Chair's Interim Report – Incident Related to Neglect of Duty
RCMP Act Paragraph 45.42(3)(a)
Vetted version for posting
August 17, 2009
Synopsis
In January 2008, the RCMP received a complaint from Mr. A alleging that the RCMP did not conduct an investigation before charging him with a traffic offence based upon the evidence of his neighbour. In April 2008, Mr. A met with the RCMP public complaint investigator and following the meeting signed a form that indicated that he was abandoning his complaint.
In May of 2008, Mr. A wrote to the Commission advising that he did not believe that the RCMP had properly answered his complaint and also raising a new unrelated complaint. The new complaint arose from his dissatisfaction with the response of members of the Merritt RCMP Detachment in British Columbia to his complaints of criminal harassment by various individuals in his community.
The RCMP investigated the complaint and found that Mr. A did not "have a complaint relating to the conduct or actions of the Merritt RCMP Detachment." However, the RCMP did not address the new complaint but rather focused on the original complaint relating to the traffic offence.
For the reasons outlined below, I find that the RCMP's disposition of Mr. A's complaint was unsatisfactory in that it failed to address the specific allegation set forth in the Formal Complaint Form dated June 3, 2008.
Overview of the Process
On May 30, 2008, Mr. A complained to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP (the Commission) about the conduct of members of the Merritt RCMP Detachment.
Pursuant to 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.
The RCMP's Final Report dated March 23, 2009 found that Mr. A did not have a complaint relating to RCMP conduct.
Mr. A was not satisfied with the RCMP's handling of the complaint, and on April 21, 2009, he asked the Commission to review the matter. The Commission received the investigation documents from the RCMP on June 3, 2009.
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 findings, as indicated below, are based on a careful review of all of the investigation documents. These include Mr. A's complaint and subsequent communications, the public complaint investigator's occurrence reports and the RCMP's Final Report, as well as other relevant documentation.
Allegation: Members of the Merritt RCMP Detachment failed to investigate Mr. A's allegation of criminal harassment.
On January 23, 2008, the Commission forwarded a complaint made by Mr. A to the RCMP. The focus of that complaint was an allegation that Constable B issued a traffic ticket based upon the information of a third party without conducting an investigation.
On April 7, 2008, Mr. A and his lawyer met with Corporal C to review the issue. After hearing the circumstances surrounding Mr. A's complaint, Corporal C explained to Mr. A why he believed that Constable B was only carrying out his duties in laying the charges based on the evidence at his disposal. Following this discussion the complaint was set out onto an RCMP complaint form and marked withdrawn.
On May 30, 2008, the Commission received correspondence from Mr. A which indicated that he did not accept the resolution and wished his complaint to continue. Mr. A also raised other issues in that letter. In order to clarify the nature of his complaint, a Commission analyst contacted Mr. A and ascertained that there were two separate issues. The first was a request to continue with the response to his original complaint relating to the traffic ticket investigation. The second was a new complaint that RCMP members had failed to investigate his complaints of harassment. The RCMP disposition of that complaint is the subject of this review.
The Commission forwarded Mr. A's requests in separate correspondence referenced to the appropriate file number. In a letter, dated June 9, 2008, Mr. A's Formal Complaint Form, with Mr. A's letter appended thereto, set out his new complaint in the following terms:
Mr. [A] is complaining about the conduct of members of the Merritt, BC, RCMP Detachment as it relates to Mr. [A]'s reports of harassment of him and his mother, Ms. [D]. Mr. [A] says that, since February of 2006, people in the town of Merritt, BC, have been harassing him and his mother. Mr. [A] says that he has identified his concerns to [F] and attempted, on a number of occasions, to report the harassing activity to Constable [B]. Mr. [A] says that the police have taken no action to investigate and charge anyone with a criminal offence and have failed to allow him and his mother to live a peaceful and quite [sic] life.
On July 23, 2008, the Commission forwarded a second letter from Mr. A which again referred to his original complaint, specifically his dissatisfaction at his conviction for the traffic offence and with the resulting fine.1 Mr. A also raised various issues that were outside the Commission's mandate. Lastly, the letter contained references to RCMP conduct issues involving how he was spoken to and how the RCMP handled his harassment complaints. In fact, he asserted that the RCMP did take some action on his behalf in relation to those complaints.
For reasons not explained, it appears that the complaint was not assigned for investigation until January 19, 2009. On January 28, 2009, the public complaint investigator, Corporal E, met with Mr. A and his mother. They spent a significant amount of time discussing Mr. A's concerns.
