Commission's Final Report:
Chairperson-initiated Complaint and Public Interest Investigation into the Conduct of a Sexual Assault Investigation and the Response to Reported Concerns about the Safety of Susan Butlin prior to her Death

Previous Page Table of Contents

Appendix B: RCMP Commissioner's Response (Bayhead, Nova Scotia)

April 24, 2025

Office of the Chairperson
Civilian Review and Complaints Commission
for the RCMP
P.O. Box 1722, Station "B"
Ottawa, Ontario
KlP 083

Dear Chairperson:

I have completed my review of the Commission's Chairperson-Initiated Complaint and Public Interest Investigation into the conduct of a sexual assault investigation and the response to reported concerns about the safety of Susan Butlin prior to her death in Bayhead, Nova Scotia on September 17, 2017, file number PC-2022-0849.

Please find enclosed my response to the report pursuant to section 45.72(1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

Complainant: PII - CRCC

CRCC File number: PC 2022-0849

HRMIS incident number: 00045170

Dates:
Interim Report received: June 24, 2024
Relevant Material received: July 2, 2024
Commissioner's Response: April 24, 2025

For ease of reference, my decisions are summarized in the right side of the tables below.

Findings

Findings RCMP Commissioner's Response
Finding 1: The RCMP's investigation into Ms. Butlin's complaint of sexual assault was wholly inadequate. Agree
Finding 2: The inadequate investigation into the sexual assault complaint contributed to the lack of reasonable measures put in place to ensure Ms. Butlin's safety. Agree

While I agree with the Commission's finding about the lack of reasonable measures being put in place in this instance, it is important to note that the RCMP can never completely ensure that measures put in place will guarantee a person's safety.

Findings RCMP Commissioner's Response
Finding 3: Constable Crooks and Constable Whalen did not have a sound understanding of the law of sexual assault during the investigation of Ms. Butlin's complaint. Agree
Finding 4: Constable Crooks and Constable Whalen wrongly concluded that Ms. Butlin's information did not give rise to reasonable grounds to believe that a sexual assault had been committed. Agree
Finding 5: It was both premature and unreasonable for Constable Crooks to conclude, solely based on his telephone conversation with Ms. Butlin, that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that an offence had been committed. Agree
Finding 6: Constable Crooks unreasonably neglected to listen to Ms. Butlin's audio-recorded statement prior to deciding to conclude the investigation. Agree
Finding 7: Constable Crooks did not conduct a reasonably thorough investigation into Ms. Butlin's complaint of sexual assault before concluding that charges were not warranted. Agree
Finding 8: Constable Whalen did not explore several relevant areas and issues during her interview with Ms. Butlin. Agree
Finding 9: It was unreasonable for Constable Crooks and Constable Whalen to question Ms. Butlin's credibility based on the timing of her complaint, without considering her explanations and further investigating the reasons for the timing of the complaint. Agree
Finding 10: Given their reliance on the timing of Ms. Butlin's complaint, it was unreasonable for Constable Crooks and Constable Whalen not to explore whether Ms. Butlin had made any prior disclosures about the assault before reporting it to the police. Agree
Finding 11: It was unreasonable for Constable Crooks, Constable Whalen and Corporal Naime to rely on faulty assumptions and reasoning based on myths and stereotypes about the expected behaviour of sexual assault victims. Agree
Finding 12: It was unreasonable for Constable Crooks to have cleared the sexual assault investigation file as "unfounded" without conducting a sufficient investigation and recognizing how the law applied to the events reported by Ms. Butlin. Agree
Finding 13: It was not appropriate for the RCMP to change the clearance code for the sexual assault file without changing the approach to the investigation or the ultimate conclusion of the file. Do Not Agree

After careful consideration of the material available, I do not find that the relevant material establishes that the clearance code for the sexual assault investigation was actually changed. I would also note that the use of UCR codes is a data-entry process in support of Statistics Canada and the only criteria used to assign the UCR code are those provided by Statistics Canada. The RCMP does not retain discretion in how to apply the codes nor does it select codes to flag files for further review, to reflect an investigative approach, or to avoid contentious labels. Finally, the prerequisite for secondary review of a sexual assault investigation is already that the file has not been cleared by charge. Therefore, an inaccurate clearance code will not impede a file's inclusion within a larger cross-section of files that undergo review.

Findings RCMP Commissioner's Response
Finding 14: Constable Crooks did not treat Ms. Butlin with sufficient compassion and respect. He did not adopt a victim-centered approach, and his attitude led to Ms. Butlin not feeling believed. Agree
Finding 15: Constable Whalen conducted the interview of Ms. Butlin in a professional and sensitive manner. Her interview was guided by consideration for Ms. Butlin. Agree
Finding 16: Constable Crooks and Constable Whalen did not adequately consider Ms. Butlin's safety, contrary to RCMP policy and the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. Agree
Finding 17: Constable Crooks and Constable Whalen neglected to offer victim services to Ms. Butlin, contrary to RCMP policy Agree
Finding 18: Constable Crooks did not inform Ms. Butlin of the status and outcome of the investigation into her sexual assault complaint. His failure to do so was contrary to RCMP policy and did not reflect the RCMP's core value of professionalism. Agree
Finding 19: It was unreasonable for Constable Crooks and Constable Whalen to encourage Ms. Butlin to apply for a peace bond in the circumstances of this case without any further risk assessment or support from police. Agree
Finding 20: Constable Whalen should have documented the information about the threat made to Ms. Butlin's sons. Agree
Finding 21: Constable Crooks should have documented and investigated the threat to Ms. Butlin's sons and the damage to Ms. Butlin's pool. Agree
Finding 22: The RCMP's response to the 911 call was wholly inadequate. Agree
Finding 23: The Operational Communications Centre lacked adequate safeguards to ensure the identification and proper handling of all high-risk cases. Agree
Finding 24: Constable MacDonald's and Corporal Beselt's failure to take any action to address the serious threat to Ms. Butlin's safety was unacceptable and unreasonable in the circumstances. Agree
Finding 25: It was unreasonable for Corporal Beselt not to provide Ms. Butlin with more complete information about the threat to her safety. Agree
Finding 26: The response to Ms. Butlin's complaint of harassing or intimidating communications was not adequate or reasonable in the circumstances. Agree
Finding 27: It was unreasonable for Constable Wiley not to conduct basic queries about Ms. Butlin and Mr. Dueean in PROS. Agree
Finding 28: The guidance provided in the RCMP's national policy on criminal harassment is not sufficient to ensure that RCMP members investigating such offences conduct all necessary inquiries about prior history and allegations. Agree
Finding 29: The RCMP did not conduct a reasonably thorough investigation into Ms. Butlin's complaint of harassment. Agree
Finding 30: Constable Wiley should have asked more questions of Ms. Butlin prior to making his determination about the investigative steps required. Agree
Finding 31: Based on all of the information in its possession, it was unreasonable for the RCMP not to obtain a statement from Ms. Butlin and a copy of the text messages at issue. Agree
Finding 32: Constable Wiley should have questioned Ms. Butlin further to determine whether she was at risk and whether safety planning was necessary. Agree
Finding 33: The RCMP did not properly evaluate the risk to Ms. Butlin's safety and did not conduct adequate safety planning, which would have been necessary based on the information in the RCMP's possession. Agree
Finding 34: Constable Wiley should have informed Ms. Butlin of the services provided by Victim Services and made an offer for referral. Agree
Finding 35: The RCMP did not properly investigate the criminal offences potentially applicable following Ms. Butlin's complaint of harassing communications and intimidation. Agree
Finding 36: The RCMP unreasonably failed to interview witnesses and to attempt to speak to Mr. Duggan following Ms. Butlin's complaint of harassing communications and intimidation. Agree
Finding 37: It was unreasonable for Constable Crooks, Corporal Naime, Corporal Wentzell, and Sergeant Cooper to have questioned Ms. Butlin's credibility on the basis of perceived inconsistencies that did not in fact exist. Agree
Finding 38: It was unreasonable for Constable Crooks, Corporal Naime, Corporal Wentzell, and Sergeant Cooper not to take steps to investigate the information in the peace bond application, in light of their belief that there were inconsistencies in Ms. Butlin's information and that the information in the peace bond application was new. Agree
Finding 39: It was unreasonable for Corporal Naime not to review Ms. Butlin's statement when reviewing the file and prior to concluding that there were inconsistencies in the information she provided. Agree
Finding 40: It was unreasonable for Sergeant Cooper not to review Ms. Butlin's statement or task someone to review the statement before concluding that there were inconsistencies in Ms. Butlin's information and advising the Crown of this. Agree
Finding 41: Constable Crooks' belief that Ms. Butlin had been untruthful in her peace bond application was unreasonable and inappropriate. Agree
Finding 42: Sergeant Cooper, Corporal Wentzell, and Corporal Naime did not have a sound understanding of the law of sexual assault when they conducted their review of the sexual assault investigation file. Agree
Finding 43: It was unreasonable for Sergeant Cooper, Corporal Wentzell, and Corporal Naime not to recognize that the information provided by Ms. Butlin was sufficient to give rise to reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Duggan had sexually assaulted her. Agree
Finding 44: It was unreasonable for Corporal Naime and Corporal Wentzell to have questioned Ms. Butlin's credibility based on sexual assault myths and stereotypes. Agree
Finding 45: Corporal Naime failed to ensure that the issues (such as the timing of the complaint and prior disclosures) were properly investigated before assessing the complaint. Agree
Finding 46: It was unreasonable and inappropriate for Corporal Wentzell to bring up the offence of public mischief when discussing the case with Ms. Butlin. Agree
Finding 47: Corporal Wentzell did not treat Ms. Butlin with sufficient respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Agree
Finding 48: Sergeant Leger's approval of the early conclusion of the sexual assault investigation, the "Impaired Operation" file, and the harassing communications file was unreasonable. Agree
Finding 49: The RCMP's "H" Division provided inadequate supervision for all three investigations related to Ms. Butlin. Agree
Finding 50: The supervision model employed in this case was not adequate to ensure that major issues in the investigations would be identified and addressed. It was unreasonable for the RCMP's "H" Division to provide no supervisory oversight for any of the three investigations, aside from the reviews by the Case Manager. Agree
Finding 51: The Colchester District's atypical supervisory structure contributed to the Bible Hill detachment's systemic, failure to recognize and address the information about the threat Ms. Butlin was facing. Agree in Part

While I accept the Commission's finding in general, it is my opinion that the relevant material demonstrates that this was a situation of multiple failures as opposed to a systemic failure.

Findings RCMP Commissioner's Response
Finding 52: The supervision model in place for the Bible Hill detachment failed to ensure that major issues in sexual assault investigations would be identified and addressed. Agree
Finding 53: It was unreasonable for Constable Crooks, knowing that Ms. Butlin's complaint involved sexual assault, to obtain an unrecorded statement over the phone. This led to a lack of sufficient information to make a reasonable assessment of the complaint. It also did not comply with RCMP policy concerning interviewing. Agree
Finding 54: It was unreasonable, and contrary to RCMP policy on notetaking, for Constable Crooks and Constable Whalen not to articulate and document their rationale for concluding that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that a sexual assault had been committed. Agree
Finding 55: Constable Crooks did not adequately document, in his notes and report, the details of his telephone conversation with Ms. Butlin on August 7, 2017. Agree
Finding 56: Constable Whalen did not document in her report important information that Ms. Butlin disclosed during her statement and that was critical in assessing the sexual assault complaint. Agree
Finding 57: Constable MacDonald and Corporal Beselt did not select an occurrence type that reflected the gravity of the situation. Agree
Finding 58: It was unreasonable, and contrary to RCMP policy on notetaking, for Corporal Beselt not to document the substance of his discussion with Ms. Butlin on August 21, 2017. Agree
Finding 59: It was unreasonable, and contrary to RCMP policy on note-taking, for Constable MacDonald, as the arresting officer, not to document in his notes and reports the grounds for the arrest. Agree
Finding 60: It was unreasonable, and contrary to RCMP policy, for Constable Wiley not to properly document his telephone conversation with Ms. Butlin. Agree
Finding 61: Constable Wiley should have clearly documented in the file the content of the message Ms. Butlin stated was intimidating and threatening. Agree
Finding 62: It was unreasonable, and contrary to RCMP policy on notetaking, for Sergeant Cooper, Constable Thorne, and Constable Crooks not to document important information pertaining to their review of the investigation into Ms. Butlin's complaint of sexual assault, and her peace bond application. Agree
Finding 63: Staffing shortages and the resulting heavy caseloads contributed to the inadequate manner in which the RCMP responded to the incidents in Ms. Butlin's case. Agree
Finding 64: The IOR report made a number of helpful findings identifying significant gaps in the RCMP members' response to Ms. Butlin's complaints. The IOR report also made helpful recommendations to improve sexual assault investigations in "H" Division. Agree
Finding 65: The RCMP did not take sufficient action to review Agree Ms. Butlin's case and to identify and remedy deficiencies. Agree
Finding 66: It was unreasonable for "H" Division not to inform the RCMP members involved in Ms. Butlin's case of the shortcomings in their performance that were identified in the IOR report. Agree
Finding 67: The RCMP's failure to ensure individual-level accountability for the RCMP members and supervisors involved in this matter was inconsistent with the RCMP's core value of taking responsibility. Agree
Finding 68: Most of the recommendations made in the IOR report have been or are in the process of being implemented, Agree except for the recommendation for advanced investigations training for supervisors. Agree
Finding 69: The IOR report did not sufficiently address the RCMP members' failure to appreciate the overall threat faced by Ms. Butlin and to take measures to ensure her safety. Agree
Finding 70: The IOR report did not identify and address issues of staffing shortages and heavy caseloads, which significantly impacted this case. Agree
Finding 71: The RCMP did not implement sufficient measures to remedy the deficiencies identified in the response to Ms. Butlin's sexual assault complaint. Agree
Finding 72: Since 2017, the RCMP has not taken sufficient action to improve the qualitv of sexual assault investigations. Do Not Agree

I respect and appreciate the Commission's well-reasoned contributions regarding the quality of sexual assault investigations conducted by the RCMP. The Commission's perspective is invaluable for the continued improvement of the service the RCMP offers Canadian residents.

Unfortunately, I cannot agree that the RCMP could have done more, faster, than it has. The many initiatives that have been put in place since 2017, the continual monitoring of training and policy, and the engagement with experts both within and outside the RCMP are an integral and ongoing part of our modernization. These efforts continue within, and possibly in spite of, a reality in which the RCMP faces continuous resource pressures. Policing priorities are a joint discussion between the RCMP and the jurisdictions it serves. Ultimately, resourcing for the RCMP is a joint effort between the federal government and the provinces or territories. Nevertheless, I am encouraged by the considerable overlap between the recommendations made by the Commission and the most recent updates to national policy on sexual offences. The many parallels demonstrate that the Commission and the RCMP share the same vision for improvement. The RCMP will continue to strive to serve all, but particularly the vulnerable communities disproportionately impacted by sexual offences.

Recommendations

Recommendations RCMP Commissioner's Response
Recommendation 1: Constable Whalen should be directed to take the RCMP Sexual Offences Investigation course, if she has not already received this training since the latest training records provided to the Commission. Supported
Recommendation 2: Constable Crooks should receive operational guidance about the law of sexual assault and the law of consent, and about the specific issues identified in this report in terms of his handling of Ms. Butlin's complaint, particularly with respect to his premature and faulty assessment of the complaint. Supported
Recommendation 3: Constable Crooks' supervisor should complete a file review of past sexual assault investigations conducted by Constable Crooks to ensure that other investigations did not suffer from similar deficiencies. Supported, in Part

In the interests of efficiency and practicality, I have directed a file review of all Constable Patrick Crooks' past investigations that were not resolved via pleas or convictions, rather than all past sexual assault investigations. Investigative quality is less likely to be served by reviewing files already concluded by plea or conviction.

Recommendations RCMP Commissioner's Response
Recommendation 4: Constable Crooks and Constable Whalen should receive operational guidance about the dangers associated with adopting reasoning based on rape myths and stereotypes in evaluating sexual assault complaints. Supported
Recommendation 5: Constable Crooks and Constable Whalen should receive operational guidance about the appropriate response to delayed reports of sexual assault. Supported
Recommendation 6: Constable Crooks should receive operational guidance on the need to conduct a thorough investigation before concluding that a sexual assault complaint is unfounded. Supported
Recommendation 7: Constable Crooks should receive operational guidance specific to the importance of treating sexual assault victims with respect and compassion, and ensuring that they do not feel judged or disbelieved, particularly during initial encounters with law enforcement. Supported
Recommendation 8: Constable Crooks and Constable Whalen should receive operational guidance on the importance of considering and discussing safety planning with victims, regardless of whether an arrest has been made or a charge has been laid. Supported
Recommendation 9: Constable Crooks and Constable Whalen should receive operational guidance on the importance of submitting a referral to Victim Services in all sexual assault cases. Supported
Recommendation 10: Constable Crooks and Constable Whalen Supported should be directed to take the Victim Bill of Rights course. Supported
Recommendation 11: Constable Crooks should receive operational guidance on the importance of keeping complainants informed of the progress and outcome of investigations into their complaints. Supported
Recommendation 12: Constable Crooks and Constable Whalen should receive operational guidance, training or mentoring on the timing and appropriateness of advising complainants to apply for a peace bond. Supported
Recommendation 13: Further training and direction should be provided to Operational Communications Centre personnel on the requirement to carefully identify files that contain any high-risk elements so that the files can be assessed by RCMP supervisors and reviewed as necessary. Supported
Recommendation 14: Constable MacDonald and Corporal Beselt should receive operational guidance about the importance of addressing information indicating that there is a danger to human life or safety, including by conducting the necessary investigations and attempting to locate and seize any weapons. Supported
Recommendation 15: The RCMP should amend its national policy on criminal harassment to require RCMP members to conduct entity queries in police information systems at the outset of an investigation of criminal harassment. Supported
Recommendation 16: All of the RCMP members involved in investigating Ms. Butlin's complaints or supervising the investigations should receive operational guidance on the importance of giving meaningful consideration to the safety and security of victims, and on the importance of documenting all information about threats to the safety of a victim, regardless of whether an arrest has been made, or a charge has been laid. Supported
Recommendation 17: All of the RCMP members involved in investigating Ms. Butlin's complaints or supervising the investigations should be directed to take the Victim Bill of Rights course, if they have not already received this training. Supported
Recommendation 18: Constable Crooks, Corporal Wentzell, and Sergeant Cooper should receive operational guidance about the importance of verifying all of the facts prior to questioning the credibility of a sexual assault complainant. Supported
Recommendation 19: Constable Crooks, Corporal Wentzell, and Sergeant Cooper should receive operational guidance about the necessity of investigating all information believed to be newly received that indicates the possibility that a sexual assault was committed. Supported
Recommendation 20: Constable Crooks should not be permitted to respond to any sexual offence complaint or conduct or participate in any investigation of a sexual offence until he has received all of the operational guidance recommended in this report. Supported
Recommendation 21: Sergeant Cooper should receive operational guidance about the law of sexual assault and the law of consent, and about the specific issues identified in this report concerning the investigation and review of the sexual assault complaint. Supported
Recommendation 22: Sergeant Cooper should be directed to complete the Sexual Offences Investigation course. Supported
Recommendation 23: Corporal Wentzell should receive operational guidance about the law of sexual assault, and about Supported the specific issues identified in this report regarding the handling of Ms. Butlin's complaint. Supported
Recommendation 24: Corporal Wentzell should be directed to take the RCMP's Sexual Offences investigation course, if he has not already received this training. Supported
Recommendation 25: Corporal Wentzell should receive operational guidance about the dangers associated with adopting reasoning based on rape myths and stereotypes in evaluating sexual assault complaints. Supported
Recommendation 26: Corporal Wentzell should receive operational guidance specific to the importance of treating sexual assault victims with respect and compassion. Supported
Recommendation 27: Corporal Wentzell should be directed to take the Victim Bill of Rights course. Supported
Recommendation 28: The RCMP should ensure that, regardless of the different supervision models adopted in the divisions, primary responsibility for overseeing general duty members' investigations remains with the investigators' immediate supervisor and their chain of command. Supported
Recommendation 29: The RCMP should ensure that reviews conducted by case managers or risk managers are never used to discharge immediate supervisors of their responsibility to review all files for investigations conducted by the members under their supervision. Supported
Recommendation 30: The RCMP should implement measures to ensure that, if supervisors become directly involved in an investigation, another supervisor is tasked with monitoring and reviewing the investigation. Supported, in Part

I recognize the general reasonableness of this recommendation. However, as RCMP operations are conducted in over 700 detachments across Canada, some flexibility must be retained to accommodate the practicalities of different staffing levels and situations, particularly in small detachments or specialized units. I support this recommendation wherever staffing levels permit.

Recommendations RCMP Commissioner's Response
Recommendation 31: The RCMP should ensure that each detachment has an adequate supervision structure sufficient to ensure that investigations are properly documented, that supervisors adequately monitor and review all files, that file types are correctly identified, and that links between different files can be easily recognized and acted upon. Supported
Recommendation 32: Constable Crooks should receive operational guidance about the process to follow when initiating contact with sexual offence victims and about the importance of recording statements from sexual assault victims. Supported
Recommendation 33: Constable Crooks and Constable Whalen should receive operational guidance on the importance of taking detailed and comprehensive notes. Supported
Recommendation 34: Constable MacDonald and Corporal Beselt should receive operational guidance on the importance of identifying accurate occurrence types. Supported
Recommendation 35: Corporal Beselt should receive operational guidance regarding the proper documentation of observations made and of police actions. Supported
Recommendation 36: Constable MacDonald should receive operational guidance on the proper documentation of observations made and of police actions, as well as on the importance of documenting his grounds for conducting an arrest. Supported
Recommendation 37: Constable Wiley should receive operational guidance about completing detailed, accurate, and timely police notes and reports. Supported
Recommendation 38: Sergeant Cooper should receive operational guidance on the importance of taking detailed and comprehensive notes in a timely manner. Supported
Recommendation 39: Senior management in "H'' Division should be directed to review the current allocation of police resources in the Colchester County District to ensure that proper resourcing is in place in each detachment. Supported
Recommendation 40: The "H" Division CROPS Officer should be directed to officially share the IOR report with all concerned RCMP members. Supported
Recommendation 41: The RCMP "H" Division should amend its policy on audit and evaluation programs to incorporate individual-level accountability measures to ensure that future Incident Review reports identifying performance gaps are shared with the appropriate RCMP senior members, so that action can be taken to address shortcomings, strengthen learning, and improve performance. This might not require sharing the report with all the individuals involved in every case, but would, at a minimum, require informing them of the issues identified with their performance. Supported
Recommendation 42: The RCMP should work in collaboration with the provincial and territorial jurisdictions it polices to create specialized units to investigate sexual offences in each division. Supported
Recommendation 43: Once the specialized units are created, the RCMP should direct that all RCMP members report all sexual offence complaints to their division's specialized unit. The specialized units should have the authority to take over any sexual offence investigation and to actively monitor the investigations they do not take over. Supported, in Part

I support the spirit of the recommendation and will encourage interactive training whenever possible. Based on the current content of this training, they will remain online, focussing first on improving outcomes through increased participation. Future training updates may consider formatting changes.

Recommendations RCMP Commissioner's Response
Recommendation 44: The successful completion of advanced training should be required for members of specialized sexual offence investigation units, as well as divisional sexual assault coordinators and case managers. This training would preferably be taught in-person and give in-depth instruction on all aspects of the law of sexual assault, including the law of consent. Updated or refresher training should be completed by the members as necessary. Supported
Recommendation 45: The RCMP should make the Sexual Offence Investigations course mandatory for all RCMP members and supervisors who might be involved in investigating or responding to criminal complaints of sexual assault, or who might be involved in supervising such investigations or responses. Updated or refresher training should be completed by the members as necessary. Supported
Recommendation 46: The RCMP should consider converting the Sexual Offence Investigations course and the Using a Trauma-Informed Approach course to an interactive, instructor-led format, whether it is taught online or in-person. Supported, in Part

I support the spirit of the recommendation and will encourage interactive training whenever possible. Based on the current content of this training, they will remain online, focussing first on improving outcomes through increased participation. Future training updates may consider formatting changes.

Recommendations RCMP Commissioner's Response
Recommendation 47: Until the specialized sexual offence investigation units are operational, NOSOIS should review all unfounded sexual assault files and should have final authority to determine whether the unfounded clearance code was appropriately used for each of the files reviewed and to change the code as required. Supported, in Part

The intent of the recommendation is supported. NOSOIS staffing will continue to be considered, but currently the RCMP supports improved outcomes through education and collaboration referenced elsewhere in my response. NOSOIS will continue to provide secondary review to the extent of its capacity.

Recommendations RCMP Commissioner's Response
Recommendation 48: NOSOIS should ensure that it reviews a substantial number of sexual assault files that did not result in charges in each division. Review of this higher number of files should continue for each division until the specialized unit has been fully operational for several years and the issues observed are less serious or less frequent. Supported, in Part

As with Recommendations 46 and 47, the spirit of the recommendation is supported to the extent that operational capacity permits.

Recommendations RCMP Commissioner's Response
Recommendation 49: Following the NOSOIS file reviews and recommendations, a designated officer in each RCMP division should be required to provide a formal report to NOSOIS Supported indicating any action taken and explaining the reasons for any decision not to follow a recommendation. Supported
Recommendation 50: Once the specialized sexual offence investigation units are created, divisional coordinators should be embedded in the units and should be required to prepare regular reports to NOSOIS about the activities of the unit. Supported, in Part

I will direct that divisional coordinators be embedded in the specialized sexual offence units that already exist. Divisions that develop specialized units in the future will embed their divisional coordinators at that time.

Recommendations RCMP Commissioner's Response
Recommendation 51: The RCMP should task NOSOIS with compiling the information it obtains about general trends and recurring issues of concern from its own reviews, the SAIRC reviews, the specialized units' oversight functions and activities in all divisions, as well as the divisional Case Manager reviews, and to provide regular reports to the specialized units (once establishedl about the issues observed. Supported, in Part

I support the spirit of the recommendation to the extent that much of this information is already exchanged between NOSOIS and the divisions.

Recommendations RCMP Commissioner's Response
Recommendation 52: The RCMP should substantially increase the number of RCMP members assigned to work as full-time members of NOSOIS. Supported, in Part

The possibility of increasing NOSOIS' staffing is under consideration but is dependent on funding and personnel availability.

Recommendations RCMP Commissioner's Response
Recommendation 53: The RCMP should formally define the mandate of NOSOIS, while maintaining sufficient flexibility to ensure that NOSOIS can address emergent issues. Supported
Recommendation 54: Following the SAIRC file reviews and recommendations, a designated officer in each RCMP division should be required to provide a formal report to the SAIRCs, through the divisional Coordinator, indicating what action was taken as a result of each SAIRC recommendation and explaining the reasons for any decision not to follow a recommendation. Supported
Recommendation 55: The RCMP should direct sufficient resources to the SAIRC reviews to ensure that a substantial number of randomly selected files not cleared by a charge is reviewed in each division. Supported
Recommendation 56: Each division should have a clear guideline outlining the number of times the SAIRCs will meet and the number of files to be reviewed to meet the target number of reviews. The preferences and availability of the SAIRC members should be taken into account in determining the most efficient process for the reviews, which may include individual reviews or reviews in smaller groups. Supported
Recommendation 57: The SAIRC members should be provided with the equipment and resources they need to conduct reviews efficiently. Supported
Recommendation 58: The divisional coordinators should not be present during the SAIRC reviews. They should ensure that the SAIRCs are provided with a private space to conduct the reviews and hold discussions. Supported, in Part

The Commission may be assured that divisional coordinators are trained to have no influence over the SAIRC and are only present to answer questions. However, as the SAIRC reviews are considered an extension of the investigation, the care and control of the files are the RCMP's responsibility. An RCMP member must be present in accordance with the privacy impact assessment completed as part of the introduction of the SAIRCs. I support the continued provision of private space to conduct the reviews and hold discussions.

Recommendations RCMP Commissioner's Response
Recommendation 59: The divisional Coordinator should inform NOSOIS and the specialized sexual offence investigation unit in their division ( once established) of the results of the SAIRC reviews and the division's responses. Supported
Recommendation 60: Each RCMP division should ensure that one or more divisional Case Managers review all ongoing and recently closed sexual assault files until the specialized sexual offence investigation unit becomes operational. Supported, in Part

While the spirit of the recommendation is supported, at this time only two divisions, H and J, have a case manager program. The recommendation is supported to the extent that divisions with a case manager program can accommodate the additional workload.

Recommendations RCMP Commissioner's Response
Recommendation 61: The RCMP should require investigators, if they decide not to follow a recommendation by the Case Manager, to inform the Case Manager of their reasons for not following the recommendation, as well as to report the matter to their supervisor. Supported, in Part
Recommendation 62: Divisional case managers should be required to provide reports to NOSOIS on a monthly basis about their file reviews, including the number of files reviewed, the recommendations made, any recommendations not followed, and the recurring issues noted. Supported, in Part

As with Recommendation 60, Recommendations 61 and 62 are supported to the extent that divisions with case manager programs are able to accommodate the additional workload.

Recommendations RCMP Commissioner's Response
Recommendation 63: The RCMP should amend its national policy on sexual offences to incorporate a direction to treat victims with compassion, care and respect throughout the investigative process. Supported
Recommendation 64: The RCMP should amend its national policy on sexual offences to add guidance cautioning investigators about the risk of sexual assault victims not being believed based on inappropriate considerations, such as rape myths and stereotypes, or due to a lack of understanding of the impact of trauma. The policy should direct that members must document a rationale and consult with the specialized sexual offence investigation unit (once created) before taking investigative steps to question the validity of a sexual assault complaint or the credibility of the victim. Supported
Recommendation 65: The RCMP should amend its national policy on sexual offences to add guidance reminding RCMP members of the importance of ensuring that a safety plan is in place for the victim and that the plan considers all aspects of the victim's safety. Supported
Recommendation 66: The RCMP should amend its national policy on sexual offences to add a requirement that RCMP I members offer referrals to community-based victim support services. Not Supported

I do not support this recommendation because referrals to victim support services are a joint effort between the RCMP and the justice departments of the respective provinces or territories, such that the RCMP cannot unilaterally mandate changes to how referrals are made without the input of its provincial or territorial partners. I note, however, that Appendix A of the 2024 Guide for Investigators: Initiating Contact and Providing Support to Survivors of Sexual Violence (formerly the Guidelines to Initiate Contact with Sexual Assault Victims) does contain lists of non-police support services for survivors in each division. The September 2024 update to national Operational Manual (OM) Chapter 2.1, "Sexual Assault", directs investigators to this resource and provides an email link. Community-based services are valuable partners in supporting victims and the RCMP supports this initiative short of making the referrals a requirement.

Recommendations RCMP Commissioner's Response
Recommendation 67: The RCMP should amend its national policy on sexual offences to add a requirement that RCMP members accommodate any request by the victim about the gender of the investigator, wherever possible. Supported

Recommendation 68: The RCMP should amend its national policy on sexual offences to provide clear guidance on the role of RCMP members who act as first responders to sexual offences complaints. This guidance should include:

  • a) A requirement to notify the specialized sexual offence investigation unit for the division;
  • b) A requirement to take any necessary steps to ensure the safety of the victim and to ensure that the victim's medical needs are attended to;
  • c) A requirement to provide information to the victim about the support services available and about the investigative process;
  • d) A requirement to delay the initial interview with the victim until guidance is received from the specialized unit, unless there is an urgent requirement to conduct an interview for public safety reasons or to gather and preserve time-sensitive evidence;
  • e) A requirement to attend to the urgent needs of the investigation, such as identifying witnesses and securing evidence;
  • f) A requirement to ensure that a thorough record is created of any information the victim does provide about the assault; and
  • g) Guidance on how first responders should interact with victims, particularly emphasizing the importance of ensuring that the victim is treated with compassion and is reassured that thev are believed.
 Supported, in Part

I support the majority of this recommendation. However, it cannot be fully supported because (a) and (d) are both predicated on specialized units that do not yet exist in every division. In regards to (d), I am aware of concerns about declining to hear from victims who are ready to speak based on a policy requirement to consult. Investigators worry that this would further harm the relationship between victims and police services, and could result in losing contact with the victim altogether.

I interpret the spirit of item (d) as emphasizing the need to utilize specialized resources and support. The spirit of the recommendation is supported in that sense. A trauma-informed approach, however, requires the flexibility to accommodate the needs of the victim in the moment. Accordingly, investigators will be directed to consult specialized resources as early in the investigation as practical while giving primacy to the victim's needs, including a desire to give a statement before specialized resources have been consulted.

Recommendations RCMP Commissioner's Response
Recommendation 69: The RCMP should amend its national policy on sexual offences to provide guidance on allowing victims to have a support person present during their interview with the RCMP investigator, where possible after considering the impact on the investigation. Supported
Recommendation 70: The RCMP should amend its national policy on sexual offences to require the use of a soft interview room that maximizes the safety and comfort of the victim, wherever possible, while allowing for the necessary audio- or video-recording to occur. Supported, in Part

Since 2020, the Sexual Assault Investigations Best Practice Guide has recommended use of a soft interview room, if available. The current OM 2.1 directs members to use the Best Practice Guide. In the interests of permitting members to respond to the unique needs of every victim as they present, I support mandating consideration rather than use of a soft interview room, as circumstances may arise in which such a mandate is not in the best interests of the victim. Accordingly, the next policy update to OM 2.1 will require consideration of a soft room or other appropriate venue that maximizes victim safety and comfort in the text of the policy.

Recommendations RCMP Commissioner's Response
Recommendation 71: The RCMP should amend its national policy on sexual offences to direct that RCMP members prioritize I the continuitv of the investigator, wherever possible and unless a change is requested by the victim, and to mandate that, if a change of investigator is unavoidable, the victim should be notified as soon as practicable, and the new investigator should make contact with the victim without delay. Supported
Recommendation 72: The RCMP should consider including a specific mention in its national policy on sexual offences of the requirement to proactively provide updates to the victim on a regular basis. Supported
Recommendation 73: The RCMP should amend its national policy on sexual offences to direct RCMP members to consider the needs of vulnerable victims, and to take appropriate action to address the barriers and issues they face. Supported

Recommendation 74: The RCMP should amend the Sexual Assault Investigations: Best Practice Guide to:

  • a) Incorporate the guidance contained in the Guide for Contacting Victims of Sexual Assault, with the necessary adjustments.
  • b) Include specific guidance on the appropriate use of clearance codes when concluding investigations, in accordance with the UCR Resource Guide.
  • c) Add guidance on the investigative techniques to be used when conducting sexual assault investigations in cases where the assailant is unknown to the victim, or the suspect denies that any sexual activity took place.
  • d) Include guidance on the duty of law enforcement to warn members of the public in situations where they may be at risk of sexual violence because of an assailant who is at large and might be targeting specific victims.
 Supported, in Part

I support this recommendation except for item (a) because these resources should be kept separate due to their size and different focuses. The Commission may be assured that both documents are available through OM 2.1 and are required resources in sexual assault investigations. The Best Practice Guide will be amended to include a reference to the Guide for Investigators: Initiating Contact and Providing Support to Survivors of Sexual Violence to further link the documents.

Recommendations RCMP Commissioner's Response
Recommendation 75: The RCMP should send out the Sexual Assault Investigations: Best Practice Guide to all RCMP members who might be involved in receiving sexual assault complaints or conducting sexual assault investigations, as well as integrate the Guide into their mobile workstations. Not Supported

I assure the Commission that the Best Practice Guide is readily available on the Infoweb and is linked within OM 2.1. I will direct the divisions to consider making the Best Practice Guide accessible on mobile workstations to the extent that this practice is technologically feasible. I cannot support emailing the Best Practice Guide to all RCMP members who might be involved in investigating sexual assaults as such a practice runs counter to Government of Canada direction on email management due to its status as transitory information.

Recommendations RCMP Commissioner's Response

Recommendation 76: NOSOIS should be tasked with preparing annual or bi-annual reports for national and divisional RCMP senior leadership. The reports should compile and analyze all of the information NOSOIS receives, including:

  • Information from its own reviews;
  • Information from the SAIRC reviews;
  • Information about the action taken further to the NOSOIS and SAIRC recommendations;
  • Information about recommendations not followed;
  • Information from the specialized units and the case managers; and
  • An analysis of the overall trends observed.
 Supported, in Part

The current staffing levels at NOSOIS do not permit the expansion of these reports as recommended, specialized units are not in place in every division, and divisions with Case Managers have advised they do not have the capacity to report to NOSOIS. The majority of this information, however, is already reported in the annual NOSOIS report, and the reported information can increase with NOSOIS staffing and as specialized units are implemented. I commit to working towards this recommendation, but cannot fully accommodate at this time.

Recommendations RCMP Commissioner's Response
Recommendation 77: The RCMP should set up appropriate processes to collect reliable and verified data about sexual assault investigations, including statistics about unfounded cases. Supported

Recommendation 78: The RCMP should publish periodic updates about steps taken to improve sexual assault investigations and the results achieved. These updates should include:

  • Information about the number of files reviewed by NOSOIS and the SAIRCs;
  • The main issues identified;
  • The number of recommendations made to reopen investigations;
  • The decisions made about those recommendations;
  • The action taken to address trends and recurring issues identified; and
  • The evolution of the unfounded rate.
Supported, in Part

The current annual SAIRC report does not contain information about the number of files reviewed by NOSOIS or the evolution of the unfounded rate. However, they have been cleared for publication on the Government of Canada's Open Government website. The remaining items are reported internally by NOSOIS but have not been cleared for public updates. I commit to working towards an annual report that meets the requirements of Recommendation 76 and 78, with a version that can be publicly posted. However, I cannot accommodate the recommendation fully at this time.

Recommendations RCMP Commissioner's Response

Recommendation 79: Once the specialized units are created, the public updates should also include information about:

  • The number of files investigated by these units;
  • The number of sexual offences files investigated by I general duty members; and
  • The criteria developed by each of the specialized units to determine which files to investigate.
Supported

I look forward to receiving your final report on this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Mike Duheme
Commissioner

Previous Page Table of Contents
Date modified: