Chair's Interim Report – Incident Related to Neglect of Duty and Improper Attitude
RCMP Act Paragraph 45.42(3)(a)
Vetted version for posting
December 18, 2007
Overview
On March 24, 2006, following a roadside check by the RCMP, Mr. A, who was driving a commercial transport vehicle, was given a violation ticket for failure to maintain a driver's daily log.1 Based on the available documentation, it would appear that Sergeant B, NCO in Charge, North District Traffic Services, Prince George, wrote a form letter, dated May 2, 2006, to the registered owner of the licence plate that was noted on the March 24, 2006 violation ticket.2 The form letter was issued pursuant to the Project Inform Program, one developed in the Peace Region of British Columbia and forming one of the partnerships between several institutions in the area. The objective of the program was "to make registered owners of commercial vehicles aware of the provincial offences committed involving their vehicles on the roadways in British Columbia."
Although there was no mention of Mr. A's name in the May 2, 2006 letter, it would appear that the company advised Mr. A both of the letter and its contents. Based on the available documentation, it would appear that on March 24, 2006, Mr. A was no longer an employee of Heyl Truck Lines Inc. and that he had returned the licence plate to the company several months before the incident. Moreover, it would appear that on March 24, 2006, Mr. A was driving a commercial vehicle belonging to another operator3 and carrying a different licence plate number. Based on the available documentation, it would appear that Mr. A provided the RCMP member4 at the roadside stop a permit book containing the relevant information about the truck he was driving but it also contained an Alberta Truck & Trailer Inspection Certificate5 for the truck he had been driving, i.e. the one owned by Heyl Truck Lines Inc., in 2005.
On July 12, 2006, Mr. A wrote both to the Commission and to the RCMP about the March 24, 2006 incident. The Commission sent the formal complaint to the RCMP on August 1, 2006. Mr. A stated that he would deal with the alleged infraction as set out in the violation ticket in court. However, he stated that the RCMP wrote the May 2, 2006 letter to his previous employer, which he felt violated his privacy. He complained that the RCMP was "attacking [his] work history" and wondered what was the purpose "for writing such a suggestive letter, to an employer [he is] no longer with, other than to be malicious."
The substantive matter of the violation ticket was considered by the British Columbia Provincial Court on October 31, 2006. Based on the available documentation, it would appear that no RCMP representative appeared and the charge against Mr. A was dismissed.6
On January 22, 2007, the RCMP issued a letter of disposition to Mr. A. The RCMP dealt with two aspects of the public complaint. With respect to the violation ticket and the information disclosed therein, the RCMP appeared to have acknowledged that there were some errors but that those errors would not be material to the substantive element of the charge. It should be noted that the RCMP wrote that Mr. A could contest the violation ticket in court at a time, i.e. January 22, 2007, when Mr. A had already done so and the charge had been dismissed. With respect to Mr. A's complaint about Sergeant B's letter to Heyl Truck Lines Inc., the RCMP provided a detailed review of the Project Inform Program, i.e. the reasons for the program, its design, its practice and its achievements to date. The RCMP reviewed the privacy issues and stated that the form letters "provide no personal information relative to the driver. The letters deal with the Registered Owner only [...]." In summary, the RCMP stated to Mr. A as follows:
As explained, the letter was forwarded as a result of what would appear to be an erroneous presentation of a vehicle registration. The failure of the police officer to confirm the registration papers with the licence plate on the vehicle, although unfortunate, does not exonerate you from the offence committed. Constable C is satisfied the proper individual, who committed the offence, was charged. Accordingly, I feel that an apology is not in order in this circumstance, nor should the violation ticket be withdrawn.
On April 24, 2007, the Commission received a letter from Mr. A in which he indicated that he was not satisfied with the RCMP's disposition of his complaint and he requested a review.
For the reasons outlined below, I do have some concerns with the RCMP's disposition of this public complaint.
Commisssion's Review of the Complaint
It is important to note that the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP 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 either for the complainant or for RCMP members. Rather, its role is to inquire into complaints independently and to reach conclusions after an objective examination of the information provided.
Having now reviewed Mr. A's complaint and the RCMP's letter of disposition, I have prepared this interim report, which contains my findings and recommendations with respect to the complaint. A detailed and very careful examination has been undertaken of all the relevant materials related to this file. This has included a review of the RCMP's public complaint administrative file, including various continuation reports, RCMP internal correspondence, the public complaint and the violation ticket, and documentation provided by Mr. A, including correspondence from Heyl Truck Lines Inc. and extracts from his permit book related to the registered owner of the vehicle he was driving on March 24, 2006.
Before dealing with the substantive issues of this complaint, the Commission has noted that the RCMP did not carry out a formal public complaint investigation into this matter. Based on its continuation reports, the RCMP reviewed the violation ticket and looked into the Project Inform Program. There were delays in the preparation of the RCMP's letter of disposition. There is a reference in that letter to the reviewer contacting Constable C, but there is neither a record of that conversation nor any notes prepared by Constable C in the available documentation. The Commission has also noted that the RCMP appeared to have been out of touch with the proceedings in this matter when it wrote to Mr. A on January 22, 2007 that he could contest the alleged violation in court when he had already done so.
Neither Mr. A nor the RCMP has set out specific allegations with respect to the officers in question, i.e. dealing with alleged conduct in their dealings with members of the public. The Commission, for the purposes of this review, has set out two specific allegations.
First Allegation: Constable C was neglectful in his duty in that he prepared the violation ticket, dated March 24, 2006, which had errors on its face.
Based on the available evidence, it would appear that Constable C based his notations in the ownership section of the violation ticket on a document in Mr. A's permit book, which was not relevant to the vehicle he was driving at the time. It would also appear that Constable C did not take note of the licence plate of the truck Mr. A was driving nor of the proper registration documents for that truck. The RCMP, in its letter of disposition, stated, in part, as follows:
The prosecution of this matter is not contingent on the vehicle information outlined on the violation ticket. The vehicle information is apparently correct and only the licence plate information would appear erroneous. The vehicle information is not a required component for the prosecution of this charge.
The Commission does not take issue with the first and third sentences in the above quote. It should also be remembered that the Commission has no jurisdiction to make a judicial ruling on the substantive aspect of the alleged violation. However, the second sentence is only partially correct, i.e. the owner of the vehicle driven on March 24, 2006 was not Heyl Truck Lines Inc., the licence plate information was "erroneous", and only the driver information was correct.
Finding: Based on the available documentation, Constable C prepared a violation ticket on March 24, 2006 that was incorrect on its face with respect to the ownership and licence plate of the vehicle driven at that time by Mr. A.
Recommendations
- 1) That Constable C's supervisor take the appropriate corrective action, if it has not already been taken, to ensure that the member is cognizant of the need to properly record facts related to an alleged infraction.
- 2) That the RCMP consider providing an apology to Mr. A for the errors on the violation ticket, which resulted in the form letter pursuant to the Project Inform Program being sent to the incorrect party, i.e. a prior employer.
Second Allegation: Sergeant B displayed improper conduct by writing to Mr. A's previous employer in a manner that was malicious and he attacked Mr. A's previous work history.
The RCMP's letter of disposition provides an outline of the Project Inform Program including the reasons for the use of the type of letter that Sergeant B sent to Heyl Truck Lines Inc. on May 2, 2006. There is no evidence to show that Sergeant B knew of the incorrect information set out in the violation ticket of March 24, 2006. The letter highlighted the concerns that the RCMP had with respect to the conduct of the company's unnamed employee, i.e. "your employee's disregard to keep accurate driving hours while operating a company vehicle." There is no mention of the name of the employee in the letter. Mr. A has alleged that the letter was an attack on his "work history". There is no evidence to support such an allegation. The letter referred only to one alleged infraction of not maintaining a driver's daily log. The available documentation provides no further information about the alleged infraction.
There is no evidence that Sergeant B did anything more than sign the letter related to the one alleged infraction, an act which cannot be found to be malicious. There was no evidence of any wrongful intention on the member's part vis-à-vis the complainant or his work situation.
Finding: Based on the totality of the available evidence, the allegation that Sergeant B displayed improper conduct in writing and sending the letter of May 2, 2006 is not substantiated.
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 Pursuant to subsection 37.16(2) of the British Columbia Motor Vehicle Act Regulations.
2 Heyl Truck Lines Inc., Calgary, Alberta.
3 Schneider National Carriers, Inc., with offices, apparently, in both Green Bay, Wisconsin and Gary, Indiana.
4 Constable C, Prince George, Integrated Road Safety Unit.
5 The available documentation contains only part of the certificate.
6 The Commission, not being a court of law, has no jurisdiction to make a determination about the alleged infraction. It should be noted that the available documentation contains nothing more vis-à-vis the alleged infraction other than the one-page violation ticket.