Kent County Protest Public Complaint Summaries

Related Links

The CRCC received 21 public complaints relating to the RCMP’s actions in managing protests over shale-gas exploration by SWN Resources Canada, near the town of Rexton, the Elsipogtog First Nation Reserve in Kent County and in various other parts of New Brunswick in 2013.

Complaint #1: Allegations of Improper Threats and Use of Force

A member of the public alleged that unidentified RCMP members threatened protesters and fired rubber bullets at them. Specifically, the member of the public, having observed through various media outlets the police operation that took place on October 17, 2013, asserted that RCMP members threatened protesters, including elders and children, and fired rubber bullets at protesters.

The Commission conducted an extensive public interest investigation into 21 individual complaints, including this one, related to the same protests, as well as into a Chairperson-initiated complaint after additional questions surfaced about the RCMP's response to these events.

The Commission issued a nine-page interim report about this complaint, and made two findings.

The Commission found that there was no information to support the claim that RCMP members improperly threatened members of the public, and that the use of force was necessary and proportional to the behaviour encountered in the circumstances.

The RCMP Commissioner agreed with the Commission's interim findings. Thus, the Commission reiterated these findings in its final report.

Complaint #2: Allegations of Excessive Use of Force, Improper Use of Firearms and Police Service Dogs, and Lack of Impartiality

A member of the public alleged that on October 17, 2013, unidentified RCMP members used excessive and unnecessary force against protesters during a peaceful protest, improperly used firearms to deal with peaceful protesters, improperly deployed police service dogs to deal with peaceful protesters, and failed to remain impartial by impeding the rights of peaceful protesters.

The Commission conducted an extensive public interest investigation into 21 individual complaints, including this one, related to the same protests, as well as into a Chairperson-initiated complaint after additional questions surfaced about the RCMP's response to these events.

The Commission issued a 25-page interim report about this complaint, and made nine findings.

The Commission found that, in general terms, the use of force employed by RCMP members (including the use of sock rounds, and drawing and/or pointing of firearms) was necessary in the circumstances and was proportional to the conduct that they encountered.

The Commission did not find any evidence of direct contact between police service dogs and protesters; the evidence showed that police service dogs were used as a psychological deterrent only.

The Commission concluded that the operation carried out by the RCMP on October 17, 2013, did not amount to a partial or biased police operation.

The RCMP Commissioner agreed with the Commission's interim findings. Thus, the Commission reiterated the findings in its final report.

Complaint #3: Allegations of Disrespectful Conduct by RCMP Member

An individual alleged that two unidentified RCMP members spoke to her and another party in a disrespectful, aggressive and intimidating manner.

The Commission conducted an extensive public interest investigation into 21 individual complaints, including this one, related to the same protests, as well as into a Chairperson-initiated complaint after additional questions surfaced about the RCMP's response to these events.

The Commission issued a four-page interim report about this complaint, and made one finding.

Given the information related by the individual and the other party to the Commission's investigators, the Commission was satisfied that this public complaint had been resolved. 

The RCMP Commissioner agreed with the Commission's interim finding. Thus, the Commission reiterated this finding in its final report.

Complaint #4: Allegations of Excessive Use of Force, Use of Agents Provocateurs, and Racist Remark

A member of the public alleged that on October 17, 2013, unidentified RCMP members used excessive and unnecessary force when dealing with protesters; members were used as "agents provocateurs" to infiltrate the crowd of protesters and to openly provoke violence; and a member made a racist remark.

The Commission conducted an extensive public interest investigation into 21 individual complaints, including this one, related to the same protests, as well as into a Chairperson-initiated complaint after additional questions surfaced about the RCMP's response to these events.

The Commission issued a 14-page report about this complaint, and made five interim findings.

The Commission found that, in general terms, the force employed by RCMP members was necessary in the circumstances and was proportional to the conduct that they encountered. There was no evidence to support the claim that agents provocateurs were used by the RCMP on October 17, 2013.

An RCMP member acknowledged having made an inappropriate remark. The Commission was satisfied that the matter had been addressed through the RCMP's disciplinary process, appropriate remedial action was taken, and no further action was required.

The RCMP Commissioner agreed with the Commission's interim findings. Thus, the Commission reiterated the findings in its final report.

Complaint #5: Allegations of Improper Use of Force

A member of the public alleged that on October 17, 2013, unidentified RCMP members used unnecessary and excessive force on protesters, and in using force, escalated the situation.

The Commission conducted an extensive public interest investigation into 21 individual complaints, including this one, related to the same protests, as well as into a Chairperson-initiated complaint after additional questions surfaced about the RCMP's response to these events.

The Commission issued a 20-page interim report about this complaint, and made seven findings.

The Commission found that, in general terms, the use of force employed by RCMP members (including the use of sock rounds, and drawing and/or pointing of firearms) was necessary in the circumstances and was proportional to the conduct that they encountered.

The RCMP Commissioner agreed with the Commission's interim findings. Thus, the Commission reiterated the findings in its final report.

Complaint #6: Allegations of Excessive Use of Force by RCMP Members

A member of the public submitted a complaint regarding the amount of force used by unidentified RCMP members in response to Indigenous protesters on June 6, 2013.

The RCMP investigated the complaint, and the man's allegations were deemed by the RCMP Commissioner's delegate to be unsupported by the evidence.

The Commission conducted an extensive public interest investigation into 21 individual complaints, including this one, related to the same protests, as well as into a Chairperson-initiated complaint after additional questions surfaced about the RCMP's response to these events.

The Commission issued an eight-page interim report about this complaint, and made two findings.

The Commission found that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the protesters were committing mischief and/or obstruction; consequently, it was reasonable for RCMP members to arrest them. Also, the force used to conduct the arrests depicted in the video found at the YouTube address provided by the member of the public was necessary and proportional in the circumstances.

The RCMP Commissioner agreed with the Commission's interim findings. Thus, the Commission reiterated the findings in its final report.

Complaint #7: Allegations of RCMP Members Unlawfully Arrested Protesters and Limited Their Right to Peacefully Express Their Opinions

A member of the public alleged that, in the winter and spring of 2013, unidentified RCMP members unlawfully arrested peaceful protesters and limited the right of protesters to peacefully express their opinions.

The Commission conducted an extensive public interest investigation into 21 individual complaints, including this one, related to the same protests, as well as into a Chairperson-initiated complaint after additional questions surfaced about the RCMP's response to these events.

The Commission issued an eight-page interim report about the complaint, and made two findings.

The Commission considered that all required licences and permits had been granted to the exploration company, and that police have a duty to preserve the peace, protect life and property, and enforce the law during any demonstration or protest.

The Commission found that it could not conclude, as alleged by the complainant, that RCMP members had arrested peaceful protesters "without any legal reason" in the winter and spring of 2013.

The Commission also found that the RCMP had a legitimate role in policing the anti-shale gas protests; the RCMP did not violate protesters' right to freedom of expression simply by virtue of policing the protests.

The RCMP Commissioner agreed with the Commission's interim findings. Thus, the Commission reiterated the findings in its final report.

Complaint #8: Allegations of Excessive Use of Force and Inadequate Approach to Protest Policing

An individual alleged that RCMP members used excessive force against his daughter, and that the RCMP failed to use the "parallel approach" in their response to the anti-shale gas protests.

The Commission conducted an extensive public interest investigation into 21 individual complaints, including this one, related to the same protests, as well as into a Chairperson-initiated complaint after additional questions surfaced about the RCMP's response to these events.

The Commission issued a 10-page interim report about this complaint, and made two findings.

The allegations surrounding the treatment of the individual's daughter were the subject of a separate individual complaint submitted by a person with a direct connection to the events. The Commission undertook a comprehensive analysis of those allegations and issued a report containing its findings and recommendations; accordingly, those findings and recommendations were not repeated in this report.

The Commission also found that, in general terms, RCMP members understood and applied a measured approach in their dealings with protesters. Throughout the protests up to October 17, 2013, the RCMP command team and the Crisis Negotiation Team made every effort to bring stakeholders together to work on a resolution to the conflict. These efforts were frustrated, in part, by the intractable nature of the dispute and by the absence of clear leadership on the part of the protesters.

The RCMP Commissioner agreed with the Commission's interim findings. Thus, the Commission reiterated the findings in its final report.

Complaint #9: Allegation of Woman Struck by RCMP Vehicle

An individual alleged that, on September 29, 2013, an RCMP member struck her with his police vehicle.

 The Commission conducted an extensive public interest investigation into 21 individual complaints, including this one, related to the same protests, as well as into a Chairperson-initiated complaint after additional questions surfaced about the RCMP's response to these events.

The Commission issued an 18-page report about this complaint, and made five findings.

The Commission found that the individual was part of a crowd standing very close to the police vehicle that was trying to make its way through the crowd. The vehicle moved forward about an inch, which appeared to have been a normal function of stopping and/or putting the vehicle in park.

There is no information to suggest that the movement of the car was done through ill intent or negligence on the part of the RCMP member. In hindsight, a safer option for all parties would likely have been to leave the police vehicle where it was.

The Commission was unable to determine whether or not the police vehicle came into contact with the individual, and whether or not she sustained a bruise as a result of the incident. However, the evidence indicated that if she did sustain a bruise, it was minor in nature.

The RCMP Commissioner agreed with the Commission's interim findings. Thus, the Commission reiterated the findings in its final report.

