Chair's Final Report – Incident Related to Complaint of Improper Attitude

RCMP Act Subsection 45.42(2)

Vetted version for posting

December 1, 2008

Overview

Mr. A has lodged a number of complaints against members of the Meadow Lake RCMP Detachment in Saskatchewan stemming from his allegations of child abuse levelled against his former spouse's new husband dating back to August of 1996.¹ Constable B initially investigated Mr. A's allegation, but concluded that there were no reasonable grounds to believe an infraction had been committed. In December 2000, Mr. A once more alleged that his former spouse's husband had abused the children² and Constable C investigated the matter. Constable C forwarded the results of his investigation to Crown counsel, who concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support charges.

On December 12, 2007, Ms. D, the principal of a junior high school in Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan, contacted the local RCMP detachment and requested the presence of a member for the school's Christmas concert. Ms. D made that request because she was concerned that Mr. A would cause a disturbance, as Mr. A's former spouse and her new husband would also be attending the concert. Corporal E, who was also the RCMP Liaison Officer for the school, attended the concert and was approached by Mr. A.

On December 14, 2007, Mr. A complained to the Commission that Corporal E's behaviour during their conversation and during the concert was improper.

As required under the RCMP Act (the Act), the complaint was investigated by the RCMP. According to the Act, on completion of the investigation, the RCMP Commissioner (or his delegate) shall send his Final Report to the complainant summarizing the results of the investigation and any action taken to resolve the complaint. In this case, the RCMP provided Mr. A a Final Report dated August 25, 2008, which did not support Mr. A's allegations.

Mr.  A was not satisfied with the RCMP's disposition of his complaint. He requested a review by the Commission on August 14, 2008. The Commission received the investigation documents relating to this matter from the RCMP on September 11, 2008.

For the reasons outlined below, I am satisfied that there is no merit to the complainant's allegation against Corporal E.

Commission's Review of the Complaint

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

My conclusions and finding are based on the examination of the following materials: Mr. A's complaint as well as the history of his dealings with members of the Meadow Lake RCMP Detachment; the report to Crown counsel, the RCMP investigational materials; and the RCMP's Final Report.

Allegation: Corporal E acted inappropriately when attending the school concert.

Corporal E entered the school's gymnasium and sat with the students' parents, of whom there were approximately five hundred in attendance, to listen to the concert. Ms. D was standing at the gymnasium doors, in close proximity of Corporal E and noticed Mr. A approach the member. She could hear them speak, and she observed Mr. A ask Corporal E a few questions and then return to his seat. She noticed nothing unusual about Corporal E's behaviour during the entire time that he was in attendance at the school. During their conversation, Corporal E found it strange that Mr. A requested that he provide his business card. When he asked him why he needed it, Corporal E said Mr. A told him "you'll see." Corporal E then watched Mr. A return to his seat with a smile on his face. Corporal E, following the completion of the concert, escorted Mr. A's former spouse, her husband and their child to their car to ensure that nothing untoward happened.

The next day, Mr. A contacted the Meadow Lake RCMP Detachment and alleged that Corporal E "[...] seemed to be arousing him self [sic] (corporal E), physically and perhaps even masturbating as he (corporal E), watched the children on stage!" Corporal E vehemently denied the allegation as did Ms. D.

The RCMP investigated the matter and forwarded the results of the investigation to the Crown. The Crown concluded that there was no merit to Mr. A's case, and considered laying charges against Mr. A for public mischief. The Crown reasonably believed that Mr. A had fabricated allegations of wrongdoing; however, there were no independent witnesses to corroborate either side of the story. Because of this, the Crown concluded there was no reasonable likelihood of conviction in the circumstances.

As Chair of the Public Complaints Commission, I have an obligation to point out instances where a member's actions fall short of the degree of professionalism that Canadians can rightly expect from a member of the RCMP. I also have a corresponding duty to highlight instances where members are subject to baseless accusations that but for the fulfillment of their duties and responsibilities would not arise.

Police officers by the very nature of their work do not get to select the members of the public with whom they will interact. They are more often than not required to deal with individuals who are experiencing significant personal or emotional turmoil. The risk to the officer in such circumstances is that they become the target of unwarranted attacks which are directed either against their person or their reputation. This is the heavy price that police officers pay in the fulfillment of their duty on behalf of the Canadian public.

I have no doubt that Corporal E, having responded to the request from the school principal to attend the children's concert to ensure that Mr. A did not breach the peace in the continuance of his vendetta against his former spouse and her new husband, was subjected to an unwarranted attack upon his reputation.

The facts of this case have shown that Mr. A's allegations were patently false and extremely distasteful. Given the seriousness of the situation, and the fact that his allegations could have negatively impacted Corporal E's career, Mr. A is fortunate indeed not to have found himself facing criminal charges of public mischief. Corporal E is to be commended for his patience and professionalism throughout this ordeal.

Our files reveal a lengthy campaign by Mr. A against his former spouse's new husband which unavoidably entangled members of the local RCMP detachment. This obsession has clearly clouded Mr. A's judgment and negatively influenced his behaviour.

Finding: Corporal E acted appropriately throughout his dealings with Mr. A.

Pursuant to subsection 45.42(2) of the RCMP Act, I respectfully submit my Final Report and, accordingly, the Commission's mandate in this matter is ended.

_____________________
Paul E. Kennedy
Chair

1 Commission File No. 1996-1087.

2 Commission File No. 2001-0591.