Vice-Chair's Interim Report – Incident Related to Improper Arrest, Neglect of Duty and Improper Attitude

RCMP Act Paragraph 45.42(3)(a)

Vetted version for posting

February 29, 2008

Overview

On September 12, 2005, the complainant, Mr. A, filed a complaint concerning the conduct of Constables B, C and an unidentified female member of an RCMP Detachment in Saskatchewan. His complaint essentially alleges that Constables B and C improperly arrested him without a warrant and conducted an inadequate investigation and that an unidentified female RCMP member displayed an improper attitude.

After examining the complaint, the RCMP provided Mr. A with a notice of direction dated December 23, 2005, which explained that, pursuant to paragraph 45.36(5)(c) of the RCMP Act, the RCMP had decided that the investigation was not reasonably practicable without Mr. A's cooperation, as Mr. A had failed to contact the public complaint investigator as requested. The notice of direction indicated that the investigation was being terminated pursuant to the aforementioned paragraph.

Mr. A was not satisfied with the RCMP's decision not to investigate his complaint. On December 6, 2007, he requested a review by this Commission. The Commission received the relevant materials regarding this matter from the RCMP on December 21, 2007.

For the reasons outlined below, I have concluded that the RCMP should have investigated Mr. A's public complaint.

RCMP Decision not to Commence a Public Complaint Investigation

It is important to note that, in cases where the RCMP has terminated, or not commenced a public complaint investigation, it is, first and foremost, incumbent upon the Commission to assess the reasonableness of that decision. If the Commission finds that the direction was reasonable, there will be no finding with respect to any allegation made in the complaint.

In his complaint, Mr. A provided sufficient information (date, names, and location) to enable the RCMP to investigate the incident that gave rise to Mr. A's allegations. In response to a previous decision by the Commission dealing with the termination of a public complaint investigation, the Commissioner made it clear that, at minimum, and in the absence of exceptional circumstances, a public complaint investigation should involve an interview of the complainant(s) and the subject member(s). Furthermore, the Commissioner agreed with the Commission that it is incumbent upon any person exercising the prerogative to refuse to investigate to provide substantive rationale for so doing.

In this case, Mr. A refused to be interviewed in person and the RCMP did not interview the subject members. However, Mr. A did provide the Commission with a substantial amount of handwritten materials concerning his position in relation to the incident as well as the criminal harassment charge he faced. All these materials were provided to the RCMP. Moreover, Mr. A did speak on the telephone a couple of times to the public complaint investigator who attempted to address his issues. However, Mr. A was reluctant to meet with the public complaint investigator in person and stated to the investigator that he thought he might put his complaint "on hold" until such time as his trial was concluded.¹ While it is clearly beneficial to have the complainant's account first hand, it is not always crucial to a public complaint investigation. This is particularly the case where the complainant has provided considerable written information in advance of the investigation and where the person is willing to be contacted by telephone.

In this case, the RCMP determined that an investigation was not reasonably practicable without the cooperation of Mr. A and terminated the investigation pursuant to paragraph 45.36(5)(c) of the RCMP Act. In essence, the RCMP conducted no investigation into the complaint. Under the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the non-cooperation of the complainant represents a substantive rationale. It is apparent that the RCMP could have reasonably conducted an adequate public complaint investigation, without the cooperation of the complainant, given the ample information that Mr. A had provided to the Commission, and which was provided to the RCMP. Mr. A sufficiently set out his position in his materials; therefore, eliciting further information from him was not crucial to the investigation. Moreover, Mr. A appears to have been willing to speak on the phone with the public complaint investigator; therefore, he may have been willing to answer some questions by telephone if necessary.

I do acknowledge that the complainant's statement that he wished to put his complaint "on hold" may have been a factor in the RCMP's decision. This statement clearly indicates a lack of interest in pursuing the complaint in a timely manner and suggests that the matter may not have been that serious to him, that it could be put on hold for an extended period of time. However, notwithstanding the complainant's perceived lack of interest, the RCMP was still in a position to move forward with the investigation and should have done so in accordance with the clear directions contained in previous Commissioner's Notices.

Accordingly, given that the subject members were not interviewed, and a "substantive rationale" was not provided, I find the decision to terminate the investigation was not reasonable.

Finding: It was not reasonable for the RCMP to terminate the public complaint investigation pursuant to paragraph 45.36(5)(c) of the RCMP Act.

Recommendation: That the RCMP investigate this public complaint.

Comment

In addition to the complainant's statement that he wish to put his complaint "on hold," I note that the complainant failed to make a timely request for review of the RCMP's notice of direction; rather, he waited two years before doing so. Unfortunately, under the current legislation, there are no provisions for time limits that would ensure that complainants pursue their complainants and requests for review in a timely manner.

Having considered the complaint, I hereby submit my Interim Report in accordance with paragraph 45.42(3)(a) of the RCMP Act.

_____________________
Brooke McNabb
Vice-Chair

1 In an e-mail dated December 19, 2005, the public complaint investigator notes that he tried to arrange a meeting with the complainant, but the complainant indicated that he thought he might put the complaint "on hold" until such time as his trial was concluded.