ARCHIVED - Review of the RCMP's Public Complaint Records

The Public Complaint Process

The Commission's powers, as established in 1988, have led to a federal oversight model that is primarily complaints driven. The Commission derives its authority from Parts VI and VII of the RCMP Act. Its jurisdiction to receive and review complaints includes the conduct of an RCMP member while performing a policing duty or function, as well as the off-duty conduct of an RCMP member when it is determined that the alleged conduct is likely to adversely affect the member's performance as an RCMP member and/or the RCMP's reputation. The Commission does not have authority to review matters falling within the administration of the affairs of the RCMP, including managerial or administrative concerns.

Intake of Complaints

When the Commission receives a complaint, a Complaint Analyst at the Surrey, BC office first determines if the Commission has jurisdiction then assists the complainant to formalize their complaint, which is then forwarded to the RCMP for investigation. The RCMP then reports the findings of its investigation to the complainant, the RCMP member(s) involved and the Commission. This is a statutory obligation.
Not all members of the public want to lodge a complaint formally though. In some cases, when a member of the public is not requesting a response from the RCMP, but wants a supervising officer to be aware of their concern(s), the Complaint Analyst may file a report directly with the RCMP.

Informal Resolution

The Commission's Complaint Analysts are afforded the opportunity, on a daily basis, to assist with conflict resolution by creating a positive climate for communications between the public and the RCMP and/or to quickly obtain information from the RCMP for the complainant.

The Commission frequently encounters complaints that are appropriately informally resolved by enabling a would-be complainant to air their grievances and exchange information with the appropriate RCMP official. Once the Commission understands the nature of the complainant's concern(s), the Complaint Analyst explains the options available. In appropriate cases, the Complaint Analyst invites the complainant and the RCMP to work together informally to resolve the issue. The complainant always retains the right to file a formal complaint. Where the complainant elects to resolve the concern by way of informal dispute resolution, the Complaint Analyst serves as a facilitator, helping the complainant obtain accurate and complete information by enlisting the aid of the senior RCMP officer in the jurisdiction where the problem arose.

Request for Review

If the complainant is not satisfied with the RCMP's handling of their complaint, he/she may request that the Commission review the complaint. In its review, the Commission's Reviewer Analyst evaluates all materials relating to the complaint, including the RCMP operational file, the RCMP public complaint investigation, relevant law and policy, and all relevant material provided by the complainant. It is a traditional model wherein two competing parties place their respective versions of an event before an independent arbitrator who conducts an inquiry and makes factual findings based upon the available evidence and the credibility of the parties.

Further, the Commission can conduct its own independent investigation and the Chair also has the authority to hold a public interest hearing to inquire into a complaint.

If the Commission is satisfied with the RCMP's handling of the complaint, it sends a Final Report to all parties involved, including the RCMP Commissioner and the Minister of Public Safety. If on the other hand the Commission is not satisfied with the RCMP's handling of the complaint, it sends an Interim Report to the RCMP Commissioner and to the Minister of Public Safety setting out the Commission's findings and recommendations. The RCMP Commissioner reviews the Commission's findings and recommendations, and then sends a written notice to the Commission and the Minister of Public Safety outlining any further action that has been or will be taken with respect to the complaint.

In cases where an Interim Report has been written and the RCMP Commissioner has responded with a Commissioner's Notice, the Commission then responds to the RCMP in a report called Final Report After Commissioner's Notice, which reasserts the Commission's position and details any concerns the Commission has with the Commissioner's response to the Interim Report. A copy of the Final Report After Commissioner's Notice, along with the Interim Report, is then sent to the various parties, as defined by the RCMP Act.

Currently, there is no requirement for the RCMP to confirm to the Commission that further action on recommendations has indeed been carried out.

Part One: Analysis of the Review of the Record

Post-Audit Review

The Commission has implemented a review of the public complaint record in the past, known as a Post-Audit Review. The Post-Audit Review conducted in the 1990s primarily focused on identifying complaints that required further action by the Commission based on two criteria:

• 1) complaints that were not referred to the Commission but should have been; and
• 2) complaints disposed of by the RCMP but that the Commission felt, based on public interest, required further action.

The Post-Audit Review was also utilized to inform the Chair of the Commission at that time of any negative trends evident in the complaint process such as the improper application of the RCMP Act.

The results of the Review were expressed in a monthly report provided to the Chair and reflected the following information:

• Number of records reviewed during the reporting period;
• The number of complaints that were dealt with in a manner that did meet the requirements of the RCMP Act;
• Examples of complaints that warrant further action on the part of the RCMP or requests for the RCMP to do corrective action;
• Examples of complaints that warrant further action by the Commission/public interest cases, recommendations outlining further action to be taken; and
• Noteworthy trends both positive and negative.

While the Post-Audit Review did provide some information on the state of the public complaint system, there were limitations with the project:

• The Commission only reviewed the complaint documents that related to complaints lodged with the Commission;
• There was no system-wide appreciation of the entire public complaint process; and
• There was no way to determine issues that were unique to the divisions or issues that were systemic in nature.

One of the major differences between the Post-Audit Review and the present Review of the Record Project is that in the first instance findings centered on the disposition of complaints rather than quantitative and qualitative analysis of the nature of the complaint system overall. Similar types of findings that were reported in the previous Post-Audit Review will be reported on in the Commission's Quality Assessment of Complaint Dispositions Project.

The benefit of the Commission's current approach in studying the entire complaint system is to establish a factual basis for improving the overall public complaint process. This system-wide approach not only allows the Commission to understand the entire complaint system, but also to better appreciate issues that may be unique to divisions or detachments across Canada.

Quantitative Analysis of Complaint Dispositions

Methodology

The data collected for 2007 is based on all completed complaint records received before July 1, 2008,⁹ with a complaint date between January 1, 2007¹⁰ and December 31, 2007.¹¹ The Commission received 1,440 completed complaint dispositions relating to complaints lodged within that timeframe. Upon intake each complaint was assessed for completeness. Commission staff analyzed the disposition document and identified issues raised in the complaint. In addition, specific information was collected for inclusion in the database, which could provide a basis for both quantitative and qualitative analysis.

The type of disposition was captured based on the four ways the RCMP is able to resolve a complaint:

• the complainant can agree to an informal resolution;
• the complainant can withdraw the complaint;
• the complaint can be formally investigated and a Final Report issued; or
• the complaint can be terminated and a Notice of Direction issued.

The Review of the Record Project systematically captures several dates¹² related to complaint dispositions in order to calculate the elapsed time from the incident date¹³ to the complaint date,¹⁴ from the complaint date to the disposition date,¹⁵ and from the disposition date to the date¹⁶ the disposition was provided to the Commission.

For administrative purposes the RCMP is divided into four regions, which are then divided into divisions and further divided into detachments.¹⁷ The Review of the Record Project captures and tracks data Force-wide, regionally, divisionally, and at the detachment level.

