Vice-Chair's Final Report – Incident Related to Irregularity in Procedure and Improper Investigation

RCMP Act Subsection 45.42(2)

Vetted version for posting

September 9, 2008

Overview

In 2003, Mr. A filed a public complaint with the Nanaimo RCMP Detachment. The issue was resolved to Mr. A's satisfaction, and he was allegedly told that his file would be destroyed.

In 2005, Mr. A and his spouse, Mrs. A, moved into their newly purchased residence in Nanaimo, British Columbia. Since then, a civil dispute concerning the location of the property line has escalated between them and their neighbours, Ms. C and Mr. D. As a result, the parties have requested, on numerous occasions, the intervention of members of the Nanaimo RCMP Detachment. Mr. and Mrs. A, as well as Ms. C and Mr. D, have made a number of complaints of mischief and threats against one another, which culminated in a physical confrontation between them. Assault charges under section 264 of the Criminal Code were laid against Mr. and Mrs. A, and at the time of the current review, they were awaiting trial. The evidence shows that the contentious issue between the parties remains unresolved: Mr. and Mrs. A were intent on erecting a fence, which, according to Ms. C and Mr. D, would impede an easement in their favour.

On July 12, 2007, Mr. A complained to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP (Commission) that an unidentified member of the Nanaimo RCMP Detachment improperly discussed his 2003 public complaint file with his neighbour. He also complained that members of the Nanaimo RCMP Detachment failed to properly investigate, or follow up on, his numerous allegations against his neighbours.

As required by the RCMP Act (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 Commissioner's Final Report, dated January 30, 2008, did not support the complainant's allegations.

Mr. A was not satisfied with the RCMP's disposition of his complaint. He requested a review by the Commission on February 8, 2008. The Commission received the investigation documents relating to this matter from the RCMP on March 4, 2008. On April 30, 2008, the Commission requested additional information from the RCMP, which it received on August 14, 2008.

For the reasons outlined below, I find that Mr. A did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that a member of the Nanaimo RCMP Detachment inappropriately discussed his file with his neighbour, and I am satisfied that members of the Detachment appropriately responded to the on-going dispute between Mr. and Mrs. A, Ms. C and Mr. D.

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, Mr. and Mrs. A's letters to the Nanaimo RCMP Detachment, the numerous letters from Mr. and Mrs. A's neighbours, statements from relevant witnesses, the attending members' notes and occurrence reports, the RCMP's investigation materials, the operational file, and the RCMP's Final Report.

First Allegation: An unidentified member of the Nanaimo RCMP Detachment inappropriately discussed a file regarding Mr. A with his neighbour.

On June 26, 2007, Mr. A said that his wife was accosted by a neighbour who told her that there was a large file concerning him at the detachment. Mr. A complained that someone from the Nanaimo Detachment had improperly talked about his public complaint file dating back to 2003, and that the RCMP had not destroyed the file as he was told years ago. In its Final Report, the RCMP could not determine whether a member from the Nanaimo Detachment had shown the alleged file to Mr. A's neighbour, and stated that the destruction of these files was done pursuant to RCMP policy. Accordingly, the RCMP concluded that there was no evidence to substantiate Mr. A's allegation.

In my review of the operational file, I am left to wonder how Mr. A concluded that the file in question was indeed his 2003 public complaint. The facts showed that Mr. A was not privy to the alleged conversation his wife had with one of their neighbours. Notwithstanding the fact that he had not talked to his neighbour, Mr. A acted on his wife's assertion and complained that someone from the Nanaimo RCMP Detachment had improperly discussed his file. Mr. A offered no details of the alleged conversation, nor did he provide the name of the subject member. Given the incomplete and unsubstantiated allegation, I am satisfied that Mr. A has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that a member of the Nanaimo RCMP Detachment committed the alleged improprieties.

Finding: There is insufficient evidence to substantiate the complainant's allegation.

Second Allegation: Members of the Nanaimo RCMP Detachment failed to properly investigate the numerous complaints Mr. A made against his neighbours.

In an undated fax sent to the Nanaimo RCMP Detachment, Mr. and Mrs. A stated that on May 27, 2007, Ms. C and Mr. D, along with other neighbours, came on their property and took their residential sign. They also said that whenever they were in their garden, Ms. C would continuously watch them and record their every movement. Mr. and Mrs. A stated that three RCMP cruisers went to their neighbours' residence, but failed to talk to Mr.  and Mrs. A. They said that the only member who attended their residence was Constable E, and he told them that this was a civil matter. On June 6, 2007, Mr. and Mrs. A sent a second fax (attn: Constable K) claiming that the dispute over the property line was escalating. Among other things, Mr. and Mrs. A stated that one of their neighbours, Mr. I, had a .22 calibre rifle. Mr. and Mrs. A felt unsafe and they asked the RCMP to intervene. The evidence shows that Mr. and Mrs. A have sent numerous faxes and letters to complain about their neighbours, and they argued that members from the Nanaimo RCMP Detachment failed to adequately respond to their concerns.

The evidence shows that a few months after Mr. and Mrs. A moved into their residence, problems arose between them and their neighbours. The RCMP operational file contains all Mr. and Mrs. A's correspondence, and for each allegation, notes were taken by the investigating member. The complaint relative to Mr. and Mrs. A's residential sign was initially investigated by Constable K, who concluded that the underlying issue was a civil matter. Notwithstanding this, and given the behaviour of the parties, Constable K's investigational file was left open, as it was noted that police assistance would likely be needed in the future.

On June 11, 2007, the facts showed that Constables F and G met and spoke with Mr. and Mrs. A concerning their sign. Mr. and Mrs. A complained that the problems with Ms. C started as soon as they moved into their residence, and they wanted her and Mr. D moved out of their home. The next day, Constable G consulted Staff Sergeant H and concluded that a meaningful resolution to the parties' civil dispute could potentially be achieved through mediation. In an effort to resolve the dispute, the parties were told by a number of RCMP members that they should have their land surveyed. The survey would indicate the location of the property line, and this would contribute to a meaningful resolution for everyone. There was no indication in the file that a survey had been conducted at the time of Mr. A's request for review to the Commission.

On June 26, 2007, Constable L was dispatched to investigate a possible assault that had occurred between Mr. A and Mr. I. Mr. A alleged that he was punched by Mr. I, while Mr. I alleged that he was kicked in the stomach by Mr. A. Constable L interviewed other witnesses, including Ms. B.A., Mr. M and Ms. J, and concluded that the incident was consensual in nature.

On July 7, 2007, Constable K investigated a complaint made against Mr. A concerning a possible indecent act he allegedly committed. Although no charges were laid against Mr. A, the evidence shows that the RCMP responded and investigated that matter.

It would not be beneficial for me to describe all the different incidents that were reported by Mr. and Mrs. A, Ms. C, Mr. D and other neighbours in their ongoing disputes. The ongoing antagonism between these neighbours is rooted in a protracted property dispute which should be resolved by the parties through their lawyers or in the civil courts. The RCMP has constructively suggested that the parties obtain a professional survey to provide a factual basis for resolving the dispute by way of negotiation or through the civil courts. Based on the evidence before me, it appears that Mr. A has not accepted this wise advice nor has he seriously pursued this dispute in the proper forum, the civil courts. This significantly diminishes the credibility of Mr. A's public complaint.

It is clear from the evidence before me that members of the Nanaimo RCMP Detachment have responded professionally to the numerous complaints by the parties to this dispute. For each incident reported by either of the parties, members took notes, interviewed potential witnesses, ascertained each situation and ensured that reports were filed. The members of the Nanaimo RCMP Detachment should be credited for their professionalism, patience and commitment to keep the peace between these antagonistic neighbours. Because of this, I am satisfied that members of the Nanaimo RCMP Detachment acted professionally and have appropriately investigated the complaints made by the parties involved.

Finding: Members of the Nanaimo RCMP Detachment investigated the numerous complaints made by Mr. A about his neighbours in a thorough and professional manner.

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.

___________________________
Brooke McNabb
Vice-Chair