Vice-Chair's Interim Report – Incident Related to Neglect of Duty

RCMP Act Paragraph 45.42(3)(a)

Vetted version for posting

August 1, 2008

Overview

On May 29, 2006, Mr. AL of Oak Lake, Manitoba, contacted the Virden RCMP Detachment and reported that his son BL, who had moved out of his residence on May 20, 2006, had returned and taken items that did not belong to him. Mr. AL spoke with Constable C, who essentially advised him to contact a lawyer.

On November 22, 2007, Mr. AL complained directly to the RCMP about the conduct of Constable C. In his complaint, Mr. AL alleges that Constable C failed to investigate his May 29, 2006 complaint of break, enter and theft. In his letter of complaint, Mr. AL raises other issues unrelated to the conduct of RCMP members, and he also provides new information about his initial complaint of break, enter and theft. He states that valuables worth thousands of dollars were stolen and that several people were responsible for the theft.

As required under the RCMP Act, the complaint was investigated by the RCMP. According to the RCMP 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 the complainant with a Final Report dated April 18, 2008, which did not support the allegation.

Mr. AL was not satisfied with how the RCMP responded to the complaint, and on May 2, 2008, he asked the Commission to review the matter. The Commission received the investigation documents from the RCMP on June 12, 2008.

For the reasons outlined below, I have concluded that Constable C should have commenced an investigation into the alleged break, enter and theft. Consequently, he did not properly investigate Mr. AL's complaint.

Commission'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 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 finding, as indicated below, is based on a careful review of all of the investigation documents. This includes the occurrence summary as prepared by Constable C, the public complaint investigation report, the criminal investigation conducted by Constable D, the statements obtained from Mr. AL, Mr. AL's correspondence with James Dube Spraggs Adjusters Ltd., the statement of E, the statement of F, the statement of G, the statement of H, the statement of I and Mr. AL's correspondence with the Commission.

Allegation: Constable C did not conduct a complete and thorough investigation into Mr. AL's May 29, 2006 complaint of break, enter and theft.

The facts of this case are not in dispute. According to the occurrence summary, which is the only record of Constable C's version of the incident, on May 29, 2006, Mr. AL reported that his son BL, who had moved out of the house on May 20, 2006, had removed items from the house that he should not have taken. Constable C told Mr. AL that, "...it isn't up to police to decide what belongs to who." Constable C also told Mr. AL to contact a lawyer and to advise his son via a court order that he is no longer welcome in the residence.

As a result of the new information included in Mr. AL's public complaint, Staff Sergeant J decided that the alleged break, enter and theft should be investigated. Constable D then conducted an extensive investigation of the alleged break, enter and theft. The steps taken and the results of the investigation will not be described in this report because they are accurately outlined in the RCMP Final Report dated April 18, 2008. The information obtained during Constable D's investigation did not support the laying of criminal charges against BL or any other person.

In its Final Report, the RCMP concluded that although the new information resulted in the reopening of the break and enter investigation, the new investigation came to the same conclusion as did Constable C. The RCMP Final Report infers that Constable C therefore did not neglect his duty.

The threshold to commence a criminal investigation is low. However, often it requires very little investigation to determine that, for a variety of reasons, further investigation is not warranted. When a criminal allegation involves property and family members, the allegation may frequently be a civil matter. However, there may be occasions when this is not the case. A cursory investigation may be sufficient to allow a member to determine whether the allegation involves a civil dispute.

Although Mr. AL's initial complaint of break, enter and theft was eventually investigated, the fact that Constable D found no evidence of a criminal offence having been committed is irrelevant to the complaint concerning the conduct of Constable C. The evidence indicates that Constable C refused to embark on an investigation of a reported criminal offence. As opposed to the extensive investigation that was conducted by Constable D, it would have required only minimal investigation for Constable C to determine whether any offence had been committed by BL or others. It would have likely been sufficient for Constable C to have obtained statements from Mr. AL and his son and request proof of ownership of items allegedly taken from Mr. AL

Finding: I find that Constable C did not properly investigate Mr. AL's complaint of break, enter and theft.

I note that Mr. AL delayed approximately eighteen months before he made his public complaint. I also note that the complaint of break, enter and theft was eventually investigated thoroughly. Under the circumstances, I do not feel that any recommendation would serve a useful purpose.

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