Allegations

While documenting a public complaint, the RCMP categorizes each of the complainants' concerns by assigning them to a specific allegation category. There are 16 such complaint categories:

1. Improper Attitude: The complaint category includes behaviour that could be seen as abusive, rude, discourteous, disrespectful, aggressive, intimidating, etc. The behaviour could also be seen to be unfair or lacking empathy.
2. Improper Use of Force: The category includes allegations of inappropriate or excessive force. Improper use of force may be considered inconsistent with circumstances applied to frequently or harshly.
3. Improper Use of Firearms: This category involves the use, display or discharge of a firearm.
4. Irregularity in Procedure: This complaint category involves some aspect of the Privacy or Access issues, allegations that members improperly obtained information from a police data bank, and other alleged violations of an "administratively enforced" statute.
5. Driving Irregularity: This complaint category includes allegations of improper or unsafe police transport, pursuits or operation of emergency vehicles.
6. Neglect of Duty: This is a broad category that encompasses alleged behaviour that a member failed to or refused to perform a duty or provide an expected service. Such allegations could include failure to identify oneself, mismanagement of public complaints, inadequate investigations, improper care of prisoners, failure to release detained persons into a safe environment, and failure to provide appropriate medical care. This category could also include allegations of deficient reporting related to note books, investigations, occurrence reports.
7. Statutory Offence: This complaint category is reserved for allegations that members violated sections of the Criminal Code of Canada, federal, provincial or municipal statutes.
8. Mishandling of Property: This complaint category includes allegations about the loss of property, damage to property and the unreasonable detention of property.
9. Irregularity-Evidence: These allegations would include concerns around members testifying in judicial proceedings, failure or refusal to report the facts of a public complaint, and failure or refusal to testify to correct or true facts.
10. Oppressive Conduct: The complaint category would include these allegations that would surpass what would be considered improper attitude, irregular procedure and neglect of duty.
11. Improper Arrest: This category involves allegations of failing to inform an individual for the reason for their arrest, right to counsel or failing to provide an opportunity to exercise these rights.
12. Improper Persons/Vehicles Search: These allegations would include complaints of personal and vehicle searches as well as potential violations of section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
13. Improper Search of Premises: The complaint category includes allegations concerning members who have entered or remain unlawfully in a premise.
14. Policy: These allegations are specifically about RCMP policy and their application.
15. Equipment: This category applies to allegations of improper use of RCMP equipment.
16. Service: This complaint category includes allegations that members did not respond or failed to provide timely service.

While these allegations are typically utilized by the RCMP to capture and categorize the complaint allegations, the Commission has noticed that some allegations are incorrectly categorized. This incorrect categorization most often occurs for "Improper Use of Force" allegations that are categorized as "Neglect of Duty". This categorization issue will be further examined during the Quality Assessment of Dispositions project; unfortunately, for the purposes of this Review of the Record Report it is impossible to determine how detrimental this misclassification of allegations has impacted the statistics relating to this aspect of the project or even if this is a widespread problem. This issue will be addressed in future reports and with the RCMP directly.

Issues

For every complaint disposition received, the Commission analyzed the reason the complaint was lodged and the incident details in order to identify issues related to the nature of the complaint. In order to ensure consistency and accuracy, 46 issue categories were created.¹⁸

Limitations

Given the nature of the public complaint system, the Commission will likely continue to receive complaint dispositions for complaints lodged in 2007 well into 2008, and will probably receive some in 2009 as well. There are several reasons for this lag time. Some complaints will naturally take a longer time to process and to issue a disposition because they are quite complex in nature. Also, there currently exists a time lag between the date the disposition is completed and the date the disposition is provided to the Commission, either due to the RCMP not providing the disposition or not completing the disposition in a timely manner.

Since the Commission does not know with certainty how many complaint dispositions the RCMP has issued at any given moment, or how many complaints have been lodged in total, the Commission has to rely on the RCMP to provide the complaint dispositions in a timely fashion in order for the database to be as complete as possible. This has been the biggest limitation to completing the Review of the Record Project and divisions have been repeatedly reminded to provide the Commission with complaint dispositions as soon as possible. However, it must be noted that as the project progresses it appears that the RCMP has improved the time it takes to provide the Commission with a complaint disposition; this will be empirically captured in the 2008 Review of the Record Report.

Further, some of the sample sizes are very small due to the limited number of complaint dispositions submitted by some divisions. Due to this small sample size, the ability of the Commission to draw conclusions or provide more fulsome analyses is limited. However, as more information becomes available and as the Review of the Record databases grow, the limitations caused by the sample size will dissipate.

The Commission is aware that some of the divisions have completed complaint dispositions they have yet to provide the Commission related to complaints lodged after January 1, 2007. However, it is impossible to determine the scope of the problem, as not even RCMP Headquarters may know how many complaints have been lodged or completed nationally. The Commission attempted on several occasions to reconcile its list of completed complaint dispositions with the RCMP's list to determine if the RCMP had dispositions that had not yet been provided to the Commission and vice versa.¹⁹ Attempts are currently being made by RCMP Headquarters to provide the Commission with a copy of the complaint dispositions they have in their possession and that the Commission does not, so that the dispositions may be entered into the database. Unfortunately, this exercise was not completed before the writing of this report, despite those documents being identified in May 2008.

Because of these above-mentioned factors, the data included in this report cannot reflect all complaints lodged in 2007. However, by creating these specific parameters for data inclusion and recognizing the limitations, the statistics provided can be as accurate as possible and an update will be provided in future Review of the Record reports.

The Review of the Record Project has proved an invaluable tool in highlighting anomalies and causes of concern in the RCMP public complaint system nationally, regionally, divisionally and at the detachment level. Such anomalies and causes of concern will be the subject of further analyses as more information becomes available spanning a greater period of time.

RCMP Force-Wide and Regional Analysis

Received Complaints

The Commission received 1,440 completed complaint dispositions from the RCMP relating to complaints lodged in 2007. The Pacific Region had the most complaints (642) representing 45% of the total, while the Atlantic Region had 236 (16%); the Central Region had 53 (4%); and the Northwest Region had 509 (35%).

Figure 1: Number of Complaints by Region

Of those complaints, 870 were lodged with the Commission (60.4%) while 564 were lodged with the RCMP (39.2%) and complaints lodged initially with the FSIN accounted for .4%.

Figure 2: Number of Complaints Based on the Organizations it Was Lodged With

From a regional perspective, complainants in the Pacific Region appeared to favour lodging complaints with the Commission (66% with the Commission and 34% with the RCMP). This could be attributed to the increased presence of the Commission in this region, as the national complaint intake office is located in Surrey, BC. Complaints originating from the Atlantic and Central Regions were split relatively evenly between those lodged with the Commission and the RCMP. In total, 59% of the complaints lodged in the Northwest Region were lodged with the Commission, compared to 40% with the RCMP and 1% with the FSIN.²⁰

Figure 3: Regional Breakdown   Number of Complaints Based on the Organization it Was Lodged With

Occasionally, the Commission received a complaint against a whole detachment. In 2007, the Commission received 87 of these complaints; the region most likely to have complaints against a whole detachment was the Atlantic Region, which represented 9% of their total complaints. A further 7 separate complaints were against the RCMP in general, 3 of which originated from "A" Division.

The average number of members named in a complaint was 1.5. Given that most front-line policing within the RCMP is done by constables and corporals, it is not surprising that constables were represented in 70% of the total complaints. The rank of corporal was represented in 14% of the public complaints and sergeants were represented in 5% of the complaints.

Allegations

A total of 3,104 allegations were made against the RCMP and its members, which averaged approximately 2.2 allegations per complaint. The most common complaint allegations as identified by the RCMP were "Neglect of Duty" (29%), "Improper Attitude" (20%) and "Improper Use of Force" (13%).

Figure 4: Allegations Breakdown Force-Wide

In the Atlantic Region the three most common allegations were "Neglect of Duty" (30%), "Improper Attitude" (19%), and "Improper Use of Force" and "Oppressive Conduct" at 11% each.

In the Central Region the most common allegations were "Improper Attitude" at 29%, "Neglect of Duty" at 27% and "Oppressive Conduct" at 16%.

In the Northwest Region, the three most common complaint allegations were "Neglect of Duty" (29%), "Improper Attitude" (17%) and "Improper Use of Force" (14%).

The three most common complaint allegations identified by the RCMP in the Pacific Region were "Neglect of Duty" (28%), "Improper Attitude" (22%) and "Improper Use of Force" (14%).

The categorization of allegations can further be broken down into those complaints lodged with the Commission and those lodged with the RCMP. The allegations lodged with the Commission represent 63.9% of total allegations, those lodged with the RCMP represent 35.6%, and those lodged with the FSIN represent 0.5%.

Complaints involving allegations of "Irregularity – Evidence" (83%), "Improper Search of Premises (81%) and "Statutory Offence" (77%) were most likely to be lodged with the Commission. Conversely, complaints involving allegations of "Driving Irregularity" (74%), "Equipment" (60%) and "Improper Persons/Vehicles Search" (58%) were most likely to be lodged with the RCMP.

Typically, complaint allegations such as "Improper Attitude" and "Improper Use of Force" were evenly split between the Commission and the RCMP. Interestingly, 2% of the "Improper Use of Force" allegations were lodged with the FSIN for complaints lodged against members in Saskatchewan.

Figure 5: Allegations Breakdown for CPC-Lodged Complaints

Figure 6: Allegations Breakdown for RCMP-lodged Complaints

For every complaint disposition received, the Commission analyzed the reason and incident details in order to identify issues related to the nature of the complaint. By cross-referencing these issues with the RCMP allegations, the Commission was able to identify key issues that come up for each allegation. The most common issues that were raised in the complaints were "Attitude" (16.56%), "Criminal Investigation Quality" (10.77%), issues with "Arrest" (9.65%), and "Vehicular Incidents" (7.16%).

Chronic and Multiple Complainants

The public complaint process is utilized by a variety of individuals who have issues with the conduct of an RCMP member. Generally, one complaint relating to one incident is filed; however, some situations may necessitate the filing of two or more complaints, especially those spanning two divisions or detachments. These types of complainants are viewed as multiple complainants.

Apart from the above-mentioned multiple complainants, there are a small percentage of complainants who are chronic in nature and file multiple complaints, spanning many years, and involving many different members and detachments. While their concerns should always be addressed, chronic complainants can put a strain on the resources of the RCMP public complaint process. For complaints lodged in 2007, the Commission found that of the 1,347 identified complainants, 84 or 6% could be considered multiple complainants. Whether these multiple complainants are also chronic complainants will be the subject of future reports as more information spanning a number of years becomes available. Additional analyses will be performed in the future to better understand chronic complainants and to identify more effective ways of addressing their concerns.

Multiple complaints against members for the 2007 calendar year were also tracked through the Review of the Record Project, although at a very basic level. It is conceivable that a member could legitimately generate multiple public complaints depending on the nature of the interaction with the public and if they are posted to a small detachment. It is equally conceivable that a member could be generating multiple public complaints due to aggressive or inappropriate on duty behaviour. The context of the public complaint would best determine which of the two scenarios presented above was most accurate.

The Commission is aware that some chronic complainants have lodged in excess of 40 separate complaints against some members, which would skew the numbers for that particular region and for that specific member. Such was the case with the Northwest Region where it has been identified that there were 5 members who had 6 or more complaints against them; however, this was the result of one complainant who represented 36% of all complaints in that particular division for the 2007 calendar year.

Disposition of Complaints²³

Once the RCMP has received a complaint, there are various ways that they can attempt to resolve the concerns raised. A complaint can be investigated and a Final Report issued, the complainant can agree to an informal resolution, the complainant can withdraw the complaint with a valid and documented reason, or the complaint can be terminated under limited provisions identified in the RCMP Act.

Figure 7: Number of Complaints by Disposition Type: Force-Wide

Figure 8: Regional Breakdown – Number of Complaints by Disposition Type

Investigation and Final Report

Of the complaint dispositions the Commission received, 659 were formally investigated and a Final Report²⁴ was issued, representing 46% of the total dispositions. These reports made determinations on 1,727 allegations, with allegations of "Improper Use of Firearms", "Irregularity – Evidence", "Oppressive Conduct", "Improper Use of Force" and "Improper Persons/Vehicles Search" most likely to be disposed of in this manner.

However, when looking at the allegations that were investigated across the country, only 10% were found supported by the RCMP. For the allegation categories that were most often disposed of through a Final Report by the RCMP, the RCMP did not support the allegation between 82% and 100% of the time.²⁵ It is of note that among the allegations that are most likely to be unsupported by the RCMP were "Improper Use of Force" and "Statutory Offence".

From a regional perspective, the Central Region issued a Final Report in 64% of the cases, well above the Force-wide average. These Final Reports made determinations on 57 allegations. The allegations most likely to be disposed of through a Final Report were "Neglect of Duty" and "Improper Attitude." However, in comparing the allegations that were supported and unsupported, none of the allegations were supported.

The Atlantic Region issued a Final Report in 58% of the cases, which dealt with 339 allegations. The allegations most likely to be disposed of through a Final Report were "Neglect of Duty" and "Improper Attitude". However, when looking at the allegations that were supported and unsupported, it was found that only 12% of the total 322 allegations were supported.

The Northwest Region issued a Final Report in 44% of the cases, which addressed 621 allegations. The allegations most likely to be disposed of through a Final Report were "Neglect of Duty" and "Improper Use of Force." However, when looking at the allegations that were supported and unsupported, it was found that only 11% of the total 598 allegations were supported.

The Pacific Region issued a Final Report in 41% of the cases. These Final Reports made determinations on 710 allegations. The allegations most likely to be disposed of in this manner were "Neglect of Duty" and "Improper Use of Force". However, when looking at the allegations that were supported and unsupported, it was discovered that only 9% of the total 700 allegations were supported.

Informal Resolutions

Pursuant to section 45.36 of the RCMP Act, a public complaint against the RCMP can be disposed of informally when the consent of both parties involved is obtained. Informal resolutions are documented on Form 4110 and the RCMP must "ensure that Section 8 contains sufficient information that outlines what action was taken in response to the complaint, exactly what the parties agreed to and that it is signed by both parties (emphasis added)."

The Commission is concerned that the RCMP has informally resolve serious allegations typically involving use of force allegations and that until the Review of the Record Project, these dispositions would not have been reviewed by the Commission. This severely undermines the public complaint process and limits the effectiveness of police oversight.

Based on a preliminary analysis of the informal resolutions that have been provided by the RCMP through the Review of the Record, there is varying degrees of completeness of Form 4110s. Further, there is, arguably, little compliance with the intent of informal resolution to the extent that it is often difficult to determine how a resolution was achieved and if both parties have agreed.

In many cases it was impossible to determine if the member who was the subject of the complaint was aware of either the complaint or the disposition. In some cases Form 4110 only indicated that operational guidance was provided to the member(s) involved. There is no indication if this meant that the RCMP found fault with the member(s)' behaviour, if the complainant was being placated or if proper informal resolution protocols were adhered to. Regardless, there was insufficient information when this happened to determine if the disposition and action taken was appropriate. Further analyses of informal resolutions will be conducted in the Quality Assessment Project, which will assess all complaint dispositions and ascertain if they adhere to RCMP public complaint policy.

Informal resolutions accounted for the second most common way to dispose of a complaint with 438 dispositions representing 30% of the 1,440 dispositions examined.²⁶ In 2007, informal resolutions disposed of 693 allegations. Allegations relating to "Improper Attitude", "Driving Irregularity", "Equipment" and "Service" were most likely to be informally resolved. It is of note that "Improper Use of Force" allegations accounted for 8% of these resolutions, which will be discussed in greater detail later in this report.

From a regional perspective the Pacific Region resolved 35% of their public complaints in this manner, which dealt with 377 allegations in total. Allegations most likely to result in an informal resolution were "Improper Attitude" and "Neglect of Duty".

The Northwest Region informally resolved 31% of their public complaints, which dealt with 244 allegations in total. Allegations most likely to be resolved were "Improper Attitude" and "Neglect of Duty".

The Atlantic Region informally resolved 21% of their public complaints in this manner, which dealt with 68 allegations in total. Allegations most likely to be resolved informally were "Improper Attitude" and "Neglect of Duty".

The Central Region informally resolved only 9% of their public complaints, well below the Force-wide average or the averages of other regions. Only 4 total allegations were disposed of in this manner. The allegations that were informally resolved for this region were 3 allegations of "Improper Attitude" and 1 allegation of "Driving Irregularity".

Withdrawals

According to RCMP policy, the withdrawal of a complaint is to be captured on Form 4110 and the reason for the withdrawal is to be clearly documented in Section 8.  Further, according to RCMP policy, a complainant who believes that the RCMP is corrupt or that nothing good will come of the complaint is not considered to be a valid reason to withdraw a complaint.  Further, RCMP policy and guidelines state that there must be "unequivocal evidence of the complainant's wish to withdraw [...]."²⁷ 

A preliminary examination of these types of dispositions points to a lack of properly conducted withdrawals.  The Commission is concerned that some complaint withdrawals are not valid or are in fact informal resolutions, improperly identified as complaint withdrawals.

Force-wide, complainants withdrew their public complaints in 13% of the cases, which represented 395 allegations.  Allegations that were mostly likely to be withdrawn were "Mishandling of Property", "Policy" and "Improper Search of Premises". 

From a regional perspective, the Pacific Region disposed of 14% of their total public complaints in this manner, which addressed 209 total allegations.  Allegations most likely to be withdrawn were "Neglect of Duty" and "Improper Attitude". 

The Northwest Region disposed of 14% of their total public complaints in this manner, which addressed 111 total allegations.  Allegations most likely to be withdrawn were "Neglect of Duty" and "Improper Attitude".    

The Atlantic Region disposed of 11% of their total public complaints in this manner, which addressed 73 total allegations.  Allegations most likely to be withdrawn were "Neglect of Duty" and "Improper Use of Force".   

The Central Region disposed of only 4% of their total public complaints in this manner, which addressed 2 total allegations.  The allegations that were withdrawn were 1 allegation of "Irregularity in Procedure" and 1 allegation of "Neglect of Duty".

Terminations (Notice of Direction)

A Notice of Direction is issued when the RCMP decides not to investigate a complaint or that the investigation into a complaint should be terminated. The RCMP may decide to terminate a complaint under three strict grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection 45.36(5) of the RCMP Act. These paragraphs are:

• (a) the complaint is one that could more appropriately be dealt with, initially or completely, according to a procedure provided under any other Act of Parliament;
• (b) the complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith; and
• (c) having regard to all the circumstances, investigation or further investigation is not necessary or reasonably practicable.

Preliminary reviews of the Notice of Direction received through the Review of the Record Project indicate that the grounds for termination are not always applied in accordance with the Act and policy and in many cases a complainant would not fully understand why the termination paragraphs have been invoked.

In 2007, 11% of all public complaints, representing 289 allegations, were terminated by the RCMP; the most common grounds for termination were paragraph (c), further investigation not necessary or reasonably practicable. The allegations that were most likely terminated were "Statutory Offence", "Service" and "Irregularity – Evidence".

Figure 9: Number of Terminated Complaints by Grounds Identified in subsection 45.36(5) of the RCMP Act

From a regional perspective, the Central Region disposed of 23% of their total public complaints through terminations, which addressed 16 allegations. This is far above the Force-wide average. Allegations most likely to be the subject of a termination paragraph were "Oppressive Conduct" and "Improper Attitude". Most often, the grounds for termination were not provided.

The Pacific Region disposed of 10% of their total public complaints through terminations, which addressed 118 total allegations. Allegations most likely to be the subject of a termination paragraph were "Neglect of Duty" and "Improper Attitude". The grounds for termination most likely to be identified in the Pacific Region was paragraph (c).

The Northwest Region disposed of 10% of their total public complaints through terminations, which addressed 115 allegations. Allegations most likely to be the subject of a termination paragraph were "Statutory Offence" and "Neglect of Duty". The grounds for termination most likely to be invoked in the Northwest Region was paragraph (c).

The Atlantic Region disposed of 9% of their total public complaints through terminations, which addressed 33 total allegations. Allegations most likely to be the subject of a termination paragraph were "Neglect of Duty" and "Improper Search of Premises". Most often, the grounds for termination were not identified.

Service Standards: Processing Time

The Commission recently implemented performance-based service standards for each step of the complaint and review processes that are under its control. These improvements have enhanced the ability of complainants, RCMP members and Canadians to hold the Commission and the RCMP accountable for a timely response to public complaints. However, a large portion of the public complaint process is under the control of the RCMP, and it is hoped that Force-wide service standards will soon be introduced to further enhance public accountability.

By identifying the complaint date and comparing it to the disposition date, the Commission was able to determine how many days it took the RCMP to issue a disposition for each complaint. Similarly, by comparing the complaint date to the date the incident occurred, a timeline can be established to determine how many days elapsed before a complainant lodged a public complaint against the RCMP.

In 2007 the RCMP took, on average, 114 days to issue a disposition once a complaint was lodged (range: 0 to 447 days). Interestingly, on average, 229 days elapsed before a complainant lodged a complaint (range: 0 to 11,927²⁸ days) after the incident of concern.

Figure 10: Complaint Timeline By Region

The average number of days that elapsed before a complainant in the Atlantic Region lodged the original complaint was 348 days (range: 0 to 1,927 days). Once received the divisions within this region took, on average, 115 days to complete a disposition (range: 0 to 401 days).

In the Central Region, on average, 635 days elapsed before a complainant lodged the original complaint (range: 0 to 4,264 days). It is suspected that the lengthy amount of time to lodge a complaint may be linked to complainants whose issue(s) with RCMP conduct may span years or may be linked to some historical event. Once the complaint was received it took, on average, 103 days for divisions within this region to complete a disposition (range: 1 to 369 days).

The average number of days that elapsed before a complainant in the Northwest Region lodged the original complaint was 193 (range: 0 to 4,702 days). Once the complaint was received, the divisions within this region took, on average, 120 days to complete a disposition (range: 0 to 405 days).

In the Pacific Region, on average, 172 days elapsed before a complainant lodged the original complaint (range: 0 to 5,326 days). Once the complaint was received, it took, on average, 109 days for the divisions within this region to complete a disposition (range: 0 to 447 days).

After looking at these timelines in general, the Commission attempted to determine if there was a difference with respect to these averages between Commission-lodged complaints and RCMP-lodged complaints. As represented by the orange bar in Figure 13, there can be a considerable amount of time that elapses between the incident date and the date the complainant lodges the original complaint. On average, complainants waited 271 days after the incident took place before lodging the original complaint directly with the Commission (range: 0 to 5,326 days), while complaints lodged with the RCMP averaged only 165 days after the incident (range: 0 to 1,927 days).

While the reasons for this will be further examined in future reports, some preliminary analysis of the data suggests that complainants wait to lodge complaints because:

• 1) the types of allegations that are lodged with the Commission tend to be more serious in nature than those lodged with the RCMP;
• 2) the complainant may not have immediate access to the public complaint system;
• 3) the complaint may be historical in that an incident occurred many years (in some cases decades) before a formal complaint is lodged; and
• 4) alternate ways of resolving the complaint may have been attempted before a formal complaint was lodged.

Independent of the public complaint processing timelines, the Review of the Record Project required the RCMP to provide the Commission copies of all dispositions for its analyses. To that end, the average number of days²⁹ for the Commission to receive the complaint disposition from:

• the Atlantic Region, 66 days for Commission-lodged complaints (range: 0 to 270 days) as opposed to 53 days for RCMP-lodged complaints (range: 5 to 249 days);
• the Central Region, 66 days for Commission-lodged complaints (range: 8 to 250 days) as opposed to 67 days for RCMP-lodged complaints (range: 2 to 250 days);
• the Northwest Region, 110 days for Commission-lodged complaints (range: 11 to 365 days) as opposed to 87 days for RCMP-lodged complaints (range: 3 to 349 days); and
• the Pacific Region, 95 days for Commission-lodged complaints (range: 0 to 496 days) as opposed to, 69 days for RCMP-lodged complaints (range: 2 to 287 days).

Figure 11: Complaint Timeline – Comparison Based on Where the Complaint Was Lodged

The average number of days to issue a disposition was 118 for Commission lodged complaints (range: 0 to 447 days) as opposed to 108 days for RCMP-lodged complaints (range: 0 to 401 days).

Independent of the public complaint processing timelines, the Review of the Record Project required the RCMP to provide the Commission copies of all dispositions for its analyses. To that end, the average number of days³⁰ for the Commission to receive the complaint disposition from the RCMP as a whole was 95 days for Commission-lodged complaints (range: 0 to 496 days) as opposed to the 72 days it took for RCMP-lodged complaints (range: 2 to 349 days).

Outstanding Disposition List

The Outstanding Disposition of Complaints List is designed to act as an accounting mechanism for all Commission-lodged complaints that are currently being investigated by the RCMP. 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.

The Commission has observed that, despite a statutory obligation to do so, there has been sporadic compliance with the RCMP providing its dispositions to the Commission for those Commission-lodged complaints. In response to this, a list of outstanding complaints was provided to the RCMP on a regular basis throughout the year. The list is being 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 the dispositions in a timelier manner and to endeavour to eliminate the nearly 498 outstanding complaints that were lodged prior to 2007. Through this enhanced accounting mechanism the RCMP has also identified complaints, some of which may be a year or more old, that had not been processed, but for which investigations have been ordered.

The first reconfigured list was sent to the RCMP in August 2007. Within three months of the list being sent, 165 complaint dispositions were provided to the Commission. In November 2007, a second list was sent. By March 2008, the Commission received 137 complaint dispositions from files appearing on the second list. Finally, in March 2008, a third list was sent resulting in 226 dispositions being sent to the Commission by June 2008.

Figure 12: Number of Complaint Dispositions Received by the Commission

Additionally, the RCMP has reduced the number of pre-2007 outstanding complaints by 69%. When the list was sent out in August 2007, 498 complaints dated from before 2007. By June 2008, however, only 152 pre-2007 complaints remained on the list.

Figure 13: Number of Pre-2007 Outstanding Complaints

Overall, this aspect of the Review of the Record Project has been incredibly valuable to both the Commission and the RCMP in that it has:

• identified service gaps in the entire public complaint process as well as gaps at the divisional level;
• strengthened RCMP accountability;
• identified complaints that may have fallen through the "cracks" so that they can be investigated;
• encouraged the RCMP to account for all public complaints lodged with the Commission; and
• improved the interaction and cooperation between the RCMP and the Commission.

Divisions have been very involved in providing feedback to the Commission and in maintaining the integrity of the Outstanding Disposition List.

Administrative Issues

Historically, the RCMP has been required by statute to provide the Commission with a copy of all the complaint dispositions related to Commission-lodged complaints so that it could close the file and enter the information into the database. However, with the introduction of the Review of the Record Project the RCMP is now required to provide the Commission will all public complaint dispositions.

Incomplete Complaint Records

Occasionally, the Commission received complaint dispositions that were incomplete in that documents were missing or identifying information related to members or complainants was not provided. Of these complaints, the Commission received 200 incomplete records, representing 14% of the total dispositions received for complaints lodged in 2007.

Regionally, 20% of complaint records from the Northwest Region were incomplete, 19% from the Atlantic Region, 13% from the Central Region and 7% from the Pacific Region.

Incorrect Commission Reference

When issuing a Final Report or Notice of Direction, the RCMP is required by statute to inform the complainants of their right to request a review of their Final Report or their Notice of Direction. In this reference to the Commission, the RCMP must include the correct mailing address for complainants to send their request for review. The Commission has received dispositions that have an incorrect reference or that do not include this reference at all. In 2007, the Commission received 40 such dispositions: 22 from the Pacific Region, 14 from the Northwest Region, 3 from the Central Region and 1 from the Atlantic Region.

While this may seem an innocuous oversight, the effect that an incorrect reference to the Commission can have on the RCMP public complaint system is not. Without a proper address, and absent the knowledge that the complainant has a right to appeal the RCMP disposition of their complaint, the role of the Commission is undermined and the complainant is not fully apprised of their rights under the RCMP Act, which in turn denies them full access to the RCMP public complaint process.

Informal Resolution of Improper Use of Force Complaints³¹

In accordance with RCMP policy AM XII.2- Public Complaints, a public complaint cannot be disposed of informally if:

1. a complaint alleges serious misconduct; or
2. a situation involves a subject member being arrested or a warrant to arrest being issued.

The term "serious misconduct" is not defined by the RCMP and does not match any of their 16 complaint allegation categories listed on Form 4110. This rather ambiguous and subjective term can lead to confusion and can result in public complaint allegations being miscategorized and inappropriately disposed of. This is especially true of "Improper Use of Force" allegations.

The Commission maintains that improper use of force allegations should, typically, not be informally resolved and that a formal complaint investigation should be initiated. Unfortunately, the Commission saw a number of improper use of force allegations that should have been classified as serious misconduct that were subsequently resolved informally.

During the analysis of the documents related to the Review of the Record, the Commission noticed that 8% of the total informal resolutions dealt with allegations of improper use of force and that 14% of all use of force allegations resulted in an informal resolution. Further broken down, just under half of all allegations (48%) of improper use of force complaints that were informally resolved were disposed of in a manner that the Commission deemed inappropriate. Improper resolutions for use of force allegations occurred most often in "G" and "V" Divisions.

While there may be cause to informally resolve less serious allegations of improper use of force allegations, such as a member putting handcuffs on too tight or a person being arrested, in general, the very nature of this type of allegation is not conducive to this type of resolution, as it undermines police oversight by eliminating any outside agency review. Some of the informal resolutions for improper use of force have allegedly involved the deployed or threatened deployment of a conducted energy weapon and the use of pepper spray. Clearly, in these cases the Commission does not believe that these allegations should be informally resolved because they involve weapons or intermediate devices.

Further, even when the force resulted in an identified injury that required medical attention, the Commission still saw allegations of improper use of force informally resolved. The Commission's concern is that these types of informal resolution undermine accountability and that it is only privy to this information due to the Review of the Record Project.

When the Commission received information that an improper use of force allegation had been informally resolved, the Commission either requested further information to determine the seriousness of the allegation or noted that given the information on Form 4110 an informal resolution was not the most appropriate disposition of the public complaint. The RCMP's response to this has been generally good; however, there has been reluctance at times to send a complaint record back to the divisions for further information or investigation and to obtain information as to how the RCMP is going to act on the Commission's requests.

In one case there was no information related to the complaint other than the identification of the complaint allegation categories and the statement that there had been an "informal resolution". No other details were provided for on Form 4110. The Commission went back to the RCMP noting its concern and requested further information in order to determine if in fact the disposition of the complaint was appropriate. The RCMP responded with, "Although the details on the 4110 are brief, they are sufficient and self-explanatory" and the Commission's request for further information was not actioned.³²

In another case, two separate "Improper Use of Force" complaints involving the same member within a short period of time were informally resolved. The Commission questioned the validity of these informal resolutions and expressed its concern about a member having two such complaints within such a short period of time involving very similar circumstances. No response from the RCMP was forthcoming, even after repeated follow-ups. However, while there was no initial feedback from the RCMP with respect to these two complaints, the Commission has since learned that a District Advisory NCO went to the detachment to address both complaints and although the matter was improperly disposed of by way of an informal resolution, it was correctly investigated by the RCMP.

Conversely, other times the Commission questioned an informal resolution the RCMP Headquarters agreed that it should not have been disposed of in such a manner and requested that the appropriate division conduct a proper investigation. In one such case a complaint was re-investigated and the Final Report (RCMP) noted: "[...] the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP advised that they would not accept the informal resolution and requested that your allegations by fully investigated."

In a similar case an informal resolution was sent back to the RCMP; it was determined at the divisional level that "[t]his matter was not investigated properly; it is an incomplete/inadequate investigation." The file was reopened and a further investigation was initiated.

One division even went so far as to conduct an internal audit of the informal resolutions for improper use of force complaints to determine if indeed they adhere to RCMP policy. The results of this review are still pending.

The foregoing shows the value of civilian review of the entire public complaint system and how integrity and trust in such a system by members of the public can be enhanced through independent vigilance.

Part Two:
Trend Analysis: Findings and Recommendations in the Commission's Interim Reports

Trend Analysis of Interim Report Findings and Recommendations

The first part of this report focused on the "front end" of the complaint system, specifically the intake and investigation of public complaints. This section of the report focuses on the "back end" of the public complaint system, when a complainant is dissatisfied with the RCMP disposition of their complaint and requests a review by the Commission. If the Commission, after reviewing the file, decides that the disposition of the complaint by the RCMP and/or the conduct of the RCMP member(s) were inappropriate, an adverse finding will be made and an Interim Report will be issued.

The objective of this analysis was to determine existing trends in the findings and recommendations made by the Commission submitted to the RCMP Commissioner and to establish if there were any discernable trends in the Commissioner's response to the Interim Reports. For the 2007 calendar year, the Commission issued 215 reports in response to complainants' requests for review. Of these, 191 (89%) were satisfied reports and 24 (11%) were interim reports (where adverse findings were made). A preliminary analysis of the Interim Reports identified several trends in the Commission's findings and recommendations.

Allegations

Three main trends in public complaints were observed in the 2007 Interim Reports. The most common complaint was a perceived neglect of duty; complainants articulated that an RCMP member failed to fully carry out his/her duties. The next most common complaint related to improper use of force, specifically excessive force, which often flowed from arrests. The third most common complaint related to allegations that RCMP members displayed an improper attitude in their interactions with the public.

Methodology

Data for the trend analysis were extracted from the Interim Reports for the 2007 calendar year that were signed by the Chair or the Vice-Chair.

Allegations

The allegations addressed by the RCMP were categorized according to their current classification of complaints system.³³ These classifications, for the purposes of this report, are mutually exclusive, meaning that each allegation could be placed in only one category.

Commission's Findings and Recommendations

In response to the allegations, the Commission makes "supported" or "adverse" findings in the Interim Reports. For the purpose of the trend analysis, supported findings can be understood as those where the Commission found that the conduct of the subject member(s)³⁴ was proper in that it met RCMP professional standards and/or was consistent with RCMP policy/operational guidelines. Adverse findings, on the other hand, includes those where the Commission found that the conduct of the subject member(s) was improper in that it did not meet RCMP professional standards, and/or was in conflict with RCMP policy/operational guidelines. In instances where the Commission disagreed with the member's conduct, but agreed with the RCMP's disposition of the complaint, the finding was coded as "adverse".

Classification of Complaints

In the 24 Interim Reports, 62 allegations were made against members of the RCMP. In total, 10 (63%) out of the 16 complaint classifications were represented in the allegations, suggesting that complainants identified a wide range of what they perceived was improper conduct by the RCMP. "Neglect of Duty" was the most common classification, accounting for 30% of the allegations. The next most common classification was "Improper Use of Force" (20%), followed by "Improper Attitude" (18%), "Improper Arrest" (10%), "Oppressive Conduct" (8%), "Irregularity in Procedure" (5%), "Driving Irregularity" (3%), "Mishandling of Property" (2%), "Improper Persons/Vehicles Search" (2%) and "Improper Search of Premises" (2%).

Figure 14: Classification of Complaints in Interim Reports for 2007

The Commission made 102 findings in response to the 62 allegations.³⁵ Of these findings, 55 (54%) were satisfied (the Commission agreed with the RCMP's disposition of the allegation); and 47 (46%) were adverse (the Commission disagreed with the RCMP's disposition of the allegation).

Figure 15: Outcome of the Commission's Findings for 2007 Interim Reports

In total, 40 recommendations were made to the RCMP Commissioner based on the Commission's adverse findings, which could be broken into four themes:

• (1) Operational guidance/training (54%);
• (2) Amendment/development of policy and/or operations (24%);
• (3) Investigation of the complaint by the RCMP (in cases where the Commission found that the termination of the investigation was improper) (11%); and
• (4) Member apology (11%).

Figure 16: Breakdown of Commission's Recommendations

Neglect of Duty

The largest proportion of allegations related to neglect of duty, a broad category encompassing claims that members failed to perform a service or duty or performed a duty in a manner that was contrary to RCMP standards. In general, the allegations pertained to inadequate investigations, improper care and handling of prisoners, failure to provide medical care, and deficient reporting.

In one case, the complainant alleged that members neglected their duty while transporting prisoners, one of them being the complainant's grandson. The complainant noted that the prisoners were left in the transport van for a lengthy period of time while the RCMP waited for the tow truck to arrive. When the tow truck arrived, her grandson and the other prisoners were left in the van when it was being towed out of the ditch. On the issue of whether the members neglected their duty by leaving the prisoners in the van while waiting for the tow truck to arrive, the Commission found that the members did not neglect their duty and that it was acceptable to leave them in the van given the inclement weather conditions. However, the Commission made an adverse finding with respect to leaving the passengers in the van while it was being towed, stating that it could have resulted in serious injury to the passengers. The Commission recommended that the members receive operational guidance on what to do when they are transporting prisoners and the vehicle is involved in an accident.

In another case, the complainant alleged that a member prepared a violation ticket that had errors with respect to ownership and licence plate. The Commission ruled adversely in this case, finding that the ticket contained the named errors, and recommended that the member's supervisor take the appropriate corrective action, if it had not already been taken, and ensure that the subject member was aware of the importance of properly recording facts related to an alleged infraction.

An example of an allegation of neglect of duty in which the Commission supported the RCMP's findings in the first instance dealt with the issue of whether the subject members provided appropriate care to the complainant while in custody. The complainant alleged that he was left to stand outside in the cold without adequate clothing while members searched his vehicle. The members claimed that the complainant was permitted to wait inside the police vehicle during the search. The Commission found that the evidence of the members was more consistent that that of the complainant, and therefore, found that the RCMP members did not neglect their duty and had provided appropriate care to the complainant while in custody.

The Commission made more findings that were in support of the members' conduct (65%) rather than not (35%) in cases of alleged neglect of duty.

Improper Use of Force

The second largest proportion of allegations related to improper use of force, specifically excessive force. In these cases, the use of excessive force during arrests was a common theme. Excessive force was alleged in instances where members deployed a conducted energy weapon (CEW), and used empty hand (hard) techniques such as punches and restraint methods, including the carotid control technique.
In one case, the complainant alleged that the member used excessive force while restraining him at the hospital. The Commission made an adverse finding on this issue, stating that the use of the carotid control was excessive and contrary to RCMP operational policy. RCMP policy on the carotid control technique limits its use to situations where a person's life is threatened. The Commission found no evidence that the actions of the complainant constituted a threat to anyone's life; therefore, the technique should not have been used and amounted to excessive force under the circumstances.

In another case, the complainant alleged that a member improperly used a CEW on him inside the detachment cell area. The Commission made an adverse finding, explaining that the deployment of the CEW was excessive by virtue of the unlawful arrest. However, the Commission was not prepared to make an adverse finding in relation to the force used on the complainant, who was described by members as combative and uncontrollable. The Commission recommended that the member be provided with operational guidance surrounding the RCMP's policy on the deployment of CEWs in the context of the Incident Management/Intervention Model (IM/IM).

In a third case, also involving a CEW, the complainant alleged that the members used excessive force during his arrest by deploying the CEW three times and kicking him. The Commission made two separate findings, one being supported and the other being adverse. The rationale for the supported finding was that the initial deployment of the CEW was reasonable and consistent with RCMP policy. However, it was considered excessive to continue to deploy the CEW and kick the complainant because following the first CEW deployment, the complainant was neither resistant nor combative, and no longer posed a great physical threat.

For Improper Use of Force allegations, the Commission was more likely to make adverse findings (67%) than supported (33%). The Commission made supported findings when the force used by members was reasonable in the circumstances and consistent with RCMP policy. Adverse findings, on other hand, were observed in cases where the Commission found the force to be excessive, unreasonable, inconsistent with RCMP policy, or improper by virtue of an improper arrest.

Improper Attitude

There were several allegations pertaining to improper attitude. According to the RCMP's current classification of complaints, improper attitude may be characterized by rude, vulgar, sarcastic, or ridiculing behaviour. Allegations of this type may also make reference to a member's lack of discretion, impartiality, empathy, or concern for someone's welfare. The common theme of this type of allegation was rude and disrespectful comments.

For example, in one case, the complainant alleged that the member commented that the complainant must be a person from the northern part of New Brunswick. Overall, many of these allegations reflected a perceived lack of police professionalism.

Allegations relating to improper attitude had a tendency to be subjective in nature or not well supported and as such, in the vast majority of cases (78%), the Commission found that there was insufficient evidence to maintain the allegations. The Commission made only two adverse findings (22%) when there was sufficient evidence that the members were disrespectful and acted unprofessionally.

Improper Arrest

In five reports, complainants made allegations of improper arrest. Typically, these arrests occurred in private dwellings or immediately following incidents where members making the arrest operated on the assumption of reasonable and probable grounds.
This highlights, to some degree, a lack of knowledge of the legal requirements for arrests. In these instances, the Commission recommended that the member offer an apology to the complainant and/or that the member receive operational guidance with respect to the legal requirements of an arrest, specifically, the requirements for arrests without warrants, the requirement of reasonable and probable grounds, and the necessity for obtaining a Feeney warrant³⁶ when an arrest takes place inside a dwelling-house.

Alternatively, in cases where the Commission made findings in support of the member's actions, it was determined that the arrest was appropriate in the circumstances because there were reasonable and probable grounds to make the arrest.

Complaints alleging improper arrest and issues with obtaining a Feeney warrant have been a reoccurring issue observed by the Commission.

Oppressive Conduct

Allegations of oppressive conduct were observed in five reports. Oppressive conduct included harassment via persistent phone calls and looking into a complainant's window, unreasonable exercise of police discretion in recommending charges, initiating a fight, and unreasonable detainment overnight in the cell block.

In the case where the Commission found that the member acted oppressively in charging the complainant with ten offences under the Motor Vehicle Act,the Commission recommended that a senior member provide the subject member with operational guidance regarding the use of police discretion. In the other instance where the Commission decided that the member demonstrated oppressive conduct in holding the complainant overnight in custody, no recommendations were offered to address and/or prevent this behaviour in the future.

Half of the Commission's findings specific to oppressive conduct allegations were adverse, while the other half supported the member's conduct.

Irregularity in Procedure

Complainants made three allegations of irregularity in procedure in two separate reports. These included a member improperly contacting the complainant's lawyer and informing the lawyer that he should speak to the complainant about his anger, and that the RCMP improperly denied a mother access to RCMP files regarding her daughter. In both reports, the Commission made findings in support of the member's conduct, concluding that it was appropriate for the member to contact the complainant's counsel in the circumstances, and that the complainant was rightfully denied access pursuant to the Access to Information and Privacy Acts and she was appropriately referred to submit a request for these documents.

Driving Irregularity

Two allegations in two separate reports were made regarding driving irregularity. In one case, the complainant alleged that the member was driving in a dangerous manner prior to and when stopping the complainant and, in another case, that the member operated a transport van carrying prisoners at a dangerous speed (given the road conditions), which culminated in a single-vehicle accident.

The Commission made three findings regarding these allegations, with two being adverse (67%) and one being supported (33%). The rationale for the adverse findings was that the speed at which the van was travelling was too fast for the weather conditions and unnecessarily placed the passengers and other drivers at risk. The Commission also noted that the vehicle should not have been driven after the accident. Several recommendations were made, including operational guidance on transporting prisoners and what to do when the vehicle is involved in an accident, development of a policy manual to address ground transportation of prisoners, thorough investigations of accidents involving RCMP vehicles, and that vehicles meet safety standards and are equipped for various weather conditions. In the case where the Commission supported the member's conduct, the evidence was insufficient to conclude that the member was driving in a dangerous matter.

Mishandling of Property

Mishandling of property was one of the least frequent types of allegations, occurring only once in the Interim Reports. The complainant alleged that the members seized his vehicle without cause following a traffic stop. During this traffic stop, the drug detection dog indicated a presence of narcotics in the vehicle. Following the vehicle search no narcotics were found, but members discovered $80,000 in cash. The members then arrested the complainant and seized his car as evidence of proceeds of crime and to conduct further searches in a safe and controlled environment.

The Commission made an adverse finding regarding this allegation, concluding that the seizure of the complainant's vehicle was unreasonable and improper in the circumstances. The rationale for the Commission's finding was based on the notion that the search and arrest of the complainant was warrantless. The Commission further stated that the requirements that apply to searches apply equally to seizures. The Commission's recommendation was that the members review the legal requirements for searches and seizures, specifically the requirement of reasonable and probable grounds.

Improper Persons/Vehicles Search

In only one case, an allegation of an improper persons/vehicles search was observed. In the aforementioned case, the complainant also alleged that members improperly searched his vehicle; however, this allegation was not separately addressed in the Interim Report.

Improper Search of Premises

This type of allegation was observed only once, where the complainant alleged improper search of premises when the member unlawfully entered his dwelling to arrest him for an outstanding warrant. The Commission made an adverse finding in this case, stating that the member did not have the proper authorization to enter the complainant's house. As reflected in the Commission's recommendations, this case points to the importance of educating members on the authority of different types of warrants, and specifically, the limited use of Feeney warrants, which authorize police to enter a private dwelling to make an arrest.

Commissioner's Notices

The Commission has received 15 (63%) Commissioner's Notices in relation to the 24 Interim Reports signed in 2007. It must be noted that the Commission is concerned, and has expressed such concern repeatedly, that there is a delay in the RCMP issuing Commissioner's Notices for Interim Reports.

Given that the Commission is not in receipt of all the Notices, it is not possible to provide a comprehensive analysis for this time period. In the 15 Commissioner's Notices, 24 adverse findings and 25 recommendations of the Interim Reports were addressed.

Of the 24 adverse findings, the RCMP Commissioner agreed with 19 (79%) of them and disagreed with 5 (21%). Of the 25 recommendations, the Commissioner agreed with 20 (80%) and disagreed with 5 (20%). However, with 37% of the Interim Reports outstanding it is plausible that these figures will change significantly as more Commissioners' Notices are provided to the Commission.

Figure 17: Commissioner's Response to the Adverse Findings in the Commission's Interim Reports

Some of the issues raised in the Interim Reports that the Commissioner disagreed with included: the interpretation of the exception clause in section 497 (Release from custody by peace officer) of the Criminal Code of Canada, RCMP vehicle safety, the attendance of accident investigators in inclement weather, and the protocol for dealing with prisoners when an RCMP transport vehicle is involved in a collision.

Next Steps

Building on the findings of the first Review of the Record Project Report, the Commission plans on embarking on:

• Collaborating with the RCMP in communicating best practices with respect to the proper use of the termination provisions;
• Collaborating with the RCMP in implementing a standardized approach to the RCMP public complaint process to ensure Force-wide consistency and enhance service to the public;
• Further analyses of the concerns raised in this report, specifically into chronic complainants, statistical anomalies and improper informal resolutions and terminations of public complaints;
• A quality assessment of all RCMP public complaint dispositions; and
• Annual reports on the findings of the Review of the Record Project.

Recommendations

Recognizing the importance of Force-wide consistency and based on the findings of the analyses within the Review of the Record Project, the Commission recommends the following:

1. That the Professional Standards and External Review Directorate at RCMP Headquarters organize a Force-wide meeting of divisional Professional Standards Units and the Commission in order to discuss best practices and ways of improving efficiency and effectiveness in the public complaint process.
2. That the Professional Standards and External Review Directorate at RCMP Headquarters send out a directive clearly articulating:
   1. when it is appropriate to informally resolve improper use of force complaints and when it is not;
   2. how public complaints defined under Part VII of the RCMP Act are to be processed when the complainant raises statutory offence allegations; and
   3. when it is appropriate to terminate a public complaint under the RCMP Act and what information must be included in a Notice of Direction.
3. That the RCMP implement a more efficient means of tracking public complaints and that Divisions and detachments provide the Commission with a copy of all of the outstanding complaint dispositions.
4. That the RCMP ensure that those tasked with capturing public complaints and writing complaint dispositions be appropriately trained and that manuals related to the public complaint process be immediately updated to ensure a standardized national approach.
5. That the RCMP commit to improving its service standards by implementing ways to reduce wait times and increase processing times for complaint dispositions.
6. That the RCMP ensure that all of the complaint dispositions be provided to the Commission concurrent to being provided to the member and the complainant.