Annual Report 2002-2003

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

Dear Mr. Easter, Pursuant to section 45.34 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, I hereby transmit the annual report of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP (CPC) for the 2002-2003 fiscal year, for tabling in Parliament. Yours very truly,

Shirley Heafey Chair May 2003

---

Table of Contents

Message From the Chair

Part 1 About the Commision

• Mandate
• Our Role
• Jurisdiction of the Commission
• Composition of the Commission
• Commission Budget
• Commission Structure

Part 2 Operations

• Complaint Process
• Streamlining Review Processes
• Public Interest Investigations
• Public Hearings
• Communications
• Case Tracking System
• Modern Comptrollership

Part 3 Policing Issues

• Making a Difference to RCMP Conduct
• Conflicts of Interest
• Investigative Detention
• The Commission and the RCMP: Differences in Perspective
• Post Scriptum

Getting in Touch With the Commision

---

---

Message from the Chair

Ideally, all public officials should have a vision of the work entrusted to them. Their public life should be dedicated to implementing that vision, little by little, bit by bit, as opportunities and resources allow. In service of that vision, objectives have to be set and doggedly pursued, victories have to be celebrated, and shortcomings have to be acknowledged and addressed. Having celebrated my fifth anniversary as Chair of this Commission, I have experienced much and learned plenty. And I recognize that this growth must continue. Now that I have the benefit of that experience and learning, I will share my vision with Parliament and the public so that the Commission's objectives can be assessed, its victories graded and our needs debated.

A few years ago, we completed a major strategic planning exercise. One of the many accomplishments of that exercise was the adoption-for the first time in the history of the Commission-of a vision statement, a mission statement and a statement of core values. Those statements serve us well, and I continue to be guided by them. I'd like to take this opportunity to share some elements of my personal vision.

I want the work of this Commission to be relevant.

The relevance I speak of has a number of facets. First, the work we do - the complaints we receive, the investigations we conduct, the reports we write - must be of the highest quality. The work is relevant only if what we produce can withstand critical scrutiny of the highest calibre, be understood by complainants and RCMP members alike, and generate meaningful debate about the issues we address.

Second, the work we do must be accomplished on a timely basis. The value of the lessons to be learned from an incident that generates a complaint diminishes over time.We all know that.

Third, the public and the RCMP must respect the work we do. The public must know we understand the anxiety that can accompany an unhappy confrontation with the police and the reluctance to file a complaint. Members of the RCMP must know we appreciate the tremendous challenges they encounter on a daily basis and the value of their role in a democratic society. Both must know we will examine complaints, and the police conduct that prompted them, independently and objectively while always attempting to balance the various values that Canadians embrace.

Fourth, our work must be effective. That means, primarily, that our findings and recommendations should have a positive impact on RCMP conduct, practices and policy. It also means that the public and its representatives accept our views as to what constitutes appropriate police conduct.

I want the work of this Commission to be proactive.We must constantly search out new ways to reconcile differences between the public and the RCMP and to diminish the bitterness that sometimes erupts between police and the public they serve.

BETWEEN 1997 AND 2001, THE COMMISSION ISSUED OVER 1200 REPORTS .

I want the Commission to be a leader in identifying trends and problems as they emerge, to analyse them and play an important role in the formulation of RCMP policy.I want the Commission to use its expertise in relations between police and the public in monitoring the evolution of relevant law. As an independent agency vitally concerned with the common good, the Commission should provide its advice on the practical implications of changes in the law as well as offer its perspective on the proper direction of change.

With respect to identifying policing trends and monitoring relevant law, we are in a unique position to make an important contribution to the enormous policy responsibility of the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada.

A vision of the type I have described is not achieved by the passage of legislation alone. Parliament provided the framework for this civilian oversight agency, but implementing a vision is slow, painstaking work. My predecessors worked long and hard and met many challenges to take the first difficult steps. I have reaped the benefits of their contributions, and I am grateful for their efforts.

In the past five years, the dedicated staff of this Commission have given me many victories to celebrate.

With the progressive introduction of quality controls and with the assistance of an expanded legal team charged with addressing the legal issues in each file, our reports are based on a sophisticated understanding of the law and policy relating to the complaint. At the same time, we have introduced format changes that make our reports shorter and easier to read so they can be better understood by complainants and RCMP members alike. Significant progress has been made towards our goal of producing work of the highest quality.

In my first years as Chair, there was one principal imperative: reduce the accumulated backlog of unresolved cases. Between 1997 and 2001, the Commission issued over 1200 reports. The huge effort that this number represents paid dividends in eliminating many of the "old" cases and setting the stage for the introduction of new management techniques designed to expedite the review process. Our work is timelier today but much remains to be done.

Respect and effectiveness are difficult to gauge but I believe we enjoy a fair measure of both. For example, by working with the Commission to improve the quality of complaint investigations, the RCMP demonstrates respect for the public complaint process.We can also point to numerous policy initiatives undertaken by the RCMP in response to our recommendations to show that our work is having a positive impact on members' conduct.

The alternative dispute resolution initiative that was launched by the Commission in 1999 has expedited some 1392 complaints in less than four years. In appropriate cases, our complaint analysts bring the complainant and the member(s) of the RCMP together to resolve their differences.When these efforts are successful, the complaint is dealt with in a matter of days, to the relief of both parties. No RCMP investigation takes place and the Commission's formal processes are not engaged. This is proactive; this is reconciliation.

An example of proactive reconciliation that I am particularly proud of involved two small communities in New Brunswick. The people in these communities were intimidated by the RCMP response to generally peaceful demonstrations prompted by a provincial decision to close their French-language schools. Relations between the RCMP and these communities were dangerously strained. The Commission launched a public interest investigation into these events. Hundreds of people – complainants, witnesses and RCMP members - spoke candidly to our investigators.

My report ultimately recommended that the RCMP members apologize for their actions and numerous recommendations were made with a view to assisting the RCMP in the policing of public events. To the credit of the RCMP, a very public apology was made and many of our ideas respecting the policing of public events were incorporated into RCMP policy. Although the Commission successfully handled these serious complaints in the context of a public interest investigation, many of the elements found in a successful reconciliation were present. The complainants were interviewed in their homes by Commission investigators and they felt comfortable in expressing their deep-felt concerns. The RCMP's generous response to my report closed the circle and allowed healing to begin.

When I recently visited the region to follow up, it was apparent to me that reconciliation was continuing in those communities and I am confident that cooperative relations are being restored. This public interest investigation was effective.

There are other areas of concern needing attention that I monitor closely, such as police pursuits and deaths of detainees in police cells. I have addressed both of these problems in detailed reports, and suggested ways in which the inherent dangers of high-speed pursuits can be minimized and cell deaths prevented. I have suggested policy and training initiatives that are necessary in both areas.

