Northern B.C. discrimination complaint “partially substantiated,” so human rights tribunal orders RCMP to pay compensation

Bob Mackin

A Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) member ordered the RCMP on March 2 to pay $7,500 plus interest to each of six Indigenous people, and the estates of two others, for pain and suffering and wilful and reckless discrimination.

In 2017, six Lake Babine Nation members complained to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, alleging that the RCMP did not properly investigate their allegations of abuse at two Northern B.C. Catholic day schools. The case was referred in 2020 to the tribunal.

They originally claimed a gym teacher abused them in the 1960s and 1970s at Immaculata elementary in Burns Lake and Prince George College secondary.

The RCMP investigated between 2012 and 2014, but did not recommend charges.

Immaculata Catholic Church in Burns Lake, former site of Immaculata day school. (PGDiocese.bc.ca)

Lengthy case

Over 44 days, between May 2023 and July 2024, the tribunal heard 38 witnesses and received hundreds of exhibits. Hearings began in Burns Lake, but continued by video conference.

In a 145-page decision, overdue by more than a year, CHRT member Colleen Harrington said the case was only about the RCMP investigations of historical abuse, not whether the abuse occurred or about the alleged abuser, whose name is protected by a publication ban and identified by Harrington as A.B.

“Accommodating the Indigenous crime complainants by ensuring they were told that they could report allegations of abuse, be given an update about the outcome of the investigation into their allegations of abuse, and not be repeatedly offered a polygraph would not have interfered with the RCMP’s duty to conduct its investigations in the public interest,” Harrington wrote.

The complainants had sought $20,000 compensation for each Indigenous victim of abuse who was deprived of justice. Harrington dismissed their appeal for a new investigation, because she ruled that RCMP investigators were both thorough and diligent.

“While I appreciate that the complainants and their witnesses are unhappy with the outcome of the investigations, the decision whether to recommend a charge is not before the tribunal,” she wrote.

Harrington’s key finding

“The complaint is partially substantiated. I find that the complainants have proven on a balance of probabilities that race and national or ethnic origin were a factor in some of the adverse differential treatment or denial of service that was experienced by some of the complainants and their witnesses in relation to the RCMP’s investigations.

“Specifically, I find the following conduct to be discriminatory: not advising Peter Mueller that he could separately report his abuse at Prince George College; not providing Richard Perry, Maurice Joseph, Emma Williams, Cathy Woodgate, Ruby Adam and Pius Charlie with an update on the outcome of the investigation into their allegations of abuse or, in the case of Ms. Woodgate, Ms. Adam and Mr. Charlie, not advising them that they could separately report their abuse at Immaculata to the RCMP; and, by asking Beverly Abraham repeatedly to take a polygraph after she disclosed being sexually assaulted as a child.”

In addition to the compensation, Harrington ordered the RCMP to review its policies and procedures and report back in a year to the commission on improving investigations of historical abuse.

RCMP detachment in Burns Lake, B.C. (B.C. RCMP)

Briefing notes

The RCMP told the tribunal it had no jurisdiction because a criminal investigation is not a service under the human rights law. It also argued that there was no discrimination because the investigation into the original July 2012-filed abuse complaint from Abraham was “thorough and professional and was conducted in a respectful, trauma-informed and culturally sensitive manner.”

The complainants alleged the RCMP favoured A.B. because several senior members had high-level security positions at an event he directed.

They relied on internal RCMP email and briefing notes as evidence that senior officers influenced the investigation, which was led by Cpl. Quinton Mackie.

But Harrington dismissed that allegation.

She accepted Mackie’s evidence that he was focused on investigating Abraham’s allegations and not influenced by information about A.B. in the briefing notes.

Supt. Paul Richards did not testify, but the email chain showed he sent a briefing note on behalf of Asst. Comm. Randy Beck, who reported to the RCMP commissioner in Ottawa.

“Superintendent Richards’ draft briefing note added background information about A.B., including that he was a well known Canadian and refers to awards he had received,” Harrington wrote. “The briefing note states that, if the allegations are substantiated, the case could ‘be an embarrassment at a number of levels of government, […] corporations, and other organizations’ that A.B. had been affiliated with.”

Harrington said the briefing notes were ways to provide information to superior officers about a high-profile investigation. The briefing notes were not a means to direct investigators on how to carry out the investigation.

“While I do not find this to have happened in this particular case, when briefing notes with information about parties that has not yet been gathered in the course of an investigation are shared with the investigating officers early in the investigation, this could create the possibility for the investigators to be influenced by these comments,” Harrington wrote. “At the very least, the RCMP should be aware of the perception of inappropriately influencing an investigation in cases like this. Again, I do not conclude that the evidence in this case supports such a contention of influencing the investigation.”

Subscribe to theBreaker.news on Substack. Find out how: Click here.

Bob Mackin A Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT)