Review of the RCMP's Public Complaint Records
Part Two: Outstanding Disposition List
The Outstanding Disposition List is designed to act as an accounting mechanism for all Commission-lodged complaints that are currently being investigated by the RCMP.50 Information gathered through the Outstanding Disposition List allows the Commission to track how quickly the RCMP is responding to complaints, identify if complaints are taking too long to be investigated, and ultimately hold the RCMP accountable to the public.
A list of outstanding complaints has been provided to the RCMP on a regular basis throughout the year. The list is submitted to the RCMP every three months and identifies complaints that have been outstanding for 180 days or more. Deletions and additions are made to the list as complaint dispositions are received and new complaints are lodged.
The RCMP, in recent months, has made strides to provide the Commission with dispositions in a timelier manner and endeavoured to eliminate the outstanding complaints that were lodged prior to 2007, as the Commission tracks complaints that were lodged before January 1, 2007.
The Outstanding Disposition List has also been able to identify and track those complaints which have been outstanding for what the Commission deems to be an unreasonable amount of time: 750 days or longer.51 The RCMP, largely, has been receptive to this and made a noticeable effort to get these dispositions to the Commission. The results of this can be seen in the increased number of dispositions provided to the Commission, which received 785 complaint dispositions in 2008; this is a 22% increase from 2007. This increased output is in addition to the extraordinary effort put forth with respect to the Outstanding Disposition List project, the results of which are further examined in the following section. The majority of these long outstanding dispositions can be traced to "E" Division; however, it should be noted that this division has dedicated more resources to addressing the outstanding public complaint dispositions and has proactively instituted measures to provide the Commission with documents in a timelier manner.
The first reconfigured list since the release of the 2007 Review of the Record Report was sent to the RCMP in August 2008. Within three months of the list being sent, 311 complaint dispositions were provided to the Commission. In January 2009, a second list was sent. By April 2009, the Commission received 282 complaint dispositions from files appearing on the second list. Finally, in April 2009, a third list was sent resulting in 458 dispositions being sent to the Commission by July 2009.
Figure 14: Number of Pre-2007 Outstanding Complaint Dispositions
Since the 2007 Review of the Record Report was released, when it was reported that there were 152 remaining complaints from prior to January 1, 2007, the RCMP has been able to further reduce this number by 68%; with only 48 dispositions that remain outstanding. This is a significant achievement. As noted below, "E" Division accounts for 96% of the remaining outstanding dispositions beyond the 750-day threshold.
Figure 15: Complaints Outstanding 750 Days or More By Division
The Outstanding Disposition List is able to present data in a multitude of ways, not the least important of which is by listing outstanding dispositions by their corresponding detachments. As such, the Commission is able to monitor the progress of individual detachments in ensuring that public complaints are disposed of within a reasonable timeframe. As of August 1, 2009, the Surrey Detachment had 82 dispositions outstanding beyond the 180-day threshold, the oldest being 2,239 days outstanding (over six years). However, detachments like Coquitlam, Wood Buffalo, and Whitehorse are but a few of many detachments whose record of complaint resolution and providing dispositions to the Commission is commendable.
Divisions have been very involved in providing feedback to the Commission and in maintaining the integrity of the Outstanding Disposition List. However, administrative issues with the Professional Standards and External Review Directorate were made evident in June 2009, when an effort was made to harmonize the RCMP's national list of complaints with the Commission's lists.
Due to what appears to be processing delays, the record keeping concerns and resource limitations, the Professional Standards and External Review Directorate was unable to provide the Commission with the 347 documents identified as missing through the harmonization process by the July 1, 200952 project deadline. This is similar to what occurred when the Commission was compiling the 2007 Review of the Record Report when over 200 identified documents were not provided.
This setback effectively penalized the detachments and divisions which had previously sent dispositions to the Professional Standards and External Review Directorate, as these dispositions were not received in time to be included in the statistical analysis of this report. Their exclusion from the 2008 Quantitative Analysis section is an unfortunate consequence and it is hoped that the record keeping issues at the Professional Standards and External Review Directorate will be rectified in time for the 2009 report. It is clear that there are significant problems at the Professional Standards and External Review Directorate that are negatively impacting the proper functioning of the RCMP public complaint process.
However, in order to be fair to the detachments and divisions that had sent dispositions on time, those received after the July 1, 2009 deadline were considered when analyzing the available data for the Outstanding Disposition List, as the deadline specific to this aspect of the project was extended to August 1, 2009.
The Commission's efforts at following up on questions raised in the analysis of the completed complaint record is an example of the high degree of cooperation possible between the Review of the Record Unit, Professional Standards and External Review Directorate and divisional Professional Standards. Most times these requests were to obtain missing documents; however, other requests went so far as to have complaints sent back to detachments for additional information to assist in a proper analysis or to recommend an investigation into the allegations.
The RCMP's cooperation with this aspect of the Review of the Record Project has been commendable. In many cases, the Commission's requests were met within days. Although there were examples of long outstanding requests, the average length of a follow-up request to be made and a resolution to be offered was 33 days.
There were 62 follow-up requests for complaints lodged in 2008; only ten (10) remained open at the time of this Report. Of the closed follow-ups, the Commission's concerns and requests were met in 87% of the cases.
As identified, the reasons for follow-ups were primarily centered on two issues: missing documents and improper use of force complaints informally resolved. The other issues included: incomplete records, unclear dispositions, improper CPC references, use of force complaints withdrawn, and other.
Figure 16: Breakdown of 2008 Follow-Up Issues
The divisional breakdown of the follow-ups does not indicate any particular Commission concerns with specific regions. Instead, the follow-ups tended to be relatively proportional to the overall number of complaints received.
Figure 17: Breakdown of Follow-Ups by Division
Twenty-five follow-ups (40%) were resolved within ten (10) days of a Commission's request. The majority of these timely responses were related to missing documentation, but nonetheless are examples of the RCMP's strong willingness to cooperate with the Commission in ensuring the integrity of the public complaint process.
Still problematic, however, is the apparent inability to cease, or to at least clarify, the practice of informally resolving complaints involving serious allegations.53 Despite the positive response to the Commission's requests there were several cases where the RCMP refused to investigate a serious allegation once it had been resolved informally. It must be noted that under the current legislation the Commission does not have the power to force the RCMP to investigate a complaint. Accordingly, while the RCMP may choose to refuse the Commission's request to investigate even when it involves serious allegations such as improper use of force or when injuries have allegedly been sustained,54 this practice is contrary to RCMP policy. Moreover, the Commission does retain the authority pursuant to the RCMP Act to launch a Chair-initiated complaint and/or public interest investigation into such a matter if the RCMP refuses to properly investigate the complaint in the first instance.
There was a case where the Commission recommended an investigation into a complaint alleging "Improper Use of Force", which was informally resolved after the RCMP explained the IM/IM model and arrest procedures to the complainant. Based on the seriousness of the allegations and the lack of information regarding the nature of force used, the Commission believed that an investigation was warranted or, at the very least, further information should be provided. However, the RCMP maintained that the informal resolution was appropriate, especially since the complainant was satisfied with the explanation and noted, "as he was not injured during the course of his arrest or time in custody." Given the circumstances, an informal resolution of this complaint did not appear to be appropriate and it would have been more prudent for the RCMP to provide further details of the force used against the complainant.
Another example where the Commission believed an investigation was warranted yet the RCMP was not willing to cooperate in that regard, involved alleged "Improper Use of Force" and "Improper Use of Firearms". It was alleged that a civilian present at the scene was handed, by the RCMP members, pepper spray (OC spray), and that members effecting the arrest of the subject used improper and excessive force. The Commission strongly recommended a formal investigation. The RCMP, however, indicated that "there is absolutely no need to perform such an investigation, with the members acting completely appropriate given the circumstances they were presented with." Given that it appeared as though determinations were being made regarding member conduct, and that the concerns of the Commission had not been fully addressed, an informal resolution did not seem to be the most appropriate disposition of this complaint.
It should be noted that although some of the Commission's requests have been declined at times, there were also examples of investigations being undertaken in response to concerns raised over use of force complaints informally resolved. Such a response is evidence that the follow-up process was able to quickly address improperly resolved complaints and for which may otherwise have gone unnoticed.
In an instance where the RCMP satisfied the Commission's concerns regarding a follow-up, the Commission's concern with an informally resolved complaint alleging excessive force was reciprocated, and an investigation was initiated, with the RCMP noting: "[...] we were informed by Professional Standards & External Review Directorate that all allegations involving the serious use of force will be formally investigated. As a result, I am now ordering that a formal investigation be conducted into this allegation and that a comprehensive report be forwarded to this office [...]." In another instance, a complainant who sustained a broken wrist during the course of an arrest entered into an informal resolution with the RCMP. Given the presence of an injury, the Commission questioned if this type of disposition was appropriate. The RCMP agreed to investigate the complaint formally following the Commission's follow-up.
Often the complaint dispositions did not provide sufficient details about the incident to determine what the circumstance of the interaction was and if the disposition was appropriate. The Commission made numerous requests for additional information in complaints which alleged improper use of force yet lacked sufficient detail to determine if an investigation was warranted. Frequently, the RCMP response was sufficient in satisfying the Commission's concerns. In 12 of the 23 (52%) follow-ups related to "Improper Use of Force" complaints informally resolved, the RCMP's additional explanation of the informal resolution process, as well as clearer details of the incidents in question, indicated that the informal resolutions were indeed appropriate. It should be noted that had the RCMP provided sufficient detail on the Form 4110 and properly captured the informal resolution in the first instance, it would have mitigated the need for additional requests and increased workload.
Interestingly, in response to the Commission's repeated requests for additional information with respect to complaints which alleged improper use of force and lacked sufficient details, divisional Professional Standards have taken proactive steps to gather and provide additional details explaining actions and outcomes along with the dispositions themselves. This has been most evident with "E" Division and has considerably reduced the need for follow-ups of this nature.
There were also cases of informally-resolved complaints based on the complainant being read an investigator's report, or at times being briefed by the investigator. In these instances, the Commission believes the RCMP incorrectly circumvented the need for a Final Report by simply reviewing with the complainant the findings of the RCMP investigation. If an investigation has been conducted and findings made the more prudent course of action would be to issue a Final Report.
With respect to withdrawals, there was typically a lack of in-depth descriptions of events or details regarding the reasons for requesting a withdrawal. This was especially problematic with complaints that included serious allegations. At times, withdrawal letters from complainants may speak about why they are withdrawing their complaints, and at times complainants do not feel anything will come of their complaint. Under these circumstances, the Commission has requested more information and depending on the degree of interaction during the withdrawal process, indicated to the RCMP that an investigation appeared warranted.
In lieu of a national handbook for best practices related to public complaints, the follow-up process allows the Commission to interact, via Professional Standards, with individual detachments that are responsible for handling complaints and address concerns in an informal manner. Based on the above assessment, it is clear that more training for authors of disposition reports as well as for public complaint investigators is warranted and would vastly improve the quality and integrity of the process.
50 As of April 1, 2009, the Commission will henceforth be notified promptly of all new RCMP-lodged complaints, and this information will, in the future, be included in the list and be reported on in forthcoming Review of the Record reports.
51 This also includes complaints that were lodged before January 1, 2007.
52 In order to be methodologically consistent and to enable comparisons between the statistics from 2007 and 2008 the Commission was unable to extend the deadline specific to the Quantitative Analysis section of the report.
53 Although some serious allegations can at times be considered less serious once all details are examined, this classification can be mitigated in the first instance by a better description of allegations as well as a more fulsome explanation of the final resolution.
54 In the Commission's experience, in 2008, this was the exception rather than the rule.