Corporal E's occurrence report was quite detailed. After reviewing Corporal E's occurrence report I conclude that the focus of his discussions with Mr. A was the issue of the traffic ticket as opposed to the issue of the failure to investigate Mr. A's harassment complaints. However, I also conclude that the two men did discuss the harassment issue but rather than addressing the actions of those members who Mr. A alleged failed to act upon his complaints, Corporal E summarily decided that Mr. A's harassment complaints were not criminal in nature. He then went on to explain to Mr. A that the police cannot take sides in civil disputes.
Most of the meeting time was devoted to the issue of Mr. A's conviction for the traffic offence. Corporal E wrote in his occurrence report that by the end of the meeting Mr. A appreciated that the RCMP had no authority to grant any relief relating to the conviction. Accordingly, Corporal E and Mr. A completed an RCMP complaint form, a form which is unique from the Commission Formal Complaint Form.
Corporal E then had Mr. A execute the form, thereby certifying the details of his complaint which were recorded in the following manner:
- want the RCMP or someone to pull the ticket I was issued because I did not do that. I do understand that the RCMP cannot do anything about this.
- I have no complaints about the RCMP, but I do about my wrongful conviction.
As a result, the RCMP considered the complaint concluded. However, after assessing the notes of the meeting between Corporal E and Mr. A and the words used by Mr. A, I conclude that the context of his remark indicating that he did not have a complaint was likely made only as it related to the issue of the traffic ticket and not his later complaint into the failure to investigate his harassment allegations.
On February 6, 2009, Mr. A again wrote to the Commission complaining that the RCMP had failed to address his concerns or those of his mother. This information was duly relayed to the RCMP which, without further investigation, directed its Final Report to Mr. A by letter dated March 23, 2009. The letter identified Mr. A's main concern as that of the traffic ticket and stated that when asked by Corporal E as to what his specific complaints were, Mr. A had written on the RCMP complaint form that he did not have any complaints. On that basis the letter concluded that there was no "complaint relating to the conduct or actions of an officer of the Merritt RCMP Detachment."
For the following reasons, I do not agree with the RCMP's disposition. Although Mr. A remained upset about his traffic conviction, he initiated a separate complaint which is clearly articulated above. It is apparent that Corporal E spent some effort attempting to explain the limits of his role with respect to the traffic conviction and Mr. A referred favourably to Corporal E in this regard. It also appears that Corporal E assessed the information he received from Mr. A as raising no criminal concern thereby justifying the RCMP in declining to act on his complaint. However, this was not Corporal E's task as the investigator. His task was to assess the conduct of the members in responding to Mr. A's complaints.
Furthermore, in his July 23, 2008 letter, Mr. A claimed to have been the victim of theft, break and enter, and assault. He also alleged that one member told him that he was not to be believed because he had mental health issues. These claims would certainly fall within the scope of a member's policing duties. Mr. A also claimed that in some instances RCMP members had taken action on his behalf. After reviewing the material before me I am not satisfied that Corporal E explicitly questioned Mr. A about the above matters or the allegations contained in his Formal Complaint as filed with the Commission. Furthermore, no efforts were taken to identify whether Mr. A had lodged complaints with members of the Merritt RCMP Detachment and, if so, how they responded to those complaints.
This is not the first instance in which the RCMP has rewritten a complaint as formulated by the Commission. While there may be circumstances in which a complainant wishes to restate or clarify his or her position, the RCMP cannot simply ignore the substance of a complaint as written by the complainant or recorded by the Commission. If such circumstances arise, it is incumbent upon the RCMP to obtain clear written acknowledgement that the complainant is abandoning the original complaint. Merely reformatting the complaint to ignore essential elements of what was originally complained of can lead to the perception that the RCMP is improperly influencing the complainant. Prudence is warranted because complainants are often vulnerable or unsophisticated and a clear written acknowledgement of a modified position can serve to avoid the type of dispute that has arisen in this case. It is for this very reason that there is a statutory requirement to obtain the written acknowledgement of the complainant before informally resolving a complaint.
Finding: The RCMP's disposition of Mr. A's complaint was unsatisfactory in that it did not address the allegation that RCMP members failed to investigate his complaint of criminal harassment.
Recommendation: That the RCMP investigate Mr. A's complaint and provide Mr. A, any identified subject members and the Commission with a copy of its report.
Having considered the complaint, I hereby submit my Interim Report in accordance with paragraph 45.42(3)(a) of the RCMP Act.
_____________________
Paul E. Kennedy
Chair
1 While that incident is not the issue in this review, I would like to note that if the matter was before me I would be limited in my review to the conduct of Constable B in laying the charge and would not include a review of the subsequent trial or sentence. While Mr. A clearly feels that his conviction on the charge was unjust, the Commission does not have jurisdiction to reconsider that verdict and it can neither overturn the conviction nor award relief from the resulting fine, as Mr. A requests.