinity of the External Affairs Building." The Commission finds that Mr. Rankin did not show Staff Sergeant Bergeron the permit until after the Presidential motorcade had passed.

4. The Commission is also of the view that the incident, in which the Staff Sergeant's authority was being questioned, and in which an experienced demonstrator believed that his rights were being thwarted, as the President's motorcade was approaching, provided a formula for conflict.

5. The Commission finds that Staff Sergeant Bergeron understood that demonstrations were only allowed to take place at the corner of Alexander Street and Sussex Drive; that the Commission prefers the evidence of the member as to when the permit was actually produced; and that the President's motorcade was fast approaching. The Commission finds that the force exerted by Staff Sergeant Bergeron was justifiable under the circumstances. The Commission further finds that while some kind of force was exerted on Mr. Rankin, the evidence does not support a finding that the force was excessive.

(B) Complaint File Mo. #2000-PCC-89093

The second complaint made by Mr. Rankin was registered with the Commission on February 24, 1989. He complained that:

On February 10, 1989, at or near the City of Ottawa, in the Province of Ontario, "W" Division RCMP Member Raymond Bergeron infringed upon Mr. Rankin's right of freedom of expression. Mr. Bergeron infringed on this right by ordering Mr. Rankin to fold up and put away a banner Mr. Rankin wished to display while American President George Bush was by the External Affairs Department at 125 Sussex Drive. As welt Mr. Bergeron told him he could not display the banner.

The Evidence

The Permit

Evidence of Wayne Yabsley

Edward Wayne Yabsley is the Assistant Regulation and By-Law Administrator in the Transportation Department of the RMOC. Mr. Yabsley issued a permit to Mr. Rankin in respect of a demonstration to be held on Sussex Drive in front of the External Affairs Building on the day in question.

It was his recollection that the purpose of the demonstration was to oppose the testing of cruise missiles. As far as he knew, there were no restrictions on demonstrations on Sussex Drive. He was simply issuing a permit to conduct a demonstration on a Regional right-of-way. Sussex Drive is a Regional Road. He had never been requested by a police force not to issue a permit simply because a VIP was visiting the city.

According to Mr. Yabsley, the demonstration permit allowed the use of banners. As far as he was concerned, a sign, whether a banner or made of cardboard, did not raise any problem. Mr. Yabsley was also asked, as the author of Exhibit 4 (the demonstration permit issued to Mr. Rankin), what the words in condition "b" meant, more particularly the words "in the vicinity of the External Affairs building." Condition "b" reads as follows:

b. The demonstration shall be restricted to Sussex Drive in the vicinity of the External Affairs building.

In his view, this meant in the area of the building on the Regional right-of-way.

Evidence of Michael Sheflin

Mr. Sheflin, the Transportation Commissioner for the RMOC, signed the permit. He identified his signature on Exhibit 4. In his opinion, the use of softer material for signs would not be in contravention of the permit or the By-Laws of the RMOC. When asked about a demonstrator proposing to use a banner instead of a cardboard sign and whether special mention would be made in the permit, he replied in the negative: "In other words, people will carry cloth banners in most demonstrations. They are not a problem, and are not something we would address ourselves to ... "

Evidence of Stewart Marshall

Stewart Marshall, the Regulations and By-Laws Administrator for the RMOC (Mr. Yabsley's Supervisor), informed the Commission that the Regional Municipality looks to permits as a means of gathering all the information concerning special events so that they know what is going to happen on their Regional Roads. It also permits the appropriate agencies concerned with this event to be notified, for example, the various police forces, the fire department and the ambulance services. In his opinion, the words "in the vicinity of the External Affairs Building" include both sides of Sussex Drive including the NRC side where Mr. Rankin was setting up his banner.

The Right to Demonstrate

Evidence of Sergeant Ronald Hammell

Sergeant Ronald Hammell is a member of the Intelligence Section of the Ottawa Police Force. Sergeant Hammell confirmed that he had signed a memorandum dated February 7, 1 1989, addressed to Inspector Richard St-Pierre, which was a demonstration update. This document (Exhibit 15) concerned an upcoming demonstration by the Ottawa Disarmament Coalition. It indicated, among other things, that a demonstration would take place on February 10th between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., that the demonstration would take place across from 24 Sussex Drive and that the organizer was Darell Rankin. The demonstration was to protest the testing of the cruise missile, and would include 75 to 100 people. The intended route was described as follows: "will meet at External Affairs and walk to Sussex and Alexander."

In answer to a question as to whether he would phone other police forces about this information, he stated that he would phone the RCMP and CSIS and if appropriate he would also phone the military police.

Sergeant Hammell signed another similar memorandum (Exhibit 16), directed again to Inspector Richard St-Pierre on the subject of that same demonstration. The memorandum dealt with information received from Staff Sergeant Farnham of the RCMP. The document stated that on Friday, February 10th, at 12:00 p.m., there would be a demonstration across from 24 Sussex Drive by the Ottawa Disarmament Coalition. The organizer was Darell Rankin and the number of people expected would be between 75 and 100. The intended route was the same as that described in Exhibit 15: "will meet at External Affairs and walk to Sussex and Alexander."

In both cases, these memoranda were concluded by the words "UNKNOWN IF TROUBLE EXPECTED." To a question as to why the times concerning the demonstration varied from one document to the other, Sergeant Hammell stated that he marked down the information as he had received it.

During his examination by Mr. Noël, Sergeant Hammell did not remember being told that, on February 10th, demonstrations would be limited to the corner of Alexander Street and Sussex Drive. In his opinion, the demonstration could be held in front of External Affairs or City Hall, which was on the same side. As far as he was aware (since 1985), the only areas restricted for demonstrations on Sussex Drive were in front of the Prime Minister's residence and the South African Embassy.

Evidence of Inspector James Carroll

Inspector James Carroll, who was in charge of the Traffic Section of the Ottawa Police at the relevant time, recalled that a meeting took place on February 6th, to discuss President Bush's motorcade and the fact that a Marxist-Leninist group wished to organize a demonstration. They wanted to demonstrate right in front of the entrance to the Prime Minister's residence. The compromise reached was the area known as the Alexander location, which is at the corner of Alexander Street and Sussex Drive. Following that meeting, arrangements were made to have Ottawa Police officers at that location to control the crowd. The inspector indicated that he was not aware of the proposed demonstration by the Coalition.

Inspector Carroll was called upon to organize the motorcade with the RCMP. This included the decision on the route, the use of motorcade vehicles and notifying other agencies that could be affected by this visit. When questioned as to which of the police forces was in charge during a VIP visit, he answered that it was the RCMP, with the assistance of the Ottawa Police Force. He added that in some areas, the responsibility was totally that of the Ottawa Police; in other areas the responsibility was shared; and in others the responsibility was strictly that of the RCMP. The protection of internationally protected persons was the exclusive responsibility of the RCMP. Furthermore, the cooperation or coordination between the police forces is an RCMP responsibility.

Inspector Carroll then gave evidence with respect to a meeting that took place on February 6th, at the Headquarters of the Ottawa Police, where members of the RCMP as well as other police forces, along with some support agencies such as ambulance services, attended. The purpose was to discuss the President's motorcade.

Inspector Carroll recalled a proposed demonstration by a Marxist-Leninist group was discussed at this meeting. Some time later, prior to February 10th, Inspector Carroll and Staff Sergeant Farnham met with Serge Lafontaine, [2] who was the contact person for the group. The three individuals decided on a location for the projected demonstration, namely, the Alexander location [3].

2. Later in the evidence, this individual is correctly identified as Serge Lafortune.

3. Also described in the evidence as the corner of Alexander and Sussex Drive.

Inspector Carroll admitted that he would have received Exhibits 15 and 16 (the memoranda written by Sergeant Hammell concerning the Coalition's demonstration), because copies were sent to the Traffic Division, of which he is in charge, but he would not have necessarily read these two memoranda. In any event, he could only recall discussing the demonstration proposed by the Marxist-Leninist group.

Some time before the President's visit, he and Staff Sergeant Farnham drove down the streets to be used by the motorcade and they decided on the intersections that should be closed and whose responsibility it was to close each of the intersections.

The Inspector did not receive an order from anyone to the effect that there would be no demonstration on Sussex Drive except for the Alexander location. There was, however, "an agreement in the interest of national security, i.e., the President of the United States, that manpower would not permit demonstrators to occupy the north side of Sussex Drive, that it was just humanly impossible to give that type of coverage." That agreement may have been arrived at the February 6th meeting, but most definitely before February 10th, the day of the visit.

Inspector Carroll was on duty on February 10th. For the duration of the motorcade Inspector Carroll was in a vehicle driven by Staff Sergeant Farnham and in the company of two Ontario Provincial Police officers. The Inspector recalled a potential security risk, a demonstrator with a large banner. At that point, he observed Staff Sergeant Bergeron in a conversation with Staff Sergeant Farnham. They concluded that the individual was a security risk and that he should not be where he was. In his opinion, there would always be a concern in the instance of a lone demonstrator, as this is not the usual situation where demonstrations are concerned.

In the Inspector's opinion, dealing with that particular demonstration, it was not possible for anyone to demonstrate on the north side of Sussex Drive because of the length of the street and also because of the fact that this was a closed motorcade. On such a type of motorcade route, almost all manpower is dedicated to keeping traffic control, such that there would be some concern with anybody being located on the north side of Sussex Drive at any point along the motorcade route.

In Inspector Carroll's view, even if the lone demonstrator had a permit, which is just a way of identifying and organizing demonstrations, the individual would have been told that he could not demonstrate there and it would have been suggested to him to demonstrate at the corner of Alexander Street and Sussex Drive. On the other hand, if the demonstrator was a violent type, he would have been removed physically and taken down to the area where demonstrations were allowed.

In the Inspector's opinion, a person who wishes to communicate an opinion to the President of the United States along the route does not necessarily represent a security risk unless that person has something in his hands that could be thrown at the President's car, or something that could conceal a weapon. The banner was a security risk because one could not see if there was anything concealed in the banner, for instance, weapons that could eventually cause the death of the President of the United States.

Finally, the Inspector was at a loss to explain why Exhibits 15 and 16 never came to his attention even though copies had been sent to his Traffic Division. He first heard of Mr. Rankin only after the complaint had been lodged.

Evidence of David Alfred Bradford

At the relevant time, Inspector David Alfred Bradford was the officer in charge of Protective Services in the RCMP. He had received a phone call from Darell Rankin on February 6th. Using his notes, he was able to state that Mr. Rankin advised him that on February 10th, the Coalition intended to hold a demonstration with about one hundred participants. The group wanted to demonstrate in front of the Prime Minister's residence. Inspector Bradford indicated this was a secure area. Mr. Rankin then stated that the group would probably assemble at the External Affairs Building and would walk down Sussex Drive to the barricades. Inspector Bradford advised Mr. Rankin that somebody would get back to him to make sure of the arrangements.

Inspector Bradford then made the following note: "He appeared very cooperative. He only wants to hold up signs and placards."

Inspector Bradford also wrote in a document, which is part of Exhibit 23, "Contact this guy, he is very cooperative. Also, you may want to send to Inspector Smith in NCIS" (National Criminal Intelligence Section). He gave a copy of this document, containing his handwritten notes, to Staff Sergeant Farnham so that he could pass it along to the Ottawa Police for the issuance of a demonstration permit since the RCMP do not issue such permits. Staff Sergeant Farnham was the RCMP liaison with the Ottawa City Police. Mr. Rankin telephoned Inspector Bradford a second time. Inspector Bradford did not return the call. He passed on the message and thought that somebody else would call Mr. Rankin back. Apparently, no one returned Mr. Rankin's second telephone call.

Evidence of Staff Sergeant Robert Farnham

Staff Sergeant Robert Farnham was in charge of routes, bridges and overpasses and liaison with other police forces on the occasion of President Bush's visit. Staff Sergeant Bergeron reported to Staff Sergeant Farnham in respect of Area 3 of the motorcade route, which included Sussex Drive. Staff Sergeant Bergeron was the Supervisor of Area 3 of the motorcade.

Staff Sergeant Farnham was shown Exhibit 24, a telex emanating from Corporal Prud'homme, who works for NCIS, an intelligence-gathering unit in the RCMP's "A" Division. The telex was prepared to advise the watch commander of information received by NCIS. This information would then be passed on to members on patrol that day. It was from that particular telex that Mr. Robert Lamarche (his testimony is discussed in the context of the first complaint) knew of the proposed demonstration by the Coalition and of Mr. Rankin. Staff Sergeant Farnham does not know how he heard about this proposed demonstration. However, he was able to recall that he passed on the information to Sergeant Hammell, the intelligence officer of the Ottawa Police.

Staff Sergeant Farnham's information was that the demonstration by the Coalition was to be held at 12:00 p.m.. Therefore, he did not see the importance of passing on this information to his officers since the demonstration was to take place after the President would have travelled on Sussex Drive. He indicated that he had not received any information from the RMOC concerning a proposed demonstration by the Coalition. Staff Sergeant Farnham did not recall seeing, on or about February 7th, Exhibit 24, which is the telex from which Constable Lamarche had read on the morning of February 10th. The telex indicates that the time of the demonstration of the Ottawa Disarmament Coalition would be between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. Mr. Rankin is identified as the organizer of this demonstration.

Staff Sergeant Farnham attended a meeting with Inspector Carroll held on February 3rd at which Mr. Serge Lafortune was present. The latter was the organizer of the Communist Party of Canada Marxist-Leninist demonstration. The group was to start its demonstration on Parliament Hill and wind its way through the streets of Ottawa. The police were concerned that this demonstration had to cross the motorcade route and so offered the group a police escort so as to keep them together and move them to the designated area for demonstrations: the corner of Alexander Street and Sussex Drive.

When he was asked why he did not meet with Mr. Rankin as he had with Mr. Lafortune, the Staff Sergeant replied: "From the information that I had, he was not a concern of mine because his demonstration was an hour or two after I lost jurisdiction, if you could say that, on Sussex Drive." Furthermore, Staff Sergeant Farnham disagreed that there were demonstrators on the south side of Sussex Drive in front of the External Affairs Building. He added that if there had been demonstrators along the route, or if the Coalition had been there, "we would have called in additional people, [but] we saw none." Staff Sergeant Farnham was never told that the Coalition's demonstration would in fact commence at 10:00 a.m. as opposed to 12:00 p.m.

While Staff Sergeant Farnham did not recall seeing Exhibit 24, he states that he was aware that there was going to be a demonstration and "the parameters were from 10:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m., something like this, but I had received subsequent information that pinpointed it more closely to noon," and that the information was passed on to Sergeant Hammell and reduced to writing in the memo from Sergeant Hammell to Inspector St Pierre (Exhibit 16).

Staff Sergeant Farnham confirmed that there had been no communication between himself and the people who issued permits, even though he had attended meetings at the offices of the RMOC immediately prior to President Bush's visit. He acknowledged that there could he a situation where the Regional Municipality has issued permits for demonstrations where the police have decided that no demonstration can occur.

When asked if a single demonstrator created security problems, Staff Sergeant Farnham answered: "Over the years, if I have seen a person holding any type of sign, whether it be "Welcome to Canada, George" to "Get out of Canada," I would assign extra personnel at that location because that person is doing something different than the norm, and we are talking ultra security here."

It is useful, at this juncture, to return to the testimony of Staff Sergeant Bergeron on the question of his role on that particular day, his duty as a peace officer and the options open to him to deal with the demonstration incident involving Mr. Rankin. The testimony starting at p. 302 of the transcript reads as follows:

Q. So your real function with respect to Mr. Rankin is not a security function, it is a function of preventing him from communicating his message to the President. Those are the instructions that you were given.

R. Non.

Q. You disagree with me?

R. Ce n'était pas les instructions qua j'ai reçues.

Q. But the actions that you took are with respect to someone who is attempting to convey a message, not with respect to someone who you perceive to be a security threat. Is that right?

R. Les instructions qua j'ai reçues me disaient que des personnes que je voyais la long de la rue Sussex qui voulaient passer un message, qui voulaient faire une démonstration, une manifestation quelconque, devaient etre munies d'un permis et je devais aviser ces personnes-là de se rendre au coin d'Alexander et Sussex où l'endroit avait été permis pour faire ce genre de messages-là passer leur message.

Au même moment, je dois ajouter qua j'ai offert à M. Rankin de l'amener directament à cet endroit-là pour qu'il puisse être en place avant l'arrivée du président.

Q. Mr. Rankin of course says that he advised you of his permit at the moment that you and he first began your discussions and you agree with that.

R. Oui

Q. Now, would the fact of Mr. Rankin having a permit change your mind and permit him to demonstrate in the area where he was or would you still insist that he go to the designated area?

R. Si M. Rankin m'avait montré son permis, à ce moment-là, j'ai mentionné plus tôt que dans des cas exceptionnels il y a possibilité d'erreur, il y a possibilté da manque de communication à un moment donné; ça peut arriver,

C'est pour ça qu'on a une équipe volante qu'on appelle le Quick Response Team qui eux s'occupent des cas exceptionnals. Dens ce cas-là, avoir vu la permission de M. Rankin, j'aurais tout simplement avisé le S.E.M. Farnham pour qu'il puisse m'envoyer une équipe volante pour être avec M. Rankin lors du passage de l'escorte motorisée.

Q. At the moment that Mr. Rankin advised you that he did in fact have a permit, you could have communicated with Mr. Farnham, is that right?

R. Oui; j'aurais pu communiquer avec la S.E.M. Farnham mais par contre je croyais de mon devoir de demander à la personne qui disait qu'il avait un permis da me montrer son parmis avant de commancer à faire da la recherche étant donné que c'est lui qui avait la permis.

Q. And at what time approximately did Mr. Rankin advise you that ha had the permit? Do you remember?

R. Ja dirais de deux à trois minutes aprés qu'on a engagé la conversation.

Q. And about what time was that?

R. J'ai rencontré M. Rankin vers 11h10; c'est-à-dire 11h13 approximativement.

Q. And at what time did you expect the President?

R. Je n'avais pas l'heure exacte qua le president était pour arriver mais je savais par communication radio qu'il était en chemin.

Q. So you expected him within the next, is it fair to say, 10 or 15 minutes.

R. Au plus tard, oui.

Q. So you could have resolved this issue -- I mean, time was short. You could have resolved the issue by communicating with Insp. Farnham as soon as Mr. Rankin told you that he had a permit.

R. J'aurais pu résoudre le probleme immédiatemant si M. Rankin m'avait montré sa permission at à ce moment-là j'aurais communiqué avec la S.E.M. Farnham pour confirmer la permission.

Q. Okay. But even without seeing the permit, if he tells you he has a permit, you could check with lnsp. Farnham to see whether --I mean, it is not impossible, you could have done that.

R. Ce n'est pas impossible mais la procédure est que lorsqu'on a un permis pour une manifestation à l'intérieur de la région ici; on doit l'apporter avec nous et la montrer à la demande des autorités, si nécessaire.

Q. I guess there were two options available to you at that moment. One of them is to communicate with lnsp. Farnham and get this emergency response team to arrive at the scene; that was possible.

R. Je n'avais aucune preuve qua M. Rankin avait un permis.

Q. Of course Mr. Rankin says that he did show you the permit so-

R. Je ne l'ai pas vu.

Q. You disagree with that.

R. Je n'ai pas vu le permis du tout; en aucun moment. Sauf aprés que tout est arrivé.

Q. And the other option is that you simply could have allowed Mr. Rankin to display his banner and kept an eye on him yourself while the motorcade passed

R. Ce n'était pas mes fonctions.

Q. But you were not really concerned about the security aspect of Mr. Rankin. You have already mentioned that.

R. Je ne connaissais pas M. Rankin mais je savais qu'il voulait faire passer un message au président.

Q. Is trying to communicate a message to the President of the United States, does that in itself pose a security risk, in your mind?

R. Absolument pas mais il y avait un endroit bien spécifique pour passer des messages au président a ce moment-là.

A. So you are saying that it is all right for people to be permitted to communicate their messages but it has to be only where they are permitted specifically by the police. Is that it?

R. Ce n'est pas moi qui décide des endroits où les gens doivent passer leurs messages.

Jurisdiction

In his closing argument, Mr. Morin disputed the jurisdiction of the Commission to make findings and recommendations as to whether subsection 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been infringed in the case at hand. In taking this position, Mr. Morin relied heavily on the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Cuddy Chicks Limited v. Ontario Labour Relations Board and United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 175. [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5.

In the Cuddy Chicks case, prior to the commencement of the hearing, the jurisdiction of the Board to subject its enabling legislation to Charter scrutiny was disputed. The Court held that an administrative tribunal, such as the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which has the power to interpret law, holds a concomitant power to determine whether that law is constitutionally valid.

I the case at hand, the Commission, in making its findings, is merely applying the principles set forth in the Charter and in so doing may, in the opinion of the Commission, refer to cases already decided by courts of competent jurisdiction. The Commission is not being asked, nor should it be asked, to determine whether any sections of the RCMP Act are constitutionally valid.

Given that the Commission's responsibilities are to make findings and recommendations in respect of the complaints presently before it, the Commission is of the opinion that it has jurisdiction to determine whether the actions of Staff Sergeant Bergeron, vis-a-vis Mr. Rankin, infringed subsection 2(b) of the Charter.

Discussion - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

It should be stated, at the outset, that the right recognized by subsection 2(b) of the Charter is one that exists as of right and may be exercised as a matter of course without a permit. A permit is merely a tool utilized by this municipality to ensure that it has all the information necessary with respect to any planned demonstrations. That this is so was recognized by witnesses who testified at the present hearing. Staff Sergeant Bergeron admitted this and even explained that, on the occasion of previous demonstrations, he had not stopped people from demonstrating, even though they did not have a permit. Staff Sergeant Farnham also admitted that the permit did not grant the right to demonstrate, that the right exists as such. In the Commission's opinion that is a proper statement of the law.

It is useful at this point to examine the case law referred to us by counsel appearing before the Commission for the purposes of determining whether the circumstances of the present case permitted the police to limit Mr. Rankin's right to demonstrate to a specific location.

The leading case on the subject of expressing a view in a public place is Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada V Canada [1991] 1 S.C.R. 139. The issue considered in that case was the extent to which the right of freedom of expression could be exercised on Government property. A group of people representing the Committee attempted to hand out pamphlets expressing a political point of view. They were prevented from doing so under the Government Airport Concession Operations Regulations. Those regulations prohibited persons from conducting any business or undertaking, commercial or otherwise, at an airport; advertising or soliciting in an airport on its own behalf or on behalf of any other persons; or fixing, installing or placing anything at an airport for the purpose of any business or undertaking. The Court dealt with the issue of whether or not all Government property was property available for the exercise of freedom of expression. The Court answered in the negative. As examples of areas where that right could not be exercised, the Court pointed to judges' private chambers or air traffic control towers.

The Court then went on to consider whether or not subsection 2(b) of the Charter guaranteed access to some Government property for the purpose of public expression. It established certain criteria in order to assess whether Government property can be described as a public forum and, if so, whether it is accessible in the same fashion that parks and public roads are, which are in essence public forums. In Chief Justice Lamer's view, at page 157:

... if the [public] expression takes a form that contravenes or is inconsistent with the function of the place where the attempt to communicate is made, such a form of expression must be considered to fall outside the sphere of s. 2(b). For example, if a person tried to picket in the middle of a busy highway or to set up barricades on a bridge, it might well be concluded that such a form of expression in such a place is incompatible with the principal function of the place, which is to provide for the smooth flow of automobile traffic. In such a case, it could not be concluded that freedom of expression had been restricted if a government representative obliged the picketer to express himself elsewhere.

On the subject of streets and parks for the purpose of expressing one's view, Mr.Justice LaForest stated, at page 165:

...I agree with the Chief Justice and McLauchlin J. that freedom does not encompass the right to use any and all government property for purposes of disseminating one's views on public matters, but I have no doubt that it does include the right to use for that purpose streets and parks which are dedicated to the use of the public, subject no doubt to reasonable regulation to ensure their continued use for the purpose to which they are dedicated.

Madam Justice Claire L'Heureux-Dubé also commented on that subject, at page 206, of the judgment:

- - Hence the "traditional" component of the public arena analysis must appreciate the "type" of place historically associated with public discussion, and should not be restricted to the actual places themselves.

The same reasoning applies when assessing the symbolic significance of the property. While the symbolism of a courthouse lawn or Parliament Hill is self-evident, streets and parks have also acquired special significance as places where one can have access to and address his or her fellow citizens on any number of matters. This distinctive attribute does not accrue to a street or a park merely because of its designation. A park has no intrinsic value as a public arena; it only obtains this characteristic because the public chooses to frequent parks. Whether a tree falling in an uninhabited park makes a sound is not a constitutional question. To what extent impediments may be placed upon a person addressing passers-by in a park is.

However, while the street may be an appropriate forum for expression, such expression may be restricted depending on the reason for the restriction. If the government (the police) imposes the restriction, because of the content of expression, this will usually be judged impermissible. If, on the other hand, the restriction is not related to the content of expression, it may well be valid. In the words of Madam Justice McLachlin, at page 238:

... If, on the other hand, the restriction is content-neutral, it may well not infringe freedom of expression at all. In this case, the jurisprudence laid down in Irwin Toy requires that the claimant establish that the expression in question (including its time, place and manner) promote one of the purposes underlying the guarantee of free expression. These were defined in Irwin Toy (at p. 976) as: (1) the seeking and obtaining of truth; (2) participation in social and political decision-making; and (3) the encouragement of diversity in forms of individual self fulfilment and human flourishing by cultivating a tolerant, welcoming environment for the conveyance and reception of ideas. Only if the claimant can establish a link between the use of the forum in question for public expression and at least one of these purposes is the claimant entitled to the protection of s. 2(b) of the Charter.

We agree with counsel for the complainant that Mr. Rankin's message was the expression of a political idea. It was directed at the President of the United States with respect to his policy concerning cruise missile testing over Canadian soil. We also agree that the area in which the expressive activity was intended to take place was appropriate for that kind of activity. That area, judging from the evidence, was municipal property a few feet from the sidewalk on Sussex Drive, and part of the so-called Regional right-of-way. That right-of-way was the one on which the President's motorcade was expected to travel en route to the Prime Minister's residence.

It is useful, at this point, to review Madam Justice McLachlin's reasoning, at page 243:

The next question is whether the restriction in question had the effect of limiting expression. I agree with L'Heureux-Dubé J. that it did. I disagree with her, however, that this establishes that s. 2(b) of the Charter has been breached. For the reasons expressed earlier, the test enunciated in Irwin Toy requires a further step to be taken before it can be said that s. 2(b) applies. The limiting effect having been shown, we must ask whether the expression in question promotes any of the guarantee of free expression. Is there a link between using airports as a forum for political messages and solicitation, and the values embodied in the pursuit of truth, the participation in political or social issues in the community, or individual self-fulfilment or human flourishing?

It is not necessary to go beyond the second value to answer the question. The respondents in this case were seeking to present political views in a location frequented by many members of the community passing en route from one place to another, a location which can be considered to be a modern equivalent of the streets and by-ways of the past. This establishes a relationship between the respondents' use of the airport for expression and one of the purposes of the free expression guarantee. I conclude that the government's action constituted a limitation of the respondents' rights under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

For those same reasons we must conclude that the police directive that was formulated at the meeting of February 6th, constituted a limitation of the complainant's rights under subsection 2(b) of the Charter.

The next question to be considered is whether the restriction or limitation on Mr. Rankin's freedom of expression was permitted under section 1 of the Charter. In other words, could the restrictions be viewed as "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society"?

We have not been directed to any particular text that can be described as law, as the authority for issuing the directive in question. We were directed to some RCMP policies and understandings between the federal and provincial governments concerning the responsibilities of both jurisdictions' police forces concerning VIP visits and the RCMP responsibility to apply the Security Offences Act. But we were not referred to any legislation or subordinate legislation that authorizes the restrictions decreed by the police.

In the result, we must therefore conclude that section 1 of the Charter can find no application in the present instance, since the police directives were not prescribed by law.

This conclusion conforms with an analogous conclusion reached by Chief Justice Lamer in the Commonwealth of Canada case, at page 164:

In my opinion, the limitation imposed on the respondents' freedom of expression arose from the action taken by the airport manager, a government official, when he ordered the respondents to cease their activities. Although this action was based on an established policy or internal directive, I do not think it can be concluded from this that there was in fact a "law" which could be justified under s. 1 of the Charter. The government's internal directives or policies differ essentially from statutes and regulations in that they are generally not published and so are not known to the public. Moreover, they are binding only on government officials and may be amended or cancelled at will. For these reasons, the established policy of the government cannot be the subject of the test under s. 1 of the Charter.

Thus, given the facts of the present case, we must conclude that by wishing to apply the police directive of February 6th, Staff Sergeant Bergeron infringed upon Mr. Rankin's rights of expression, such right not otherwise being restricted by law.

It was argued by Mr. Mongeau that in order for the Commission to conclude that Staff Sergeant Bergeron had breached Mr. Rankin's freedom of expression rights, it would also have to conclude that the officer knowingly and willingly breached those rights. However, he further argued, there is absolutely no evidence to that effect.

Ms. Thomas argued in reply that the state of the law was to the effect that the governmental actor's knowledge or intention to breach a constitutionally protected right is not relevant in the determination as to whether the right has been breached. In support of that proposition, she referred the Commission to R. v. Therens [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613, R. v. Simmons [1988] 2 S.C.R. 495 and R. v. Jacoy, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 284. We accept Ms. Thomas' position as a proper statement of the law. Whether Staff Sergeant Bergeron knew or did not know that, by his actions, he was breaching Mr. Rankin's rights is not relevant to the consideration of whether such a breach did in fact occur.

The Commission was also referred to other case law which it considers relevant to the case at hand.

In Knowlton v. Queen [1974] S.C.R. 443, an individual sought to by-pass the secure area so as to take a picture of Premier Kosygin during his visit in Edmonton. He was arrested. It should be remembered that the Premier had been approached in an unfriendly way by a demonstrator who was thereafter arrested. This, of course, created an outcry on the part of the public as a result of what seemed to be a lack of security in escorting the Premier. As a result, during his visit to Edmonton, far more serious measures were taken to ensure that there would not be a repetition of the incident. In Knowlton, the Court concluded that the state was justified in adopting proper and reasonable security measures in order to protect a visiting dignitary. We find an interesting passage at page 448:

... [The arrested individual] He might possibly have obtained the privilege extended to members of the press and others to access to the restricted area had he applied for a pass at the proper time, at the proper place and from the proper authorities, He did not ...

Although this case is pre-Charter, it is significant to the case at hand. The facts refer to an individual who wished to cross an established security parameter around Premier Kosygin. In the case at hand, Mr. Rankin wished to demonstrate along the President's motorcade route, which had been designated as a non-demonstration area save for the location at Alexander Street and Sussex Drive.

Mr. Morin also referred the Commission to the Abbey and Stapleton case, an unreported judgment from the Court of Queen's Bench in New Brunswick. The Court states at page 15:

In my opinion, when the suspicious action of plaintiff McBride in concealing something inside her coat was brought to the attention of Preslauer -- who is a member of the RCMP -- it was a "reasonable security measure" given her location near the doorway of the meeting room where the Prime Minister was to speak in the eminence [sic] of his arrival -- [to arrest her]

In another unreported decision known as Murphy, Keating and Boudreault, again during a visit of Prime Minister Mulroney in New Brunswick, there were a number of people picketing in an area where the Prime Minister was supposed to deliver a speech. The crowd became somewhat aggressive and, at one point, Mrs. Mulroney was hit by one of the demonstrators. One of the RCMP officers on duty retrieved a placard from one of the demonstrators and threw it on the ground.

There then ensued an altercation and a few demonstrators were taken to the police detachment. The Court concluded that the use of force in that case was justified and further, at page 21, that the individual's "freedoms of expression, assembly and association were respected, subject to the rights of everyone who was there."

Although the facts in these situations are different in that the individuals were quite close to the visiting Head of State in one case and the Prime Minister of Canada and his wife in another; consider for a moment if 1 000 lone demonstrators had attempted to hold individual demonstrations at different locations along the route of the President's motorcade. If this were permitted without restriction or limitation to specific locations, a security nightmare would surely be the result.

Clearly the President of the United States represents a high-security risk. The fact that the RCMP had restricted the demonstration area to Alexander Street and Sussex Drive in order to maintain control over the motorcade route was, in the opinion of the Commission, a proper and reasonable security measure taken in order to protect a visiting Head of State.

It is for these reasons that the Commission concludes that the RCMP directive that was formulated at the meeting of February 6th was a reasonable and proper security measure to take in order to protect the President of the United States as he travelled along Sussex Drive to the Prime Minister's residence.

Findings - Complaint File No. 2000-PCC-89093

Having regard to the evidence set out above and the Commission's review of the law, the Commission panel finds as follows:

1 Under subsection 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms everyone in Canada has certain fundamental freedoms which include the freedom of opinion and expression. That freedom includes the right to demonstrate peacefully within the parameters of the law.

2. Mr. Rankin intended to exercise this right when he crossed over to the north side of Sussex Drive with a view to setting up a banner to send a message to the President of the United States. The message dealt with the testing of cruise missiles over Canadian soil.

3. Mr. Rankin first advised the RCMP of his intention, more specifically by talking to Inspector Bradford. Some time later, he was called by Sergeant Hammell of the Ottawa City Police, who suggested that he obtain a permit from the RMOC. Mr. Rankin obtained such a permit.

4. The permit, contained in a letter dated February 7, 1 1989, addressed to the Ottawa Disarmament Coalition, advised Mr. Rankin that approval was granted for his group to conduct a demonstration on the Regional right-of-way subject to certain conditions. The first condition was that the demonstration commence at 10:00 a.m. and terminate at 2:00 p.m. on Friday, February 10, 1989. The second condition was that the demonstration be restricted to Sussex Drive in the vicinity of the External Affairs Building.

5. At around 10:30 a.m. on the morning of February 10th, Mr. Rankin parked his car in the visitor parking area situated behind the External Affairs Building and eventually proceeded to the north side of Sussex Drive, where he intended to display his banner. Staff Sergeant Bergeron arrived at the site between 11:05 and 11:10, got out of his car and informed Mr. Rankin that he could not demonstrate in this location. He informed Mr. Rankin that there was a special area reserved for demonstrations located at the corner of Alexander Street and Sussex Drive.

6. The issue to be resolved is whether, by his actions, and given the particular circumstances of the case, Staff Sergeant Bergeron infringed upon Mr. Rankin's rights to express himself as recognized by subsection 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Commission makes the finding that Staff Sergeant Bergeron did infringe upon Mr. Rankin's right to express himself in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

7. However, the Commission also finds that Staff Sergeant Bergeron was justified in limiting Mr. Rankin's right to demonstrate in the location chosen by Mr. Rankin when he applied the RCMP directive of February 6th.

8. While no there is no "prescribed law" that would save the infringement of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Commission finds that the RCMP directive of February 6th was a proper and reasonable security measure adopted by the RCMP in order to fulfil its duty to ensure the security of a visiting Head of State.

IV. FURTHER FINDINGS

1. Mr. Rankin was told that he could not demonstrate on the north side of Sussex Drive and that the only demonstration area was at the corner of Alexander Street and Sussex Drive, yet, contemporaneously with those events, there was a group on the south side of Sussex Drive who were demonstrating and who, apparently, were not told to move to the specified area. The Commission notes that the demonstration that was taking place on the south side of Sussex Drive was a demonstration by a lone demonstrator.

2. The evidence also reveals that the two officers in charge of the motorcade activities on that day, Staff Sergeant Farnham and Inspector Carroll, did not know that the demonstration by the Coalition was scheduled to commence at 10:00 a.m. in the vicinity of the External Affairs Building. The Commission finds it strange that the information concerning that demonstration - Exhibits 15 and 16 - having been circulated in the Traffic Department of the City of Ottawa Police Department, of which Inspector Carroll was in charge, never came to the Inspector's attention. Likewise, the Commission considers it odd that Staff Sergeant Farnham, whose responsibility was to ensure the coordination of police activities on that day, and who visited the offices of the RMOC, the authority responsible for issuing permits, was not aware of the demonstration proposed by the Coalition.

3. The Commission finds, on the other hand, that Constable Robert Lamarche of the RCMP, who was also involved with the security aspects concerning the presidential motorcade on February 10th, was aware of Mr. Rankin's projected demonstration; he was also aware that the demonstration was to commence at 10:00 am. that day and finish at 2:00 pm.

4. The Commission is of the opinion that the above findings point to a serious lack of communication and coordination, to say the least, on the part of officers charged with the security of a VIP visit, no less than that of the President of the United States.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

The Commission makes the following recommendations:

1 That the RCMP take a more rigorous approach to the management of VIP visits where it is called upon to assume a lead role.

2. That the RCMP prepare for its use, by way of policy or otherwise, a checklist of things to do, both in the preparation of the visit and on the day of the actual visit.

3. That such a checklist be put in the hands of the senior officers, as well as the watch commander, responsible for the security aspect of a VIP visit and that they compare notes on a daily basis to ensure that what is needed to be done is done.

4. That this checklist include an item whereby, on a daily basis, the RCMP check with the relevant demonstration permit granting authority in order to be aware of any projected demonstrations and the relevant details relating thereto.

5. That the RCMP prepare a do's and dont's form to be issued to police officers and their members who are called upon to participate in the security detail concerned with the VIP visit so that they be completely familiar with their duties and obligations during such a visit. That such a form be prepared and kept up to date, having regard to the evolving case law on the Charter that is relevant to rights of people to express themselves and demonstrate.

6. That the RCMP issue a formal apology to Mr. Rankin for not having contacted him in advance of the day of the President's visit and advising him of the restricted areas for such demonstrations on that day.

7. In order to prevent future incidents such as this, the Commission strongly recommends that the RCMP take the necessary steps that will lead to the promulgation of a regulation that would, without doubt, bring any future decisions or actions of the RCMP in respect of limiting demonstrations during visits by Heads of State, within section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


	Date Created: 2003-08-11 Date Modified: 2003-08-11	Important Notices