Across the country, provincial policies have thrust members of the RCMP, and other peace officers, into a "first-contact" position with people in a mental health crisis. The wisdom of these policies has become the subject of much debate but, in the meantime, members of the RCMP are compelled to deal with the consequences of these policies. I have been studying this issue and will shortly be making recommendations designed to assist the RCMP in adjusting to this new social reality. Again, this is a subject that I will monitor closely.

The law that governs police behaviour is constantly evolving: for example, a) the Supreme Court of Canada regularly pronounces on the Charter; b) appeal courts try to explain the limits on the right of police officers to stop people on the street (investigative detention); and c) Parliament invested police with vast new powers to address the threats that became apparent following September 11, 2001. As a civilian oversight agency, we think it imperative that our voice be heard, and carefully considered, in the debates prompted by these and similar changes. In reports, speeches, media contacts and scholarly publications, we have tried to make our views known.The dedicated staff of this Commission have made great strides towards all the goals I have articulated, on a budget that, compared with the budgets of similar federal agencies, can only be described as modest. My managers have taxed their ingenuity to the limit to make impressive gains, but careful spending and internal reallocation of resources can do no more.

Our greatest failing in past years has been our inability to produce reports on a timely basis. In 1997, the Auditor General suggested that a report should be completed within 120 days of the receipt of the request for review. That is not possible given our current resources. In fact, even with all the improvements made to our process, we do not expect our caseload to be current for another three years. That is unacceptable to me. It is unacceptable to the Commissioner of the RCMP. It should be unacceptable to Parliament and the Canadian public as well.

Parts VI and VII of the RCMP Act became law in 1986 and the Commission began receiving and reviewing complaints in 1988.With the lessons learned from 15 years of experience under the current legislation, the time is ripe to address the shortcomings that prevent us from fully achieving our vision. More importantly, it is time to reassess the civilian oversight scheme in light of the vast new powers recently given to police services across the country. I note that England, Northern Ireland and New Zealand have recently undertaken important reforms of civilian oversight of policing.

Civilian oversight of the RCMP is not possible without access to all information relevant to a complaint. Throughout the Commission's history, access to information held by the RCMP has been a problem that my predecessors have had to address regularly. In this past year, I have had to commence a Federal Court application in an effort to obtain the information necessary to conduct a review. The courts should not be asked to resolve these matters – the legislation should be amended to make it clearer that the Commission is to have unfettered access to all information held by the RCMP.

When the Anti-terrorism Act was being debated, both the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of the day pointed to the Commission as playing a large role in ensuring that the new police powers are exercised appropriately. In a speech given in March 2002 (available on our web site), I outlined my reasons for concluding that we do not have the tools to provide effective oversight in this changed environment. In short, a complaint-driven process cannot evaluate the exercise of these new powers if the targets fear the attention that a complaint would inevitably generate. Time and again, I have heard reports of alleged abuse of the new powers, but without a complaint, I cannot begin to determine if the allegation is true. By the same token, I am unable to say that the RCMP is using the new powers exactly as Parliament intended. I should have sufficient powers at my disposal to decide if this is indeed the case and so advise Parliament and the public.

At a minimum, to do the job entrusted to it, the Commission needs access to all information held by the RCMP relevant to its files, and it needs the power to conduct random audits to ensure the appropriate exercise of authority in the absence of a specific complaint. In a country dedicated to the rule of law, the use of the extraordinary powers we confer on the police for our protection must be effectively monitored by an independent, civilian authority. That proposition is unlikely to generate any serious disagreement. However, Parliament must be vigilant to ensure that this Commission does not disappoint the expectations of the people of Canada.We must be given the resources and tools necessary to fulfil our vision and to discharge the critical role we play in upholding the rule of law.

Shirley Heafey
Chair

---

About the Commission

Mandate

The mandate of the Commission is set out in Part VII of the RCMP Act and can be summarized as follows:

• receive complaints from the public about the conduct of RCMP members:
• conduct reviews when complainants are not satisfied with the RCMP's disposition of their complaints;
• hold hearings and investigations; and
• report findings and make recommendations.

Our Role

The Commission is an independent body. It is not part of the RCMP. Parliament established the Commission to receive and review allegations of inappropriate conduct by RCMP members and to reinforce good police conduct.

In carrying out its duties, the Commission treats the public and RCMP members with fairness and objectivity. The Commission does not act as an advocate for either the complainant or the RCMP member(s). Nor is the Commission a disciplinary body of the RCMP. It does not have jurisdiction to review matters related to the administration or management of the RCMP. Employment disputes and contractual disputes between individuals and the RCMP fall into this category.

The Commission makes findings and recommendations aimed at correcting and preventing recurring policing problems. These findings and recommendations may address the conduct of specific RCMP members or may deal with broader issues involving RCMP policies and practices. The Commission's effectiveness therefore depends on its ability to formulate persuasive recommendations that the RCMP Commissioner will accept and implement.

Jurisdiction of The Commission

Generally, the Commission has jurisdiction over a complaint from a member of the public that concerns the conduct of an RCMP member while performing a policing duty or function. These duties and functions include criminal investigations, public complaint investigations, policing public events, security assignments and intelligence operations.

A complaint must also involve:

• an RCMP member or other person appointed or employed under the authority of the RCMP Act;
• an RCMP member or other person who, when the complaint is made, is not deceased, retired, nor has resigned or been dismissed from the Force; and
• conduct that occurred after September 30, 1988, the date the Commission became authorized to take complaints.

The Commission's jurisdiction may extend to complaints about the personal conduct of members. The Commission was established to assess the conduct of members in the performance of their duties. Section 37 of the RCMP Act enumerates some of these duties, which clearly apply to the personal conduct of members, whether on duty or off duty. Paragraph 37(g), for example, imposes the duty on members to "act at all times in a courteous, respectful and honourable manner."

In practice, when the personal conduct of an RCMP member is at issue, the Commission has jurisdiction over the complaint only if it is determined that the alleged conduct is likely to adversely affect the member's performance as an RCMP member and/or the RCMP's reputation. In such cases, the Commission will attempt to minimize the personal information disclosed in its reports, recognizing the need for a balance between civilian oversight and a member's right to privacy.

The following examples illustrate the limits of the Commission's jurisdiction with respect to the personal conduct of RCMP members:

• A complainant alleged that her neighbour, an RCMP member, threatened her, saying in French: "I want you to know this, not today and not here, I want you to know that I will settle this" when she refused to consent to his municipal application for a particular use of his property. The Commission determined that the complaint did not fall within its jurisdiction. The alleged conduct-uttering what was perceived as a threat to a neighbour in the course of a personal dispute between neighbours-was not likely to adversely affect the member's performance as an RCMP member or harm the reputation of the RCMP. There was no suggestion that the RCMP member did anything to rely on his status as a member or to imply that he would use his powers as a member to "settle" the matter. The RCMP member was acting in his capacity as a private citizen, which he should be allowed to do without scrutiny by the Commission.
• A complainant who was involved in a custody dispute with her ex-husband, an RCMP member, alleged, among other things, that her ex-husband, while off duty, asked an on-duty RCMP member to pick up their child at a third party's house. In this case, the Commission determined that the alleged conduct was likely to adversely affect the member's performance as an RCMP member or harm the reputation of the RCMP. The decision was based on the allegation that the member relied on his status as a member and accessed RCMP resources for personal reasons. The complaint therefore fell within the public complaint process and was subject to scrutiny by the Commission.

With respect to the last example, the Commission reviewed the complaint and concluded in an interim report that the RCMP member acted improperly when he asked the on-duty member to pick up his child at the third party's house.

The RCMP Commissioner agreed and stated that the member had improperly relied on his status as a member and accessed RCMP resources to further his personal interests. The RCMP Commissioner acknowledged that some personal conduct should be subject to scrutiny in accordance with Part VII of the RCMP Act.

The Commission seeks to resolve questions about its jurisdiction to deal with a public complaint as early as possible in the complaint process.Where a complaint falls outside the Commission's jurisdiction, the Commission so notifies the complainant. Because complaints are also made directly to the RCMP, the Commission makes continuous efforts to communicate to the RCMP the limits of its jurisdiction. This results in the Commission reducing the number of complaints that would have otherwise been unnecessarily investigated by the RCMP.

Composition of The Commission

Commission Members

The legislation establishing the Commission provides for a Chair, a Vice-Chair, and a maximum of 29 other members and alternates from all provinces and territories that contract with the RCMP to provide policing services. The Chair serves full time; other members may serve full time or part time. The Governor in Council appoints the Chair and Vice-Chair for a term of up to five years. The members of the Commission representing each province and territory are also appointed by the Governor in Council following consultation with theminister responsible for policing in that province or territory.

Commission Staff

The Commission's Western Region office in Surrey, British Columbia, is the first point of contact for the public and is responsible for receiving all enquiries and complaints in either official language. Commission staff responsible for the hearing, investigation and reviewfunctions work primarily at Commission headquarters in Ottawa.

This year we acquired additional expertise in the areas of law, communications, audit, performance measurement and governance. Among other things, the Commission created the position of Manager of Investigations to conduct, coordinate and monitor investigations under the public complaint process. The Manager of Investigations also provides advice andsupport to management and reviewer analysts when investigations are being contemplated.

Commission Budget

	Actual Spending 2002-2003	Planned Spending 2003-2004
	($ Thousands)
Salaries, wages and other personnel costs	2,578*	2,581
Contributions to employee benefits plan	478	516
Subtotal	3,056	3,097
Other operating expenditures	1,766**	1,580
Total net spending 4	4,822	677

* This amount includes funding received through Supplementary Estimates A and B.
** This amount includes additional funds provided for Modern Comptrollership.

Commission Structure

click for larger version

---

---

Part 2 Operations

Complaint Process

A member of the public can make a complaint directly to the RCMP, the Commission or a provincial policing authority. The Commission Chair may also initiate a complaint.

Each complaint is forwarded to the RCMP, which conducts an investigation unless the Commission Chair deems it advisable in the public interest for the Commission to investigate the complaint. The RCMP then reports the results of the investigation to the complainant and the RCMP member(s) involved.

If not satisfied with the RCMP's handling of the matter, the complainant may refer the complaint to the Commission for review. Following this review, if the Chair is satisfied with the RCMP's handling of the complaint, she reports this to everyone involved, as well as to the RCMP Commissioner and the minister responsible for the RCMP, the Solicitor General of Canada.

The Compaint Process

 
click for larger version

* At any stage of the process, the Chair may institute an investigation or a hearing where she considers it advisable in the public interest.

If the Chair is not satisfied with the way the RCMP handled the complaint, she may review itwithout investigating further, ask the RCMP Commissioner to investigate further, initiate herown further investigation or hold a public hearing.

Each Commission review of a complaint involves a thorough analysis of all relevant materials,the RCMP investigation, and the law and policy related to the members' conduct.

When the review is complete, the Chair sends an interim report to the RCMP Commissionerand to the Solicitor General of Canada setting out her findings and recommendations.

The Commissioner then informs the Chair and the Solicitor General of Canada, in writing,of any action to be taken in response to the Chair's findings and recommendations. Shouldthe Commissioner reject any findings or recommendations, the Commissioner must includein this notice the reasons for the rejection. The Chair then prepares a final report thatincludes the Commissioner's response, as well as the Chair's final findings and recommendations,and sends it to everyone involved.

As already mentioned, when the Chair is not satisfied with the handling of the complaintby the RCMP she may either ask the RCMP to investigate further or conduct her own furtherinvestigation.

Further Investigation – Gaining Access by Flase Pretenses

The following example illustrates a case where the Commission Chair determined it wasnecessary to request that a further investigation be conducted by the RCMP.

The Chair was not satisfied with the RCMP's termination of the investigation and decided that a further investigation was warranted. She requested that the RCMP interview the RCMP member involved, as well as relevant witnesses.

The Chair's interim report concluded that the RCMP member's purpose in gaining access to the complainant's apartment was to pursue his investigation about an individual reportedly residing with the complainant. The RCMP member's notes from the incident corroborate the fact that he was not a member of the Housing Authority, as he had led the complainant to believe, despite his later statement to the contrary. In fact, his notes indicate that he was accompanying the inspectors to have "a good look around." The member waited until the end of the inspection to identify himself as a police officer and then proceeded to question the complainant regarding the whereabouts of the individual under investigation.

A woman complained, among other things, that an RCMP member gained access to her apartment under false pretenses, by posing as a building

The Chair found that the member conducted an unlawful search of the complainant's residence and recommended that the member be provided with operational guidance with respect to conducting lawful searches. The Chair also recommended that the member be thoroughly counselled regarding his obligations under section 37 of the RCMP Act, which include maintaining the integrity of the law, law enforcement and the administration of justice.

During 2002 – 2003, The Commission Received 1117 General Enquiries.

The RCMP Commissioner agreed with the findings and recommendations in the interim report. In addition, the Commissioner commented on the deficiencies noted in the public complaint investigation and indicated that he would be taking remedial action.

Western Region Office

Staff at the Commission's Western Region office are committed to responding to the public by providing individuals with information and guidance to address their concerns. The Western Region office has developed a database to record and analyse the number and types of enquiries it receives. These are treated as general enquiries, cases appropriate for alternative dispute resolution or formal complaints. In the past year, the Western Region office received and dealt with 2301 enquiries overall.

General Enquiries

During 2002-2003, the Commission received 1117 general enquiries. In their efforts to serve the public, Commission staff provided a satisfactory response to 307 enquiries that concerned the RCMP. The remaining 810 enquiries that did not concern the RCMP were redirected to the appropriate authorities.

Alternative Dispute Resolution

The Commission enjoys continued success with its alternative dispute resolution (ADR) initiative.When ADR is deemed appropriate, Commission analysts act as impartial facilitators to bring the complainant and the RCMP member(s) into contact with each other as soon as possible.

Using ADR, the complaint may be resolved without going through the formal public complaint process. In every case, the complainant retains the option of making an official complaint. The prompt and professional response from RCMP members, particularly supervisors, has been a major factor in the success of this initiative.

During 2002 – 2003, The Western Region Office Used ADR in 295  cases , successfully resolving 280 of them. Only 15 resulted informal complaints.

When successful, ADR can provide greater satisfaction to complainants and the RCMP member(s) involved because it can resolve the matter very quickly. It is also costefficient because there is no RCMP investigation, nor any Commission review. Staff in the Western Region office completed formal training in conflict resolution this year to expand their skills in this area.

The following summaries illustrate successful ADR initiatives during 2002 – 2003.

• The complainant and his wife were involved in a motor vehicle accident where the RCMP member was rude and aggressive towards them. He subsequently called the Commission to make a complaint. The Commission contacted the RCMP and spoke to a supervisor. The RCMP member involved in the incident contacted the complainant and apologized for his behaviour and stated that he had been having a bad day. The complainant was satisfied with the apology and did not lodge a formal complaint.
• A woman whose vehicle was stolen contacted the Commission to complain that the RCMP had recovered her vehicle the same day it was stolen, but failed to notify her until three weeks later. This resulted in a $300 storage bill. The Commission contacted an RCMP supervisor who agreed that the RCMP would pay the storage fee. Consequently, there was no formal complaint lodged.

Complaints

During 2002-2003, the Commission received 889 formal complaints.When a complaint is made directly to the Commission, the Western Region office receives it. Commission analysts obtain the details of each complainant's concerns, formulate the complaint, and forward it to the RCMP.When a question arises relating to the Commission's jurisdiction, the analyst consults the Commission's Legal Services Unit before accepting the complaint.

Review Report Completed in 2002 – 2003

Interim reports	38
Final Reports after Commissioner's Notice	36
Final Reports after Review	56
Other Closed Files	3
Total reports signed	133

Once a complaint is referred to and investigated by the RCMP, the complainant, if not satisfied, can ask the Commission to undertake a review. Review work accounts for a significant proportion of the Commission's workload.

Over the past 12 months, the Commission has begun a profound transformation of its review operations. It revitalized the review team by hiring a new team leader and adding new reviewer analysts. Funded through an internal reallocation of resources, these changes will allow the Commission to better manage its caseload.

The Commission has also implemented weekly reporting of progress on active review cases by the review and legal teams, closer monitoring of review cases assigned to contractors, and weekly oversight of caseload management by the Chair. This ensures continuing momentum for active review cases.

These changes, implemented in the latter half of the fiscal year, have allowed the Commission to conclude several complicated, long-standing cases. The changes have also positioned the review team to deal with a growing and challenging caseload.

This year the Commission also looked more carefully at how it can improve the time it takes to complete its reviews. The Commission expects to use this analysis to set more appropriate workload standards and performance objectives in 2003-2004. A planned resource assessment will set appropriate staffing levels for the review process over the longer term, so that the Commission has enough reviewer analysts for the number of review cases it is handling.

---

Streamlining Review Processs

A quality assurance process, introduced in previous years, has resulted in thorough reports of the highest quality; still much remains to be done to improve the timeliness of reviews. Several steps were taken this year to advance that goal.

In the past, reviewer analysts would discover after an initial analysis that they could not review the case before some shortcomings were addressed. Such shortcomings included inadequate materials provided by the RCMP, a deficient RCMP investigation of the original complaint or an RCMP member who had not been properly notified of the complaint. Consequently, such review cases were delayed.

To avoid such problems and ensure that a case is genuinely ready for review when assigned, the Commission began screening files. This improves the timeliness of reviews by addressing most shortcomings while the case is awaiting analysis, by facilitating assignment of cases to a reviewer analyst with the appropriate expertise and by determining time lines for completion of the review work based on the relative complexity of a case.

In the latter half of 2002-2003, a screening tool was developed and an experienced member of the review team was assigned to screen all cases. The success of this streamlining initiative in improving the timeliness of reviews will be assessed in 2003-2004.

A second key improvement was the implementation of a review checklist to ensure more consistent and thorough analyses of cases. Used by all reviewer analysts, the checklist provides a structured approach to clarifying allegations contained in a complaint, considering the handling of the complaint by the RCMP, examining evidence, determining applicable review standards, and developing Commission findings and recommendations.

USED BY ALL REVIEWER ANALYSTS , THE CHECK LIST PROVIDES A STRUCTURED APPROACH TO CLARIFYING ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN A COMPLAINT , CONSIDERING THE HANDLING OF THE COMPLAINT BY THE RCMP, EXAMINING EVIDENCE , DETERMINING APPLICABLE REVIEW STANDARDS , AND DEVELOPING COMMISSION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .

Use of the review checklist ensures that issues, legal or otherwise, are identified and addressed as early in the review process as possible and before reports are drafted. This minimizes extensive revision of reports and reduces delays.

The streamlining initiatives implemented in 2002-2003 will help maintain the quality of the Commission's review of complaints, as well as the quality of its further investigations. They will also help expedite the completion of reviews and reports. Close monitoring of our caseload will enable Commission staff to assess the value of these changes.

Liaison with Stake Holders

As the Commission strives to transform and streamline its review process, it is aware that much still needs to be done to respond to the needs and interests of complainants and RCMP members. Often the review process, as set out in the legislation, is difficult to understand and, too frequently, results take longer than expected for those involved.

To improve liaison with stakeholders, the Commission launched a series of outreach initiatives, including meetings with the RCMP to identify key issues to be addressed in the complaint process. These included a more comprehensive and consistent array of materials to be provided by the RCMP, greater clarity in defining the allegations contained in complaints to facilitate their investigation and review, improvements to the initial RCMP investigation of complaints, better use of ADR by the Commission and the RCMP, and better coordination between the Commission and the RCMP in the tracking of cases. The Commission is also working to improve the information and regular progress reports it provides to everyone involved.

---

Public Interest Investigations

The Commission Chair can launch a public interest investigation into any complaint when she considers it advisable in the public interest. When she takes this step, the RCMP does not have to conduct an investigation.

This year, the Chair determined that it was necessary to initiate two investigations in the public interest: one related to a high-speed police pursuit, and the other to a police raid that involved powers under the new anti-terrorism legislation. These investigations have not yet been completed and more information will be reported in future annual reports. The Chair did, however, issue her interim report following her investigation of another police pursuit, which occurred in January 2001.

High – Speed Police Pursuits

The Commission Chair made several policy recommendations with regard to this issue in her special report entitled Police Pursuits and Public Safety (1999). The Commission continues to monitor police pursuits very closely to ensure that safe practices are being employed. The following case is a summary of the public interest investigation, initiated by the Chair, into a high-speed police pursuit.

A young man was driving his car on a quiet residential street when he was struck on the passenger side by another vehicle, which had proceeded through a stop sign at a high rate of speed. The force of the impact was so substantial that the man's car ended up on the front lawn, almost at the doorstep, of an adjacent house. The man had to be removed from his vehicle using the "jaws of life" and was immediately transported to hospital with life-threatening injuries. The media reported the next morning that the RCMP had been pursuing a stolen vehicle at the time and subsequently arrested three suspects at the scene of the accident. The innocent victim spent more than two weeks in hospital fighting for his life and still has a long recovery ahead of him. After learning of this alleged pursuit, the Chair decided that an investigation was necessary in the public interest. The investigation is ongoing.

The following complaint was initiated by the Chair in 2001 and resulted in an interim report in 2002.

Following media reports, the Chair initiated a complaint that unidentified RCMP members conducted a pursuit of a stolen vehicle without due regard for public safety, improperly denied that a pursuit had been undertaken and failed to report the pursuit in accordance with current policy.

The Commission interviewed the RCMP members involved, witnesses and the driver of the stolen SUV. The Chair's interim report found that a pursuit had indeed taken place, that it had lasted less than one minute, and that it had been appropriately terminated because of the danger posed to public safety. The Chair found that the pursuit had not been reported as it should have but the members responsible for terminating the pursuit exemplified the risk-assessment and decision-making skills that pursuit policies are meant to elicit.

The Chair further noted that once a pursuit is initiated, the suspect's perceptions tend to dictate the outcome of the incident. It was clear from the suspect's interview that he believed the police were virtually right behind him for the duration of his flight.

This incident illustrates how dangerous all pursuits are, regardless of their duration. They set in motion a sequence of events that can have tragic consequences despite appropriate risk assessments and responsible decisions taken by officers.

Anti-Terrorism Legislation

The Commission was given the additional responsibility of providing civilian oversight of RCMP conduct under the anti-terrorism legislation passed by Parliament in 2002. The following is a summary of the public interest investigation into a recent complaint involving an RCMP raid allegedly linked to anti-terrorism activity. The Chair initiated the investigation because of the sensitive nature of the allegations. Unlike the previous examples, there were no media reports of this incident.

Since receiving the complaint, the Commission has learned that this was a joint operation with other police services. The investigation is ongoing.

---

Public Hearings

Public hearings are an option open to the Commission when dealing with complaints. Since its inception in 1988, the Commission has conducted 17 public hearings.

There were no public hearings held during this fiscal year.

---

Communications

The Commission is aware of the need to improve its ability to disseminate information about issues of interest to Canadians. To this end, the Commission hired a senior communications officer to implement initiatives outlined in previous annual reports, including: redesigning the Commission's web site to make it more informative and accessible while complying with government-wide standards; updating the Commission's pamphlet to better explain the public complaint process; increasing the Commission's media profile to promote a better understanding of its mandate and publicize its perspective on policing issues; raising awareness of the Commission's mandate and procedures among members of the public and RCMP members; and using the Commission's web site and appropriate academic journals to publicize Commission findings and recommendations.

Cases of Interest to the Chair

The Chair actively monitors cases involving police conduct with regard to the treatment of persons in custody, cell deaths, the use of force, the treatment of mentally ill persons, relations between Aboriginal communities and police, and high-speed police pursuits. Also of importance to the Chair are matters arising from the recent anti-terrorism and organized crime legislation that has given police extraordinary new powers.

These cases come to the attention of the Chair by way of media coverage, coroners' inquests, the criminal courts and public complaints. Matters involving other police services and police oversight agencies are monitored by the Chair.

Since the Chair's appointment, more than a 1000 cases have been monitored involving police services across the country. During the year, the Chair identified and considered over 400 cases of interest appearing in national news stories, including those listed below. There were 109 news stories dealing with the issue of cell deaths reported this year. Police treatment of persons with mental illness was reported in 76 news stories. Police pursuits appeared in 205 news stories. There were 55 news stories about police interaction with Aboriginal communities.

The Chair regards these monitoring activities as essential to ensure she remains current on policing trends and issues in order to be proactive in the public interest.

National and International Outreach

The Chair and other Commission representatives participated in various conferences with other civilian oversight agencies during the year. The Chair also travelled throughout the country to discuss her role as the head of a civilian oversight agency with various individuals and groups, including representatives of numerous RCMP divisions. These meetings provided an opportunity for the Chair to discuss the public complaint process, to ask how recommendations are being implemented across the country and to listen to issues of interest or concern.

National Outreach

The Chair maintains links with other agencies and associations concerned with excellence in Canadian policing. Part of her responsibility is to meet and discuss issues of mutual interest with these professionals. Over the year she shared information and ideas with the following groups of people.

• Chief Coroner of British Columbia
• Assistant Deputy Solicitor General of British Columbia
• Members of the London Muslim community
• National President of the Canadian Arab Federation
• Director of the Centre of Forensic Sciences in Toronto
• Chair and past Chair of the Nova Scotia Police Commission

The Chair makes it a priority to visit senior members of the RCMP across Canada to develop a deeper understanding of the issues they face while performing their policing duties, follow up on the implementation of Commission recommendations, and explore regional differences in policing. This year the Chair met with the following RCMP representatives.

• Deputy Commissioner of the Western Region
• Commanding Officer of the Surrey Detachment
• Deputy Commissioner of the North West Region
• Saskatchewan Assistant Commissioner of "F" Division
• RCMP members and recruits at RCMP Depot in Regina
• New Brunswick Assistant Commissioner of "J" Division
• New Brunswick District 8 Commander
• Nova Scotia Assistant Commissioner of "H" Division

Commission staff also attended the conference of the Canadian Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, held in St. John'fs, Newfoundland, in September 2002. The theme of the conference was "The Challenges of Accountability."

Ootreach to Aboriginal Communities

Despite media reports of a troubled relationship between Aboriginal Canadians and the RCMP, few formal complaints about RCMP members have originated from Aboriginal communities since the Commission was created in 1988.

Since the Commission's investigative powers are generally triggered by a public complaint, it is more difficult for the Commission to contribute to solutions for better policing unless people make full use of the complaint process.

This year, the Commission made a concerted effort to reach out to Aboriginal communities. Complaints from Aboriginal people have been identified by the Chair as a priority.

The Chair met with Wilton Littlechild and Glenda Cooney of the Commission on First Nations and Métis Peoples and Justice Reform to discuss problems Aboriginal communities face when dealing with police. Subsequently, the Chair was invited to Saskatoon by Mr. Littlechild to participate in a day-long round-table discussion exploring potential solutions to chronic problems of police interaction with Aboriginal communities.

The Commission can be more accessible to Aboriginal communities and we are actively exploring ways to allow Aboriginal people to trust and feel more comfortable with the complaint process.

International Outreach

The Chair corresponded and held discussions with heads of various international organizations to share information and ideas about policing issues. There are many countries interested in the Canadian experience with civilian oversight. The following examples provide a sample of some of these interactions.

THIS YEAR , THE COMMISSION MADE A CONCERTED EFFORT TO REACH OUT TO ABORIGINAL COMMUNITIES . COMPLAINTS FROM ABORIGINAL PEOPLE HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED BY THE CHAIR AS A PRIORITY.

Canada's High Commissioner to the Republic of Guyana and the Chair communicated to discuss the possibilities of the Chair's participation in the establishment of a civilian oversight body being contemplated by the Republic of Guyana.

A senior Commission analyst met with a research officer from the Crime and Misconduct Commission of the Queensland State Police of Australia for an in-depth discussion and exchange of information about police pursuits.

The Chair met with representatives from the National Human Rights Commission of the Republic of Korea, which is responsible for police oversight.

Senior staff members met with a delegation of senior police officers from the People's Republic of China to share information on the operation of a civilian oversight agency.

---

Case Tracking System

Over the past two years, the Commission has been upgrading its information management system. The Case Tracking System (CTS), a key objective of the Commission's five-year strategic plan, was implemented this year. It allows the Commission to effectively track the progress of complaints through the various stages of the process.

The CTS has the potential to become a useful tool for the Commission to track issues and legal concerns and to identify trends in policing practices as they emerge, but the Commission will require additional resources to improve the system and accomplish this goal.

Modern Comptrollership

The Commission made significant progress this year in implementing the principles of modern comptrollership. It completed a capacity check assessment of modern management practices. The assessment indicated that, as a small agency, we were very much on the right track but still have areas that need improvement. An action plan is currently being developed to seize the opportunities for improvement identified in the study.

The Commission is looking at what it wants to accomplish, assessing those goals against resources available and developing tools to assist with the performance measurement process.

---

Part 3 Policing Issues

Each year brings new cases that underscore the need for change in policing policy. The following section highlights issues that either warrant concern or have seen progress in the past year.

Making a Difference to RCMP Conduct

We are often asked what impact Commission recommendations have on RCMP conduct. Gauging this impact is not easy. One measure is the number of findings and recommendations accepted by the RCMP Commissioner. This year, at the Chair's request, the Commissioner has provided much more detailed explanations for his positions regarding Commission findings and recommendations. Most importantly, the Commissioner has taken the additional step of reporting on the implementation of our recommendations. This will serve to strengthen the complaint process and provide better service to Canadians.

The following cases illustrate how the Commission is influencing RCMP conduct and national policing policy, one case at a time.

The complainant alleged that an RCMP member used excessive and unnecessary force by, among other things, kicking him in the abdomen, causing him serious injury. He further complained he was not given medical attention when he was in RCMP custody. Finally, he alleged that another RCMP member forced him to mop up the vomit in his cell prior to releasing him.

The RCMP found that, while the member struck the complainant in the abdomen with his knee, the force, used in the circumstances, was proper, justified and did not violate the RCMP's policy or code of conduct. Regrettably, the RCMP's letter of disposition did not address the complainant's allegations that he was slapped, pushed and forced to mop out his cell at the detachment, nor did it address the alleged lack of medical attention.

In his interim report, the Vice-Chair found that the member improperly pushed the complainant back against a wall by the neck, which escalated tension in the situation. Indeed, a struggle ensued between the RCMP member and the complainant.

THIS YEAR, AT THE CHAIR'S REQUEST, THE COMMISSIONER HAS PROVIDED MUCH MORE DETAILED EXPLANATIONS FOR HIS POSITIONS REGARDING COMMISSION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .

The Vice-Chair concluded that the use of the knee strike-an authorized technique to obtain control of an individual who is resistant-was a justified use of force in the circumstances. Medical evidence confirmed that the bladder could have ruptured by any blow if it was full; therefore, the fact that it ruptured was not evidence that the blow was applied with excessive force. The Vice-Chair also concluded that the complainant was inadequately monitored to ensure his physical well-being while being detained. Furthermore, an RCMP member improperly required that he mop out his cell prior to his release. This incident revealed, to the Vice-Chair's dismay, that it was the detachment's practice to leave detainees to "wallow" in their own vomit until release.

The Vice-Chair recommended, among other things, that the RCMP member who applied force receive refresher training on response options and that all detachment staff be reminded of the proper standards regarding the incarceration, monitoring and care of intoxicated individuals.

The RCMP Commissioner fully supported all the Vice-Chair's findings and recommendations and instituted a review of the relevant national policy on conditions of confinement, "with a view to precluding a repetition of, or continuance of, the issues illustrated in this public complaint elsewhere." The Chair was pleased with the Commissioner's response, including his decision to take action beyond the recommendations made.

The man complained, among other things, that RCMP members unlawfully entered his home, improperly arrested him and used excessive force in their dealings with him.

The Chair found in her interim report that the members had no legal authority to enter the complainant's home and that they should have left when requested to do so. The complainant's arrest was improper because the members were not in the lawful execution of their duties when the alleged obstruction took place. Accordingly, all force used was improper in light of the improper arrest. The Chair recommended, among other things, that the members apologize to the complainant and that they receive operational guidance with respect to the lawful entry of a dwelling and authorized and appropriate use of force.

The RCMP Commissioner agreed with the Chair's findings and recommendations, and expressed concern over the frequency with which members "find themselves in similar risky situations and are not sufficiently familiar with the law, which lead to the inevitable consequences in this case." The Commissioner went further, directing the appropriate policy centres to issue clear policy directives and guidelines on this issue.

The complainant alleged that he had been arrested without justification, was not advised of his rights under the Charter and was not allowed reasonable access to legal counsel. He also alleged that an RCMP member had used excessive force against him at the detachment by choking him.

The Vice-Chair concluded that the complainant had been arrested without justification and that he had been advised of his Charter rights, but not allowed reasonable access to a legal adviser once he no longer posed a threat. The Vice-Chair also concluded there was an improper use of force.

In addition, the Vice-Chair expressed concern that three RCMP members had neglected to take notes relating to this incident. He emphasized that RCMP policy, training and longstanding police practice require that officers take accurate and contemporaneous notes.

This practice enhances the credibility of police officers when they are called on to provide a statement in court, in disciplinary proceedings or in public complaint investigations. Most importantly, it helps reassure members of the public that the evidence given by the police is accurate and fair.

The RCMP Commissioner agreed with the Commission's findings and recommendations, adding that deficiencies in note-taking are currently being addressed by operational improvement initiatives. He also said the issue would be the focus of additional remedial initiatives at the national level and that he would ask that it also be addressed at the local detachment level.

The complainant alleged, among other things, that the RCMP member improperly seized his boat and trailer without a warrant, that the RCMP member behaved improperly in dealing with him and that the supervisor failed to prevent the improper seizure of the boat and trailer.

The Vice-Chair's interim report concluded that the RCMP member's conduct in seizing the boat and trailer without a warrant was improper and that the supervisor failed to prevent this unlawful seizure. The Vice-Chair further concluded that the RCMP member's conduct in becoming angry, threatening arrest and remaining on private property when instructed to leave by the complainant was improper.

In response, the RCMP Commissioner fully supported the Commission's findings and recommendations. Specifically, the Commissioner agreed that both the RCMP member and the supervisor receive operational guidance with respect to the requirements for a search warrant prior to the seizure of property and that they apologize to the complainant.

The RCMP Commissioner also agreed with the Vice-Chair's finding that the RCMP member behaved improperly in his dealings with the complainant. He supported the Vice-Chair's recommendation that the RCMP member receive operational guidance with respect to his communication and intervention skills.

---

Conflicts of Interest

In the Commission's view, conflicts of interest in the policing context are not well understood. RCMP members live and work in the communities they police and therefore there are many opportunities for conflicts of interest to arise in the course of their work.

The RCMP Act requires every RCMP member "to avoid any actual, apparent or potential conflict of interests." The following cases illustrate the conflicts of interest that can arise.

There was a public complaint investigation into the adequacy of the RCMP's criminal investigation. At the same time, the RCMP public complaint investigator and the RCMP members who were complained about in the public complaint investigation restarted the criminal investigation into the alleged assault.

The RCMP members who were the subject of the complaint recommended to the Crown prosecutor that charges be re-laid. The prosecutor declined, stating that the evidence did not support re-laying the charges. Following this, the RCMP concluded its public complaint investigation. It found most of the complainant's allegations to be unsupported, but it did acknowledge that the alleged victim's statement, as taken by the primary investigator, could have been more thorough.

In his interim report, the Vice-Chair concluded that the RCMP had conducted an inadequate and improper criminal investigation into the allegations of assault. He further concluded that the two RCMP members' involvement in the reinvestigation of the alleged assault during the public complaint investigation constituted a serious conflict of interest.

The Vice-Chair recommended, among other things, that the RCMP members be reminded of the need to avoid conflicts of interest.

The RCMP Commissioner agreed that the initial criminal investigation was inadequate. However, he did not agree that the RCMP members' involvement in the reinvestigation constituted a conflict of interest. He expressed a concern that filing a public complaint against an RCMP member could be used to prevent that member from continuing a criminal investigation.

The Commissioner's concern was reasonable but it did not apply to the facts of this case because the initial criminal investigation had been completed before the public complaint was filed. The conflict of interest arose when the two RCMP members reinvestigated the alleged criminal offence during a public complaint investigation into the adequacy of their own prior criminal investigation. They had a vested interest in re-laying the original charge. For that reason, they should not have been involved in the reinvestigation of the criminal complaint.

The Commission does not intend to endorse complaints filed with the ulterior motive of removing an RCMP member from a criminal investigation, but that was not the case here. The Vice-Chair continues to believe that this was a serious conflict of interest.

In his interim report, the Vice-Chair concluded that reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest of the complainant did not exist and, therefore, all force used by the RCMP member was improper. The Vice-Chair went on to comment that the direct reporting relationship between the member involved and the public complaint investigator resulted in a conflict of interest.

In his notice, the RCMP Commissioner agreed that the member involved did not have grounds to arrest the complainant and, therefore, the force used was improper. The Commissioner also noted the comment about the apparent conflict of interest and indicated that he would ask the "appropriate authority to ensure that the National Internal Investigation Guidebook be reviewed and updated to more clearly address these issues."

This case highlights the consequences of conflicts of interest. The public complaint investigator investigated the complaint and vindicated the RCMP members' actions. However, both the Vice-Chair and the RCMP Commissioner disagreed with the RCMP investigation and agreed with each other. There is no basis to suggest that the public complaint investigator acted in bad faith but, even with the best of intentions, objectivity can be subtly undermined by a conflict of interest and, for that reason, such a conflict must be scrupulously avoided.

In the past, the Commission has encountered numerous examples of RCMP members performing their duties while in a conflict of interest.We have seen RCMP members conduct criminal investigations when targets of the investigations are suing one of the members- not surprisingly, the targets of the criminal investigations complained that they were not being treated fairly. The RCMP member in one such case, and his supervisors, did not see a conflict of interest. Because conflicts are regularly overlooked, or dismissed, by RCMP members, the Commission has repeatedly recommended that the RCMP Commissioner examine the issue in detail and provide clear guidance to his members. That recommendation has never been followed.

IN THE PAST , THE COMMISSION HAS E NCOUNTERED NUMEROUS EXAMPLES OF RCMP MEMBERS PERFORMING THEIR DUTIES WHILE IN A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

The Commission continues to believe that members of the RCMP need, and are entitled to, a comprehensive policy statement that discusses the significance of conflicts of interest and helps members recognize and avoid them. The RCMP Commissioner's initiative, as a result of this case, in directing a review and update of the National Internal Investigation Guidebook to address conflicts that arise in public complaint investigations is a good first step, but the Commissioner needs to give additional attention to this critical area.

Investigative Detention

A complaint recently reviewed by the Commission raised some questions regarding the authority of the police to detain individuals on the basis of mere suspicion. In the facts of that case, the police suspected the complainant of having committed a sexual assault. Because they lacked sufficient grounds, they did not arrest him. Rather, they told him he was being detained and asked him to accompany them to the police station where they proceeded to question him for almost three hours.

Because the concept of investigative detention is still evolving, the Commission's Legal Services Unit was tasked with researching the matter and preparing a legal brief addressing the lawful parameters of such detentions. The memorandum was then appended to the Chair's final report in that complaint. In essence, the memorandum supported the conclusion that the actions taken by the police went beyond the common law powers afforded to police officers.

As a general rule, the police have no authority to detain suspects solely for investigative purposes without reasonable and probable grounds to believe they have committed an offence. One exception is the common law doctrine of investigative detention, which allows the police to detain an individual if they have what is known as articulable cause. Articulable cause has been defined as a "constellation of objectively discernible facts" that offer reasonable cause to suspect that a person has been involved in a crime.

AS A GENERAL RULE , THE POLICE HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO DETAIN SUSPECTS SOLELY FOR INVESTIGATIVE PURPOSES WITHOUT REASONABLE AND PROBABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THEY HAVE COMMITTED AN OFFENCE .

Articulable cause is something more than a hunch but less than reasonable and probable grounds to believe. Since investigative detentions are an exception to the longestablished rule that the police have no authority to detain anyone for questioning, it is important that this power be judiciously applied so as not to breach fundamental rights and freedoms. The Commission's memorandum examined the legal cases that have been decided in this area in order to identify the limits of investigative detention.

In response to this complaint, the RCMP argued that because the subject members had articulable cause in that case, they were authorized to detain the complainant. However, the Commission's legal brief revealed other limits to the scope of a valid investigative detention. For example, the length of a valid investigation cannot extend to several hours. Secondly, in terms of proximity, the police are not generally permitted to transport a detainee to a new location. Both of these limits were exceeded in this complaint.

Moreover, the legal memorandum also concluded that, in the course of an investigative detention, the police are only authorized to search for weapons. By contrast, the question as to whether the right to counsel arises upon investigative detention is still undecided.

Since the concept of investigative detention has yet to be considered by the Supreme Court of Canada, a final determination of these contentious issues awaits further pronouncement by that court.

The Commission is hopeful that its legal memorandum will generate discussion with the RCMP on this important issue. The full legal brief, written by Lesley McCoy, Commission Counsel, was published in the October 2002 Criminal Law Quarterly1 and will soon be available on the Commission's web site.

The Commission and the RCMP: Differences in Perspective

There are times when the RCMP Commissioner's response to the Commission's findings and recommendations reveals the differences that sometimes exist between the police perspective and the civilian perspective. The following cases illustrate this point.

The complainant alleged that the RCMP was harassing him because he rode a Harley- Davidson motorcycle. Issuance of the parking ticket was just one of many incidents that he alleged constituted harassment.

The Vice-Chair concluded in the interim report that issuing a parking ticket for backing into a parking space in these circumstances was oppressive conduct.

The RCMP Commissioner, in his notice, did not agree that the conduct of the RCMP member who had issued the parking ticket could be characterized as "oppressive."

Nor did the Commissioner acknowledge that the conduct was inappropriate. He explained that there appeared to be full legal authority to issue a ticket and that it appeared police discretion was available in this case. If what the RCMP member did was "standard practice" in the community and "fully consistent with the law," then the actions of the RCMP member "were according to local policy and could not be considered oppressive."

Subsequent to the Commissioner's notice, the Chair and the RCMP Commissioner met and discussed this case, among others. The Commissioner objected to the use of the word oppressive in describing this conduct. The Chair agreed in her final report that this member's conduct would be more appropriately described as "unnecessary and gratuitous." However, in the Chair's view, the Commissioner's rationale for vindicating the conduct is unclear and unacceptable.

The mother lodged a complaint with the Commission alleging, among other things, that the RCMP members used excessive force and exhibited inappropriate conduct towards her family.

The Chair concluded in an interim report that the members' overzealous conduct and lack of communication throughout the incident precipitated the resulting traumatic event. Despite the repeated requests for information by the complainant and her husband, none of the six RCMP members present responded in a manner intended to de-escalate the situation. Instead, the members resorted to using inappropriate and excessive force against the elderly parents and their son. The Chair recommended that the members be reminded of the importance of appropriate communication with clients, that they approach this complainant with a view to bringing about reconciliation with her and her family, and that they apologize for the inappropriate uses of force.

The RCMP Commissioner rejected the Chair's conclusion, suggesting that, while the members were partially responsible for the absence of effective communication, the family's "substantial level of aggression" prevented a "productive exchange." By so concluding, the Commissioner failed to recognize that the members' lack of appropriate communication created an atmosphere of tension and hostility. The Commissioner further failed to reinforce the RCMP's internationally recognized problem-solving guidelines, which require police officers to communicate effectively and to initially try to defuse situations, rather than resort to physical force. The Chair maintains that there is ample evidence that the members resorted to force without considering alternative and reasonable means to handle what could have otherwise been a routine matter.

In her interim report, the Chair concluded that the RCMP investigator had failed to gather evidence available to him and that some of the information contained in the investigation reports was "false, misleading and inaccurate."

The Chair recommended that the RCMP investigator receive direction from his supervisors regarding his responsibility to prepare thorough investigation reports and to take accurate, timely notes. She also recommended that the RCMP undertake a Code of Conduct investigation to determine whether the RCMP investigator had contravened the section dealing with a member's obligation not to "knowingly or wilfully make a false, misleading or inaccurate statement or report to any member who is superior in rank or who has authority over that member pertaining to any investigation."

In response to the interim report, the RCMP Commissioner stated that the complaint related to a criminal investigation conducted in 1992. He added that the complainant waited five years before filing his complaint and that this delay had an [ translation] "adverse effect" on the Commissioner's "treatment" of the Chair's finding and recommendations. On the one hand, the Commissioner categorically rejected the Chair's finding on the ground that it was [translation] "superfluous," the comments were offensive and it contained "false, misleading and inaccurate" accusations. He added that the finding and recommendations were [ translation] "too categorical and harsh, without clear motives and submitted much too late." On the other hand, the Commissioner said that he did not [ translation] "entirely disagree with the essence of the finding and recommendations."

In her final report, the Chair noted that the Commissioner had made a factual error as the complainant had, in fact, made his complaint within four months following his dismissal. The Chair also concluded that RCMP members are required to respect the Code of Conduct and that, as a result, the RCMP investigator had to ensure that the information contained in his report was complete and accurate before submitting it to his supervisor.

With respect to the recommendations, the Chair was concerned by the Commissioner's rationale. In past reports, the Commissioner recognized the importance for RCMP members to take accurate and contemporaneous notes. This case was no different. The member should have received direction with respect to thorough investigations and note-taking. Unfortunately, and based on a factual error, the Commissioner did not condemn the inappropriate conduct.

---

Post Scriptum

It is apparent in the pages of this report that the Commissioner and I do not always agree. That is to be expected. Having said that, I wish to acknowledge the time and effort that Commissioner Zaccardelli has personally invested in providing meaningful and helpful responses that contribute to a better understanding of policing issues. He has frequently exceeded the requirements of the RCMP Act and the Canadian public has benefited as a result.

---

Getting in Touch with the Commission

Head Office

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

Telephone and Fax
General Enquiries 613-952-1471
Toll-free Line 1-800-267-6637 (bilingual)
Complaints (toll-free) 1-800-665-6878 (bilingual)
Fax 613-952-8045
Western Region Of f ice

Mailing Address
Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP
7337 137th Street, Suite 102
Surrey, British Columbia V3W 1A4

Telephone and Fax
General Enquiries 604-501-4080
604-501-4091
Complaints (toll-free) 1-800-665-6878 (bilingual)
Fax 604-501-4095

Selected Commission reports are available here.