Complaint #10: Allegations of Excessive Use of Force and Unlawful Arrests by RCMP Members

A group alleged that, in the summer of 2013, unidentified RCMP members improperly arrested various persons; used excessive force in making arrests; arrested a journalist without adequate grounds to gain access to his camera, phone and voice recorder; and unreasonably detained a specific person over a weekend.

The Commission conducted an extensive public interest investigation into 21 individual complaints, including this one, related to the same protests, as well as into a Chairperson-initiated complaint after additional questions surfaced about the RCMP's response to these events.

The Commission issued a 25-page interim report about this complaint, and made seven findings.

The Commission found that the extensive evidence reviewed did not support the allegations of improper arrests and use of excessive force in making those arrests, during the spring and summer of 2013.

There were reasonable grounds to arrest the journalist for uttering threats and obstruction. The evidence did not support the allegation that he was arrested in order for the RCMP to gain access to his camera, phone and voice recorder; also, his camera was not searched and was immediately returned to him upon his release from custody.

The attempted arrest of the other person on June 22, 2013, stemmed from the fact that RCMP members had reasonable grounds to believe that he had committed criminal offences the previous day, when he incited other protesters to disobey police orders and helped the journalist flee the scene after having been told that he was under arrest. There is no information to support the allegation that, after the person's arrest on July 5, 2013, the RCMP unreasonably detained him over the weekend as a form of "extrajudicial punishment."

The RCMP Commissioner agreed with the Commission's interim findings. Thus, the Commission reiterated the findings in its final report.

Complaint #11: Allegations of RCMP Members Pointing Firearms

Having observed media reports, a member of the public alleged that on October 17, 2013, unidentified RCMP members pointed firearms at protesters.

The Commission conducted an extensive public interest investigation into 21 individual complaints, including this one, related to the same protests, as well as into a Chairperson-initiated complaint after additional questions surfaced about the RCMP's response to these events.

The Commission issued an 18-page interim report about this complaint, and made seven findings.

The Commission found that, in general terms, the use of force employed by RCMP members (including the use of sock rounds, and drawing and/or pointing of firearms) was necessary in the circumstances and was proportional to the conduct that they encountered.

The RCMP Commissioner agreed with the Commission's interim findings. Thus, the Commission reiterated the findings in its final report.

Complaint #12: Allegation of Mishandling of Indigenous Sacred Item

An individual alleged that, during her arrest on October 17, 2013, an RCMP member failed to follow protocol relative to the handling of sacred items; specifically, she alleged that he did not handle her drum in an appropriate fashion.

The Commission conducted an extensive public interest investigation into 21 individual complaints, including this one, related to the same protests, as well as into a Chairperson-initiated complaint after additional questions surfaced about the RCMP's response to these events.

The Commission issued a 22-page interim report about this complaint, and made five findings and two recommendations.

The Commission found that, with some notable exceptions, the RCMP members assigned to the operation did not have sufficient training in Indigenous cultural matters. There was no formal RCMP procedure in place detailing how and when, in practice, sacred objects should be seized and how they should be handled. However, the RCMP members did not, either deliberately or unwittingly, unnecessarily interfere with Indigenous ceremonies or sacred items.

The Commission found that it was reasonable for the RCMP member to remove the sacred object from the individual's possession. Also, a reasonable accommodation can often be, and was indeed, provided in such circumstances.

The RCMP Commissioner agreed with the Commission's interim findings and supported the recommendations.

Specifically, she noted that the RCMP has numerous learning programs for its members with the intent of increasing Indigenous cultural knowledge. She stated that the RCMP is presently developing a new Indigenous Awareness Guide, and she will direct that, once it is completed, a national communique be sent to all employees requesting that they review both the current Native Spirituality Guide and the newly developed Indigenous Awareness Guide.

The RCMP Commissioner stated that she will direct that the Commanding Officer of each division identify training specifically aimed at understanding the cultural issues of the Indigenous communities found in their division, and ensure that its members take that training.

She also agreed to direct the commanding officers of each division to ensure that collaboration is initiated with their local Indigenous stakeholders to develop appropriate and culturally sensitive procedures, as referenced in the Commission's recommendation.

The Commission reiterated its findings and recommendations In its final report.

Complaint #13: Allegations of Restricting an Individual's Access to Protest Site to Prevent Crime and Ensure Public Safety was Not Unreasonable in the Circumstances

An anonymous individual alleged that an RCMP member violated her right of peaceful assembly by improperly denying her access to a protest site on June 5, 2013. The individual also alleged that she was improperly threatened with arrest for mischief should she approach the site.

The Commission conducted an extensive public interest investigation into 21 individual complaints, including this one, related to the same protests, as well as into a Chairperson-initiated complaint after additional questions surfaced about the RCMP's response to these events.

The Commission issued a 25-page interim report about this complaint, and made ten findings and one recommendation.

The Commission found that a number of protesters engaged in a peaceful ceremony on the roadway in front of the exploration company's vehicles as a means of protest, which stopped the company from carrying out its work. This constituted mischief, but the RCMP reasonably implemented a measured approach and allowed the ceremony to continue for a considerable length of time. When the RCMP ordered the protesters to move off the roadway or face arrest, several persons did not comply and were arrested.

Viewing the situation in its whole context, a significant number of protesters engaged in mischief, stopping the company's work for the day, and some disobeyed police orders to cease this unlawful activity and were arrested. The Commission found that the decision to restrict the individual's access to the protest site to prevent crime and ensure public safety was not unreasonable in those circumstances.

The Commission recommended that, particularly when policing a public protest, RCMP members be cognizant of the limits of their powers, specifically in relation to curtailing protesters' ability to assemble and express themselves in a lawful manner.

Given the Commission's conclusion on the first allegation, the individual's second allegation was unfounded.

The available information did not support the allegation that RCMP members were heavy-handed with protesters during this incident. In fact, overall, by adopting a measured approach, RCMP members made considerable efforts to respect the rights of protesters at the protest site.

The RCMP Commissioner agreed with the Commission's interim findings and supported the recommendation. Thus, the Commission reiterated its findings and recommendation in its final report.

Complaint #14: Allegations of Unnecessary Use of Force, Rude Remarks, and Intrusive Search

An individual alleged that, while at a protest, RCMP members used unnecessary force against her numerous times throughout the day, mostly while she was handcuffed; laughed at her; made rude and unprofessional remarks to her; and conducted an intrusive search of her without first advising her that a search was going to be conducted.

The Commission conducted an extensive public interest investigation into 21 individual complaints, including this one, related to the same protests, as well as into a Chairperson-initiated complaint after additional questions surfaced about the RCMP's response to these events.

The Commission issued a 24-page interim report about this complaint, and made 10 findings.

The Commission found that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the individual had committed the offence of mischief, and therefore it was reasonable for RCMP members to arrest her. The individual's conduct after being arrested was resistive and assaultive, and this necessitated the use of force by the RCMP members. There was no evidence substantiating the claim that the individual was struck in the back or behind the head, or otherwise kicked or punched during her arrest. The force employed during her arrest was proportional to her conduct.

Likewise, the force that was used when walking the individual to the police transport vehicle, and when placing her in it, was necessary and proportional in the circumstances given her conduct.

There was no information available to the Commission to substantiate the allegation that RCMP members laughed at the individual while taking her photograph, or at any other time. Her photograph was taken as part of the normal prisoner processing procedure. There was no information to substantiate the allegation that RCMP members made inappropriate remarks to the individual when photographing her or at any other time.

There was no information available to substantiate the allegation that an RCMP member began the search of the individual without explaining that she was conducting a search, or that the RCMP member conducted the search in an improper manner.

The RCMP Commissioner agreed with all the Commission's findings. Thus, the Commission reiterated the findings in its final report.

Complaint #15: Allegations of RCMP Failed to Provide Adequate Equipment to its Members to Vilify Protesters, Allowed Cars to be Set Ablaze, and Used Non-RCMP Members to Enforce an Injunction

A member of the public alleged that unidentified RCMP members failed to provide adequate protective equipment to the RCMP members involved in the front‑line enforcement of an injunction order, in the hope that some of the RCMP members would be injured so that protesters would be vilified. The member of the public also alleged that RCMP members, either intentionally or through negligence, allowed cars to be set ablaze and destroyed; and used armed, non-RCMP members in the enforcement of the injunction order.

The Commission conducted an extensive public interest investigation into 21 individual complaints, including this one, related to the same protests, as well as into a Chairperson-initiated complaint after additional questions surfaced about the RCMP's response to these events.

The Commission issued a 20-page interim report, and made four findings.

The Commission found that there was no evidence that RCMP members were intentionally ill-equipped so that they would be injured and thus vilify the protesters. In the circumstances, and in keeping with the measured approach, it was not unreasonable for the tactical troops to initially be directed to wear Level 2 gear.

There was no evidence that the RCMP contributed to, or otherwise permitted, police vehicles being set ablaze on October 17, 2013, and no evidence that non-RCMP members were used during the tactical operation.

The RCMP Commissioner agreed with all the Commission's interim findings but disagreed with part of the analysis.

Specifically, she disagreed with the Commission's conclusion that it would have been reasonable for the Operational Plan to have provided a contingency plan with regard to the possibility of there being firearms and explosives at the campsite. She stated that this possibility was addressed by the plan, and it was preferable to allow RCMP members to respond using their training and expertise as opposed to a specific process.

The Commission responded that it had already addressed many of these points in its report, and agreed that flexibility and discretion is essential in decision-making.

Nevertheless, the Commission continued to be of the view that the Operational Plan could have made more explicit reference to the possibility of firearms being present and had stronger emphasis on this point, without necessarily providing for a specific contingency plan. This was especially pertinent given the considerable danger posed by this threat, as well as the significant consequential effects on the entire operation when a firearm was in fact brandished (lengthy delays in the operation, the redirection of resources, and so on).

The Commission reiterated its findings in its final report.

Complaint #16: Allegations of Failure to Wear Name Tags, Unlawful Arrests, and Excessive Use of Force by RCMP Members

An individual submitted a complaint alleging that, on June 14, 2013, an unidentified RCMP member policing the anti-shale gas protests did not wear a name tag and refused to identify himself when asked to do so; and on June 21, 2013, unidentified RCMP members improperly arrested an unidentified protester and used excessive force to do so.

The individual submitted a second complaint alleging that, on October 17, 2013, there were no RCMP members guarding the police vehicles that were set ablaze, and that this reflected "a cavalier attitude toward the expensive cars that the public funds."

The Commission conducted an extensive public interest investigation into 21 individual complaints, including these two, related to the same protests, as well as into a Chairperson-initiated complaint after additional questions surfaced about the RCMP's response to these events.

The Commission issued a 25-page interim report, and made 10 findings.

The Commission found that on June 14 and 21, 2013, most RCMP members were wearing some form of identification, be it a baseball cap with alphanumeric identification on the back, or a name tag.

There were reasonable grounds to believe that the protester had committed, and was committing, several criminal offences. Thus, it was reasonable to arrest her. There was insufficient information to conclusively determine how the protester sustained an injury to her lip or mouth on June 21, 2013. The available information suggests, however, that the injury was likely sustained when the protester forcefully tried to push through the police line and her face came into contact with an RCMP member's shoulder. There is no information to substantiate the allegation that the protester was punched in the face by an RCMP member.

It was reasonable for the RCMP to have decided to use police vehicles as a "movable" barricade. Once the situation had deteriorated, it was reasonable for RCMP members to prioritize the safety of all parties and the maintenance of order over attempting to preserve the police vehicles. In the end, the burning of the vehicles was the responsibility of the person(s) who illegally set them ablaze.

It would have been reasonable for the RCMP to have had a contingency plan providing for the possibility of a large number of belligerent protesters on Route 134.

The RCMP Commissioner agreed with nine findings, and partially agreed with another. She also elaborated with regard to one finding, and disagreed with part of the Commission's analysis.

The RCMP Commissioner stated that the Incident Commander was very much alive to the possibility of a large number of belligerent protesters on Route 134. Given the resources at his disposal, he did not feel the need to make specific provisions for that eventuality in the Operational Plan. The absence of this scenario in the Operational Plan was not unreasonable and likely would not have changed how the RCMP members handled the situation.

 In response, the Commission noted that, if the possibility of an increase in the number of belligerent protesters in the area in question was widely anticipated, as stated in the RCMP Commissioner's response, then it is all the more reason for more thorough provisions to have been made in the Operational Plan to respond to it. Although RCMP members sought to do the best they could in a volatile situation, the riotous melee and resultant criminal damage that ensued was a low point in the RCMP operation in Kent County. 

The RCMP Commissioner also disagreed with the Commission's conclusion that it would have been reasonable for the Operational Plan to have provided a contingency plan with regard to the possibility of there being firearms and explosives at the campsite. She stated that the plan addressed this possibility, and it was preferable to allow RCMP members to respond using their training and expertise as opposed to a specific process.

The Commission responded that it had already addressed many of these points in its report, and agreed that flexibility and discretion is essential in decision-making.

Nevertheless, the Commission continued to be of the view that the Operational Plan could have made more explicit reference to the possibility of firearms being present and had stronger emphasis on this point, without necessarily providing for a specific contingency plan. This was especially pertinent given the considerable danger posed by this threat, as well as the significant consequential effects on the entire operation when a firearm was in fact brandished (lengthy delays in the operation, the redirection of resources, and so on). 

The Commission reiterated its findings in its final report.

Complaint #17: Allegations of Excessive Use of Force, Racist and Inappropriate Remarks, Improper Arrest, Handcuffs Too Tight, and Failure to Wear Name Tags

An individual submitted a complaint regarding events that unfolded on October 17, 2013, during the anti-shale gas protests. Among other things, he alleged that RCMP members used force against him improperly in numerous ways during different incidents; made racist and inappropriate remarks; improperly arrested him; handcuffed him too tightly; and did not wear name tags and did not identify themselves.

The Commission conducted an extensive public interest investigation into 21 individual complaints, including this one, related to the same protests, as well as into a Chairperson-initiated complaint after additional questions surfaced about the RCMP's response to these events.

The Commission issued a 36-page interim report, and made 20 findings and one recommendation.

The Commission found that, on October 17, 2013, protesters, including the individual, engaged in assaultive behaviour, including throwing projectiles at the police line. RCMP members responded by deploying pepper spray and sock rounds. The Commission found that certain use of force incidents involving RCMP members and the individual were necessary and constituted a proportional amount of force in the circumstances.

The evidence did not support the individual's allegations about other use of force incidents.

There were reasonable grounds to believe that the individual had committed, and was committing, various criminal offences, and therefore it was reasonable for RCMP members to arrest him. With the individual having acted in an assaultive, inciting and threatening manner toward RCMP members before his arrest, it was reasonable to apply force to control him during his arrest, and the amount and type of force was not unreasonable in the circumstances.

The handcuffs that were placed on the individual were likely tighter than was necessary to restrain him. The Commission recommended that, in situations such as public order policing when RCMP members may be required to arrest persons using plastic tie wrap handcuffs, the restraints must only be applied with as much force as is necessary to safely restrain the arrested person.

In the specific circumstances, where photographs and videos had been posted on social media and serious threats made against RCMP members and their families, the practice of having members use only numeric identification, without name tags, was reasonable.

The RCMP Commissioner agreed with 19 of the findings. She agreed with part of another finding. She supported the recommendation but stated that no further action would be taken with regard to it.

The RCMP Commissioner stated that she could not definitively conclude that the individual's hands were empty when confronted by an RCMP member; the Commission responded in its final report that there was circumstantial evidence that this was the case. Accordingly, the Commission reiterated its finding and modified it to read that the individual's hands were "apparently" empty.

The RCMP Commissioner supported the recommendation about the tightness of handcuffs. However, she stated that the recommendation is in line with use of force principles identified in case law, and that the RCMP's operational practices are in accord with this recommendation. She stated that, consequently, she would not direct that any action be taken.

In its final report, the Commission stated that the RCMP Commissioner had not explained how it was, if RCMP practices are already in line with the recommendation, that the handcuffs placed on the individual were likely tighter than necessary. The RCMP Commissioner had also not provided any information indicating that practices had been modified since these events. As such, the Commission reiterated its recommendation.

The Commission also reiterated all of its findings in its final report, with the slight modification noted above about the individual's hands being "apparently" empty.

Complaint #18: Allegations of Improper Arrest, Excessive Use of Force, and Interference with Indigenous Spiritual Ceremony

An individual alleged that on June 5, 2013, unidentified RCMP members arrested her without justification, used excessive force in arresting her, and breached RCMP policy when they interfered in a spiritual ceremony.

The Commission conducted an extensive public interest investigation into 21 individual complaints, including this one, related to the same protests, as well as into a Chairperson-initiated complaint after additional questions surfaced about the RCMP's response to these events.

The Commission issued a 25-page interim report, and made seven findings and two recommendations.

The Commission found that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the individual was committing mischief and, thus it was reasonable for RCMP members to arrest her for that offence. It was necessary for members to use force during the arrest of the individual, and the type and amount of force used was proportional in the circumstances.

At the time the protest policing operation began, with some notable exceptions, the RCMP members assigned to the operation did not have sufficient training in Indigenous cultural matters. The Commission recommended that the RCMP require all members to review the RCMP Native Spirituality Guide, and that all members involved in Indigenous policing, including members of tactical troop/public order units involved in policing protests by Indigenous persons, be required to attend a training program that is specifically aimed at understanding Indigenous cultural issues.

The available information suggested that RCMP members did not, either deliberately or unwittingly, unnecessarily interfere with Indigenous ceremonies or sacred items.

At the time of the protests, there was no formal RCMP procedure in place detailing how and when, in practice, sacred objects should be seized and how they should be handled.

In the totality of the circumstances, it was reasonable for RCMP members to remove the sacred items from the individual's possession.

The Commission recommended that the RCMP initiate collaboration with various Indigenous stakeholders with a view to developing a context-specific, practical procedure providing guidance to RCMP members with regard to the handling of sacred items in various contexts.

The RCMP Commissioner agreed with all the Commission's interim findings and recommendations.

Specifically, she noted that the RCMP has numerous learning programs for its members with the intent of increasing Indigenous cultural knowledge. She stated that the RCMP is presently developing a new Indigenous Awareness Guide, and she will direct that, once it is completed, a national communique be sent to all employees requesting that they review both the current Native Spirituality Guide and the newly developed Indigenous Awareness Guide.

The RCMP Commissioner stated that she will direct that the Commanding Officer of each division identify training specifically aimed at understanding the cultural issues of the Indigenous communities found in their division, and ensure that its members take that training.

She also agreed to direct the commanding officers of each division to ensure that collaboration is initiated with their local Indigenous stakeholders to develop appropriate and culturally sensitive procedures, as referenced in the Commission's recommendation.

The Commission reiterated all of its findings and recommendations in its final report.

Complaint #19: Allegations of Unnecessary and Excessive Use of Force, Improper Arrest, Failure to Wear Name Tags, Differential Treatment of Indigenous Persons, Improper Treatment of Arrested Person Suffering from Medical Problems

An individual alleged that an RCMP member pushed or touched her on the chest and that RCMP members used excessive force when arresting her, and that RCMP members engaged in differential treatment of Indigenous and non-Indigenous protesters, including making an inappropriate remark to her. She also alleged that RCMP members did not wear name tags and failed to identify themselves when asked. The individual alleged that, in various ways, she was not treated properly after being arrested.

The Commission conducted an extensive public interest investigation into 21 individual complaints, including this one, related to the same protests, as well as into a Chairperson-initiated complaint after additional questions surfaced about the RCMP's response to these events.

The Commission issued a 32-page interim report, and made 21 findings.

The Commission found that, although it could not be conclusively determined, the available information suggests that it is likely that the individual was lightly pushed or touched to force her to retreat to the shoulder of the road rather than arresting her. It cannot be confirmed whether she was pushed or touched on the chest. It was reasonable for members to lightly touch or push protesters who refused to heed instructions to move. The Commission found that when using force, RCMP members should avoid, to the greatest extent possible, any unnecessary contact with a person's private areas, including a woman's chest.

There were reasonable grounds to believe that the individual was committing mischief and obstruction; thus, it was reasonable for RCMP members to arrest her. Given the circumstances, including the individual shifting her weight away from the RCMP member while being arrested and another protester physically intervening to disrupt the arrest, it was necessary for RCMP members to use force when completing the arrest. The available information did not suggest that more force than necessary was used.

The Commission did not possess any information to substantiate the claim that an RCMP member asked the individual: "Why don't you go back to where you came from?"

The information before the Commission did not support the allegation that RCMP members differentiated between Indigenous and non-Indigenous protesters when making arrests, or that they demonstrated any bias against Indigenous protesters generally.

When the individual had a seizure, the RCMP members immediately stopped the transport van and removed her from the vehicle. The members put the individual in the recovery position, looked for a Medic-Alert bracelet, held her head, removed her glasses, and summoned medical care. Overall, the RCMP members reacted appropriately and with care to the individual's medical distress; however, it would have been appropriate for them to have removed her handcuffs after she suffered a seizure and was non‑responsive in a prone position on the ground.

There was insufficient information to conclude as to whether RCMP members fully adhered to policy regarding sharing of medical information in this situation, but the Commission reminded members of the importance of fulfilling these requirements.

As RCMP members must comport themselves in a courteous and respectful manner, it would have been reasonable for a member to turn the radio off at the individual's request, as she had recently suffered two seizures. It is unknown, however, if the RCMP member was aware of what specifically had happened to the individual, given that it is unclear what information was shared between members about her health.

An RCMP member complied with policy but, in the circumstances, it would have been reasonable to forgo taking fingerprints at that time, knowing the member's knowledge that the individual had a sprained wrist, and given that the Criminal Code provides for the possibility of taking fingerprints at a later date.

The individual was informed of her right to retain and instruct counsel; she contacted counsel and obtained legal advice. There is no legal requirement to allow prisoners to contact family members. In addition, it appears that an RCMP member did speak with the individual's husband to apprise him of the situation.

The RCMP Commissioner agreed with 19 of the Commission's findings, and generally agreed with two of the findings.

The RCMP Commissioner stated that, in most instances, the removal of a prisoner's handcuffs during transport is a decision that requires some deference to the involved RCMP members' judgement and risk assessment. She stated that, in this particular scenario, removing the individual's handcuffs would have been supported by a reasonable risk assessment.

The RCMP Commissioner also stated that it was not apparent from the relevant materials that the RCMP member knew at the outset that taking the individual's fingerprints would cause her this much discomfort. The RCMP member immediately stopped when the individual said that it hurt. The RCMP Commissioner also stated that, given that many individuals were being arrested at once, the need to have all individuals adequately identified was important.

The Commission simply reiterated that, given that the RCMP member knew that the individual had a sprained wrist, it would have been a reasonable course of action to forgo taking fingerprints at that time. Also, given how the RCMP member described the incident to the public complaint investigator, it was not clear that she "immediately stopped" when the individual said that her wrist was hurting.

The Commission acknowledged the importance of promptly identifying arrested persons, but expressed concern at the use of this rationale in a case where the arrested person was known to have suffered an injury to her wrist.

The Commission reiterated all its findings in its final report.

Complaint #20: Allegations of Improper Arrest, Unnecessary and Excessive Use of Force, Failure to Advise of Right to Legal Counsel

An individual alleged that RCMP members failed to acknowledge that she could have assisted in instilling peace at the protest; unjustifiably arrested her; used unnecessary and excessive force against her; did not allow her to contact family; and did not advise her of her right to legal counsel.

The Commission conducted an extensive public interest investigation into 21 individual complaints, including this one, related to the same protests, as well as into a Chairperson-initiated complaint after additional questions surfaced about the RCMP's response to these events.

The Commission issued a 28-page interim report, and made 14 findings and one recommendation.

The Commission found that in the circumstances, it was reasonable for the RCMP members who encountered the individual to not enlist her services in attempting to calm the crowd.

There were reasonable grounds to believe that the individual was committing the offence of obstruction, and arresting her without a warrant was necessary to stop her from continuing to commit that offence.

The individual was actively engaged in obstruction by running past the police line during what could accurately be described as a riot. It was necessary to use force to complete the arrest of the individual, and the amount of force used was proportional.

The handcuffs that were initially placed on the individual were likely tighter than was necessary to restrain her. The Commission recommended that, in situations such as public order policing when members may be required to arrest persons using plastic tie wrap handcuffs, the restraints must only be applied with as much force as is necessary to safely restrain the arrested person.

Given her passive resistance, it was necessary for RCMP members to use force to move the individual after her arrest, and although it would have been preferable to have more members assist in carrying her, the type and amount of force used was proportional in the circumstances.

RCMP members treated the individual in a reasonable and respectful manner, summoning medical care when necessary and removing her handcuffs. The information before the Commission does not support the allegation that members used more force than was necessary following her arrest.

The RCMP members had no obligation to allow the individual to contact her family or relatives during her incarceration at the detachment or at the hospital. However, a member did contact the individual's husband at her request to ensure that the couple's children would be picked up from school.

The individual was informed of her right to counsel without delay.

There was a reasonable concern that, if the individual was released before the operation was concluded, she may repeat the offence or commit another offence. Therefore, her continued detention until the evening was reasonable in the circumstances.

The RCMP Commissioner agreed with 13 findings and supported the one recommendation. She agreed only in part with one finding, and disagreed with part of the Commission's analysis.

Specifically, the RCMP Commissioner disagreed that it would have been preferable to have more members assist in carrying the individual, as she stated that there was no information in the relevant materials to support that conclusion.

In its final report, the Commission indicated that, when the individual again engaged in passive resistance at the hospital, four RCMP members carried her by the arms and legs. The Commission reiterated that, if possible, it would have been preferable for more RCMP members to assist in carrying the individual to the police vehicle, in the same manner they did later at the hospital.

The RCMP Commissioner also disagreed with the Commission's conclusion that it would have been prudent to allow more time for negotiations and a review of the injunction in court before proceeding with the tactical operation.

In its final report, the Commission stated that, in its interim report, it had acknowledged, in detail, the factors supporting the imminent implementation of the tactical operation. The Commission found clearly that the operation was legally justifiable and that it was reasonable in the circumstances for the RCMP to conduct the operation. 

Some important progress had been made through negotiation, and further efforts could have been undertaken to that end, as requested by the RCMP negotiators. The decision to go ahead with the tactical operation had significant consequences. Allowing more time for negotiation, particularly after the Crisis Negotiation Team's negotiations had already borne fruit, would have been a reasonable and desirable course of action in the circumstances.

Therefore, the Commission reiterated its findings and recommendation in its final report.

Complaint #21: Allegations of RCMP Members Pointing Firearms

A member of the public alleged that on October 17, 2013, unidentified RCMP members were heavily armed when they confronted elders and children who were protesting, and that the police officers drew their firearms when confronting protesters.

The Commission conducted an extensive public interest investigation into 21 individual complaints, including this one, related to the same protests, as well as into a Chairperson-initiated complaint after additional questions surfaced about the RCMP's response to these events.

The Commission issued an 18-page interim report about this complaint, and made eight findings.

The Commission found that, in general terms, the force employed by RCMP members (including the use of sock rounds, and drawing and/or pointing of firearms) was necessary in the circumstances and was proportional to the conduct that they encountered.

The Commission found no evidence that RCMP members pointed firearms at children.

The RCMP Commissioner agreed with the Commission's interim findings. Thus, the Commission reiterated the findings in its final report.

Date modified: