overview

---

Rodney J. Gillis, K.C. of Gilbert McGloan Gillis is prosecuting a proposed class action against Canada involving allegations of breach of the right to privacy in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). 

The action was commenced in Federal Court and is brought on behalf of this action on behalf of all persons who reside in Canada, who worked for or with the RCMP. Additionally, this action on behalf of the family members of these individuals who are entitled to assert a claim pursuant to the Family Law Act, S.N.B. 2020 c. 23 and equivalent or comparable legislation in other provinces and territories. 

The action concerns:

(i)  A systemic breach of individual members of the RCMP’s right to privacy;

(ii) A systemic violation, and continued violation of section 8 of the Charter in a way that is not demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society pursuant to section 1 of the Charter;

(iii) Damages caused by breach of the individual members of the RCMP’s right to privacy;

(iv) A declaration that Canada is liable to the Plaintiffs and Class Members for damages under section 24(1) of the Charter for breach of section 8 of the Charter in relation to the actions of RCMP Officers who breached the Class Members’ right to privacy;

The action alleges that the defendant is vicariously liable for the conduct and negligence of its agents, servants, and employees at the RCMP in failing to provide a violation of individual members' right to privacy and/or violation of section 8 of the Charter. The details of the allegations against the RCMP are contained in the Statement of Claim.

The Plaintiffs are current veteran RCMP members who allege that:

1.  They and the other Class Members believe that the RCMP owed a duty of care through the establishment, funding, oversight, operation, supervision, control, maintenance, and support.

2.  Throughout their professional career believed the RCMP was obligated under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations, 2014, SOR/2014-281 to:

(a)  treat every person with respect and courtesy and not engage in discrimination or harassment.

(b)  respect the law and rights of all individuals.

(c)  act with integrity, fairness and impartiality, and not compromise or abuse its authority, power or position; and

(d)  behave in a manner that is not likely to discredit the Force.

3.  Privacy has long been recognized as an important underlying and animating value of various traditional causes of action to protect personal and territorial privacy.

4.  That Charter jurisprudence recognizes privacy as a fundamental value in our law and specifically identifies, as worthy of protection, a right to informational privacy that is distinct from personal and territorial privacy. 

5.  Through itself or its Agents, the Defendant was in a relationship of proximity with Class Members because of its operation of RCMP.

6.  During the Class Period they would not be treated by the Defendant in a manner that would breach their right to privacy.

7.  RCMP Officers recording their conversations without consent or with an order of the Court would breach their right to privacy. The Defendant would have knowledge of the actual harm perpetrated on Class Members by virtue of internal reports, community knowledge, complaints by Class Members.

8.  The Defendant knew or ought to have known that its failure to respect the right to privacy would result in harm to Class Members.

9.  They had a reasonable expectation that Canada would operate its RCMP in a manner that substantially respected the right to privacy and section 8 of the Charter during the Class Period.

Fiduciary Duty

10.  The Defendant has exclusive power under its Conduct Process designated by the Commissioner’s Standing Orders (Conduct) with the power to conduct meetings and investigations.

11.  By virtue of its Standing Orders, the Defendant has an ongoing obligation of disclosure which would include the acknowledgement of a breach of privacy.

12.  They are not aware of any periodical reassessment of the procedures and guidelines conducted by the Defendants when it knew of the systemic failures by RCMP officers during the Class Period.

13.  They are not aware of providing any or an adequate program or system through which breach of the right to privacy could be recognized, reported, investigated, or addressed.

14.  They are not aware of any review of the acts of RCMP Officers in a way that would protect Class Members from breach of the right to privacy.

15.  They are not aware of recognition and acknowledgement harm once it occurred, to prevent additional harm from occurring and to, whenever and to the extent possible, provide appropriate treatment to those who were harmed.

The plaintiffs allege that because of the RCMP allowing this culture to manifest and permeate the organization from the top down, they, as well as the other Class members, suffered serious physical and emotional injuries, including post-traumatic stress disorder, diminished self-worth, substance abuse, depression, and anxiety, as well as significant career limitations, including loss of promotional opportunities and early retirements.

The Plaintiffs seek:

(a) a declaration that Canada was, and continues to systemically breach individual members of the RCMP’s right to privacy;

(b)  a declaration that Canada and its agents systemically violated, and continue to violate, section 8 of the Charter in a way that is not demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society pursuant to section 1 of the Charter;

(c)  a declaration that Canada is liable to the Plaintiffs and Class Members for damages caused by breach of the individual members of the RCMP’s right to privacy;

(d)  a declaration that Canada is liable to the Plaintiffs and Class Members for damages under section 24(1) of the Charter for breach of sections 8 of the Charter in relation to the actions of RCMP Officers who breached the Class Members’ right to privacy;

(e)  damages for breach of privacy and breach of the Charter in the amount of $500 million;

(f) punitive and exemplary damages in the amount of $100 million;

(g) prejudgment and post-judgment interest pursuant to the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7;

(h) costs of this action on a substantial indemnity scale or in an amount that provides full indemnity.

(i) the costs of notice and of administering the plan of distribution of the recovery in this action, plus applicable taxes, pursuant to rule 334.38 of the Federal Courts Rules;