CITATION: Merrifield v. The Attorney General, 2017 ONSC 1333  
COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-00333733-00OT  
DATE: 20170228  
ONTARIO  
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE  
)
)
)
BETWEEN:  
PETER MERRIFIELD  
Ms. L. Young and Mr. J. Phillips, Counsel  
for the Plaintiff  
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff  
and –  
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF  
CANADA, INSPECTOR JAMES JAGOE,  
SUPERINTENDENT MARC PROULX  
) Mr. S. Gaudet, Mr. J. Gorham, Mr. A. Law,  
) Counsel for the Defendant  
)
)
Defendant  
)
)
) HEARD: November 17 to 21, 24-28,  
) December 1 to 4, 2014, May 19, 20, 21, 22,  
) 25, 26, 27, 29, June 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, November  
) 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 30, December 1, 2, 3, 4,  
) 2015, March 30, 31, April 1, 2016  
Page: 2  
Table of Contents  
Introduction............................................................................................................................7  
Issues…………………………………………………………………………......................7  
Leave Without Pay………………………………….............................................................9  
INSET/TAG 2004..................................................................................................................16  
Operation Bridgeout…………………………………………………………………...........20  
Barrie Nomination Meeting - May 14, 2005 .........................................................................21  
Stronach Investigation - May 19, 2005..................................................................................30  
London Meeting - May 27, 2005………………………………………………………...34  
Criminal Intelligence - June 2005..........................................................................................41  
The Bob Pritchard Radio Show - July 9, 2005 ......................................................................41  
The Secret File 2005-1117.....................................................................................................49  
The Special Operations Center - October 23, 2005...............................................................57  
The Promotion Process ..........................................................................................................64  
Loss of Income Due to Delayed Promotional Opportunities.................................................65  
Transfer to Customs and Excise - January 2006....................................................................67  
Mr. Merrifield’s American Express Card ..............................................................................68  
Code of Conduct Part IV Investigation Preceding Events..................................................76  
The Investigation ...................................................................................................................79  
The Administrative Review - Ottawa Citizen Article January 17, 2006 ...............................86  
Page: 3  
Mr. Merrifield’s Work at Customs & Excise.........................................................................89  
Meeting with CO Seguin - The October 3, 2006...................................................................92  
Mr. Merrifield’s Email to C.O. Seguin – January 19, 2007...................................................98  
Mr. Merrifield’s Email to D/Commr. Bourduas – May 11, 2007..........................................103  
The RCMP’s Internal Grievance Procedure ..........................................................................105  
Waterloo Police Speaking Event ...........................................................................................107  
Witness ‘X............................................................................................................................107  
Mr. Merrifield’s Email to Senior Management .....................................................................109  
Follow Up Regarding Mr. Merrifield’s Email.......................................................................114  
Serious and Organized Crime................................................................................................115  
Senate Standing Committee - May 27, 2013 .........................................................................118  
RCMP Media Release - May 28, 2013 ..................................................................................120  
Harassment Complaint - July 7, 2015....................................................................................121  
Should the Statement of Defence be Struck for Late Disclosure ...........................................125  
The Test ............................................................................................................................125  
The Plaintiff’s Position……………………………...…………………………………. .128  
The Defendants’ Position..................................................................................................133  
Analysis.............................................................................................................................134  
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................136  
Mr. Merrifield’s Credibility and the Reliability of his Evidence...........................................136  
Failure to Call a Witness.......................................................................................................138  
Page: 4  
Failure to Call Medical Evidence……………………………………………………… .....138  
Unreasonable Perceptions of Harassment.............................................................................139  
In Ontario, is harassment recognized as a tort upon which a civil cause of action may be  
based……………………………………………………………………………………….. 139  
The Plaintiff’s Position………………………………………………………………… .139  
The Defendant’s Position………………………………………………………………..140  
Analysis…………………………………………………………………………….........141  
Test for Harassment……………………………………………………………………….. 142  
What constitutes outrageous behaviour in the context of harassment ..............................143  
What constitutes causing emotional stress or having a reckless disregard for causing a  
plaintiff to suffer from emotional stress............................................................................144  
What constitutes severe or extreme emotional distress ....................................................145  
Do the defendants’ actions toward the plaintiff constitute harassment.................................146  
Leave Without Pay............................................................................................................146  
The Barrie Nomination Meeting.......................................................................................147  
Special Operations Center.................................................................................................150  
The Part IV Investigation..................................................................................................152  
The Ottawa Citizen Article ...............................................................................................155  
Mr. Merrifield’s Communication with C.O. Seguin and D/Commr. Bourduas ...............155  
Serious and Organized Crime...........................................................................................156  
Senate Committee.............................................................................................................157  
Page: 5  
Ktabi Harassment Complaint............................................................................................158  
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................159  
Do the actions of the RCMP constitute a breach of Mr. Merrifield’s Charter rights ...........159  
The Plaintiff’s Position .....................................................................................................159  
The Defendants’ Position..................................................................................................159  
Analysis.............................................................................................................................160  
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................160  
Has the RCMP breached its contract of employment with Mr. Merrifield............................160  
The Plaintiff’s Position .....................................................................................................160  
The Defendants’ Position..................................................................................................160  
The Plaintiff’s Position .....................................................................................................161  
Analysis and Conclusion...................................................................................................161  
Do the actions of the RCMP regarding Mr. Merrifield constitute abuse of/misfeasance in  
public office...........................................................................................................................161  
The Plaintiff’s Position .....................................................................................................163  
Analysis.............................................................................................................................163  
Do the actions of the RCMP regarding Mr. Merrifield constitute intentional infliction of  
mental suffering .....................................................................................................................165  
Was the defendants’ conduct flagrant...............................................................................165  
Was that conduct calculated to cause harm ......................................................................165  
Is medical evidence required ............................................................................................166  
Page: 6  
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................166  
Does the RCMP have a fiduciary duty to Mr. Merrifield? If so, do its actions constitute  
a breach of fiduciary duty......................................................................................................167  
The Plaintiff’s Position .....................................................................................................167  
The Defendants’ Position..................................................................................................169  
The Plaintiff’s Position .....................................................................................................169  
Analysis and Conclusion...................................................................................................169  
Has Mr. Merrifield suffered a loss of income related to the actions taken by the RCMP.....170  
The Defendants’ Position..................................................................................................170  
Analysis.............................................................................................................................170  
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................171  
What amount should be awarded to Mr. Merrifield for general damages ............................171  
Analysis..................................................................................................................................171  
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................173  
Is Mr. Merrifield entitled to punitive and or aggravated damages .......................................173  
Analysis.............................................................................................................................173  
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................174  
Summary................................................................................................................................174  
Costs.......................................................................................................................................174  
Page: 7  
REASONS FOR DECISION  
VALLEE J.  
Introduction  
[1]  
Peter Merrifieldi joined the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in 1998 and continues to  
serve as a member. He alleges that after he participated in a Barrie nomination meeting  
for the Progressive Conservative Party in 2005, his superiors made certain unjustified and  
unwarranted decisions about him based on allegations that had no merit. He was  
investigated and punitively transferred. His reputation was tarnished. He was not  
permitted to work during a national security emergency because his superior officers  
believed he was “not the appropriate resource.” Mr. Merrifield states that he was accused  
of committing criminal offences and subjected to an internal investigation which was  
groundless. He states that his superiors harassed and bullied him. They damaged his  
reputation, impaired his career advancement, and caused him to suffer severe emotional  
distress including depression. As a result, he was off work for significant periods of time.  
Mr. Merrifield states that his superiors intentionally caused him emotional distress or had  
a reckless disregard for causing him to suffer emotional distress. Mr. Merrifield claims  
damages for harassment, intentional infliction of mental suffering, loss of income and  
general damages, among other things.  
[2]  
The Attorney General, on behalf of the RCMP, states that Mr. Merrifield violated the  
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations 1988, SOR/88-361; however, he was never  
formally disciplined for any of the matters raised in this action. None of the decisions  
made by his superiors nor their actions taken constitute harassment or intentional  
infliction of mental suffering. Mr. Merrifield is a well-respected member of the RCMP.  
He is regarded as a very skilled officer and an asset to the organization. His superiors  
were entitled to make their decisions. He was not treated inappropriately. Mr.  
Merrifield’s career has not been impacted. He has been promoted twice and is now a  
Sergeant. His compensation has increased. He is a valued and respected member of the  
Force.  
Issues  
1.  
2.  
Should the statement of defence be struck for late disclosure?  
In Ontario, is harassment recognized as a tort upon which a civil cause of action  
may be based?  
3.  
4.  
If it is, do the actions taken by the RCMP regarding Mr. Merrifield constitute  
harassment?  
Do the actions of the RCMP constitute a breach of Mr. Merrifield’s rights under  
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?  
Page: 8  
5.  
6.  
Has the RCMP breached a contract of employment with Mr. Merrifield?  
Do the actions of the RCMP regarding Mr. Merrifield constitute abuse of public  
office?  
7.  
8.  
9.  
Do the actions of the RCMP regarding Mr. Merrifield constitute intentional  
infliction of mental suffering?  
Does the RCMP have a fiduciary duty to Mr. Merrifield? If so, do its actions  
constitute a breach of fiduciary duty?  
Has Mr. Merrifield suffered a loss of income related to the actions taken by the  
RCMP? If so, what amount should be awarded to Mr. Merrifield for his loss of  
income?  
10.  
11.  
If Mr. Merrifield is entitled to general damages, what amount should be awarded  
to him?  
Is Mr. Merrifield is entitled to punitive and or aggravated damages? If so, what  
amount should be awarded?  
[3]  
[4]  
To properly consider these issues, a review of Mr. Merrifield’s career with the RCMP  
and the various decisions made by his superiors is required.ii  
Mr. Merrifield’s first posting was the Wynyard Detachment in central Saskatchewan. In  
January 2002, he was transferred to Ontario. He successfully applied to the Air Marshall  
program in April, 2002. The program was set up in response to the terrorist attacks in the  
United States on September 11, 2001. As an Air Marshall, Mr. Merrifield’s duties were to  
operate covertly as a passenger on aircraft in order to provide security and respond to any  
potential terrorist situations. In the same year, Mr. Merrifield joined the Mounted Police  
Association (MPA). It provides representation to members experiencing issues with  
management.  
[5]  
In November 2003, Mr. Merrifield had a performance evaluation. It covered the time  
from his arrival in the Air Marshall unit up to November 2003. The evaluation was very  
positive. It stated:  
Constable Merrifield has designed and prepared lectures on  
CACPP [Canadian Air Carrier Protection Program] and presented  
to outside agencies, and has been involved in designing and  
presenting APO [Aircraft Protective Officers] training program of  
tactical skills to seconded members, he planned and prepared in-  
service training terrorism lectures for APO Unit.  
Cst Merrifield is a highly motivated, confident member who is an  
asset to this program. Cst. Merrifield is a team player and is a  
Page: 9  
value added member to the program. His enthusiasm, dedication,  
commitment to duty has [sic] a positive influence on others and  
this along with his positive attitude, out going [sic] personality will  
serve him well in his future endeavours. A pleasure to have this  
member in the program.  
[6]  
Mr. Merrifield enjoyed public speaking. His superior, Insp. Josey supported his speaking  
engagements and interest in national security work.  
Leave Without Pay  
[7]  
Mr. Merrifield had been interested in politics since the 1980s. At that time, he was the  
co-founder of a Liberal youth riding association. He became involved in politics again in  
2004. No member of the RCMP had ever run for political office; however, the RCMP  
had applicable rules and policies if a member wanted to do so.  
[8]  
[9]  
Early in 2004, Mr. Merrifield explored running in a nomination meetingiii to be held in  
the York-Simcoe riding. He downloaded the paperwork two weeks before the  
application deadline.  
Mr. Merrifield requested guidance and direction regarding the RCMP’s policies and  
process from the Policy Center. On February 3, 2004, he exchanged emails with Sgt.  
Wendy Verecchia, (Advisor, Harassment, Human Rights, Conflicts of Issue, Central  
Region). She advised him that she thought he would need to be placed on leave without  
pay (“LWOP”) and that she would contact Policy Center to confirm.  
[10] Section 58.4(1) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Regulations SOR/88 361  
states that:  
A member who is a peace officer may, only while on leave without  
pay granted for that purpose, (a) run for nomination or stand as a  
candidate in a federal…election”  
[11] The March 19, 1999 Administrative Manual states in section F.4 that:  
LWOP ensures separation between the member and the RCMP:  
consequently, annual leave, RTO [regular time off] and LTO [lieu  
time off] cannot be used for political activities when LWOP is  
warranted.  
[12] Mr. Merrifield sent a memo to Insp. Josey, requesting LWOP to participate in political  
activities on February 11, 2004 and March 31, 2004. March 31, 2004 was the date for  
another nomination meeting to be held in Richmond Hill. Mr. Merrifield stated that this  
memo was actually back-dated. It was prepared after the first nomination meeting  
because Sgt. Verecchia’s memo dated February 11, 2004 was attached to it.  
Page: 10  
[13] Cpl. DuPuy, who was an operations support officer, filled out the forms for Mr.  
Merrifield to apply for LWOP. A transfer authorization, form A-22A, was required to  
change his status to LWOP.  
[14] Mr. Merrifield requested one day of LWOP. The completed forms indicated only  
LWOP, not any particular type. Mr. Merrifield was directed to put “personal needs”  
LWOP on the form. He did not know at the time when he completed the forms that he  
could take only two personal needs LWOPs in his career. Due to time constraints, the  
LWOP for Mr. Merrifield to participate as a candidate in the York-Simcoe nomination  
meeting was actually requested and granted after the nomination was held.  
[15] Sgt. Verecchia received a formal response from the Policy Center. She sent an email to  
Mr. Merrifield dated February 11, 2004 which stated, “while running for nomination, a  
member must be on LWOP but once the nomination process is completed and the  
electoral campaigning has not begun, the member may return to his usual employment.  
When the member stands as a candidate in an election, LWOP would have to be taken  
again.” Mr. Merrifield interpreted “while running for nomination” to mean the date of the  
nomination meeting.  
[16] After February 11, 2004, Mr. Merrifield prepared paperwork to run in a number of other  
ridings, which included York-Simcoe, Richmond Hill and Mississauga-Brampton-South.  
He stated that all of his paperwork was submitted between February 11, 2004 and March  
31, 2004. After that, the PC Regional Co-ordinator approached him and advised against  
using this shot gun approach to secure a nomination.  
[17] Mr. Merrifield participated as a candidate in the nomination meeting for York-Simcoe on  
February 11, 2004. He did not make any efforts in advance to be nominated. He simply  
attended the meeting. Accordingly, he was not successful in obtaining the nomination.  
Mr. Merrifield participated in this nomination meeting without proper approval (which  
came after the fact) because he decided to run on short notice; however, he stated that he  
did so but with full knowledge of the RCMP. He stated that he obtained informal  
approval from Insp. Josey to attend.  
[18] At the end of the meeting, he was approached to run as a candidate at the Richmond  
Hill’s riding’s nomination meeting.  
[19] Mr. Merrifield then attempted to withdraw his papers relating to the other nomination  
meetings; however, it was too late to withdraw from the Mississauga-Brampton-South  
nomination meeting. He did not request LWOP to attend this meeting. He stated that he  
spoke with Cpl. DuPuy who advised that he should submit the paperwork for two  
nomination meetings, being York-Simcoe and Richmond Hill, even though he had  
attended more than two, and that would be enough.  
[20] On March 13, 2004, Mr. Merrifield attended the nomination meeting for Mississauga-  
Brampton-South. He stated that he attended as a courtesy. The ballots had been printed  
and he did not want to be a “no show”.  
Page: 11  
[21] Mr. Merrifield requested LWOP for the Richmond Hill nomination meeting and the  
related election period at the same time that he requested LWOP for the York-Simcoe  
nomination meeting. No election date had been set yet. Mr. Merrifield’s application for  
these LWOPs was granted.  
[22] On March 31, 2004, Mr. Merrifield participated as a candidate in the nomination meeting  
for Richmond Hill and was successful. He sent a memo to Insp. Josey dated May 5, 2004  
requesting LWOP to run in the upcoming election. He included a partially completed  
form A-22A because the election date had not yet been set.  
[23] On the same day, Insp. Josey sent a memo to the Assistant Commissioner for O”  
Division, Bradley Holman, stating that the request for LWOP was not processed in timely  
fashion because of time constraints. He stated, “I am submitting it to you for review and  
favourable consideration.”  
[24] On May 13, 2004, Sgt. Steven Boos, Advisor to the Career Development and Resourcing  
Unit (CDR), called Mr. Merrifield to discuss the rules for fundraising. He advised that  
LWOP would be required for active campaigning and attending meetings as a candidate.  
Two days later, Mr. Merrifield received LWOP approval for the election.  
[25] Sgt. Boos sent an email to Insp. Josey on May 18, 2004 discussing the two LWOP dates,  
February 11, 2004 (for the York-Simcoe nomination meeting) and March 31, 2004 (for  
the Richmond Hill nomination meeting). The email states that transfer authorizations  
were issued for these dates and it requests transfer authorizations be prepared showing  
Mr. Merrifield going on “personal needsLWOP for these dates. The two transfer  
authorizations showing just “leave without pay” were attached.  
[26] Mr. Merrifield stated that from May to June 2004, he campaigned for the election. He  
had a campaign manager, a support team and campaign materials. They set out his rank  
and work experience which was permitted according to s. 57(2) of the RCMP  
Regulations, as set out in X.2 of the Administrative Manual. It states that a member who  
is running for nomination or standing as a candidate in a federal election, may for  
identification purposes, disclose his or her rank, level and work experience in the force.  
He ran in the federal election which was held on June 28, 2004 but he was not elected.  
None of his superiors had any concerns regarding his campaign materials.  
[27] After the election, Mr. Merrifield returned to work as an Air Marshall. He was very  
interested in terrorism. As a result, he developed other areas of work in addition to just  
doing his job as an Air Marshall. He gathered open source intelligence on terrorism and  
did some restricted outside speaking engagements which he enjoyed.  
[28] Subsequently, there was a lot of confusion regarding Mr. Merrifield’s LWOPs. On June  
30 2004, Sgt. Sergeant, RCMP Policy Analyst Human Resources, sent an email directing  
Cathy Jenion, District Manager for London, Central Region Compensation Services, to  
re-identify the three personal needsLWOP to special leave without pay.” Sgt.  
Page: 12  
Verecchia had stated that Mr. Merrifield’s leaves were to be shown as regular LWOP but  
no such type of leave was identified in the HRMIS program for members.iv  
[29] Mr. Merrifield stated that he did not know why the three personal needs LWOPs were  
shown or why they were re-coded to special LWOP. These decisions were made at the  
policy level. He never received a copy of this email during the course of his  
employment. In July 2004, he understood from a conversation with Sgt. Boos that he  
was entitled to only two personal needs LWOPs in his career. He thought he had used  
both of them.  
[30] Mr. Merrifield stated that sometime between July and the end of September, Sgt. Boos  
called him and said that he had good news. Only one LWOP was being used for the  
election so he could run again because he still had one LWOP remaining. Mr. Merrifield  
stated that, at this point, he understood that LWOPs had not been used and were not  
required for nomination meetings.  
[31] Cpl. DuPuy recalled that between January and June 2004, Mr. Merrifield approached him  
and Insp. Josey about needing LWOP because he had political ambitions. He recalled  
that they contacted Sgt. Verecchia and Sgt. Boos and sought their guidance as to what to  
do and how the process worked. Cpl. DuPuy stated that all of this was new to him. Insp.  
Josey directed him to look into it, see what was required and make sure it was done. He  
stated that he knew Mr. Merrifield was attempting to get a nomination for the PC party.  
[32] Cpl. DuPuy knew that Mr. Merrifield needed LWOP to run for a nomination. He  
contacted Sgt. Verecchia prior to preparing the documents. He knew that Mr. Merrifield  
had run at another nomination meeting but could not recall which riding.  
[33] Cpl. DuPuy was familiar with transfer reports. If a person’s duties changed, these had to  
be filled out. He had never prepared a LWOP application for political reasons. He  
completed one for Mr. Merrifield which stated LWOP Personal Needs. He signed  
the document dated January 11, 2004 because at that time he was acting for Insp. Josey.  
[34] Later, Cpl. DuPuy learned that an Inspector could not sign the form. LWOP had to be  
requested from the Commanding Officer (C.O.). This meant that the forms had to be  
redone, backdated and resubmitted.  
[35] Cpl. DuPuy stated that Mr. Merrifield was quite helpful. He was did not conceal his  
political activities and in fact was very open about them. He wanted to do everything  
properly. He still wanted to be employed by the RCMP if he was not elected. It was in  
his interest to make sure everything was done right.  
[36] Sgt. Verecchia was responsible for coordinating harassment complaints and providing  
human resource advice to the members in 2004. On February 3, 2004, she received an  
email from Mr. Merrifield requesting conflict of interest advice. He wanted to run for  
political office and was seeking clarification on exactly what the regulations and policies  
stated.  
Page: 13  
[37] Sgt. Verecchia stated that ss. 56 to 58(7) of the RCMP Regulations cover political  
activities, when members need LWOP and how they are to act. She looked up the  
regulations and responded to Mr. Merrifield with her interpretation. She sent him an  
email stating that because he was presenting himself for nomination to eventually run in a  
federal election, the policy stated that he must be on LWOP to run for the nomination. A  
member could not be on annual leave or regular time off for this purpose. The LWOP  
would be continuous and without pay. In the case of the nomination process, it would  
begin on the day he entered the process and end on the day he withdrew or the process  
was concluded. Sgt. Verecchia sent a request to the Policy Branch, for their  
interpretation. The Policy Branch’s interpretation was the same as hers. A member  
cannot voice his or her political opinion or solicit support while working for the RCMP.  
There has to be a separation.  
[38] Part of Sgt. Boos’ responsibilities was the administration of LWOP policies. As part of  
the protocol, he would interview a member requesting LWOP to ensure that the member  
was fully aware of the conditions. He stated that LWOP is a separation of the member’s  
employment from RCMP. Even though the member is separated, the member still has  
obligations with respect to conduct. A member had to be fully advised of conditions  
regarding other employment.  
[39] Sgt. Boos’ general understanding of LWOP with respect to political activities was that  
LWOP was required for nomination, soliciting funds, the actual period of campaigning  
and running in the election. Sgt. Boos explained that in 2004, there were six kinds of  
LWOP. Two were potentially applicable to Mr. Merrifield. Personal needs LWOP could  
be granted for two periods during a member’s career for a specific cumulative length.  
Special LWOP required exceptional circumstances and it had to be in the best interests of  
the RCMP. There were no conditions regarding the number of times that special LWOP  
could be taken. The C.O. of a division was the person who had authority to approve  
LWOP.  
[40] Sgt. Boos explained that his responsibility was to identify the type of leave that Mr.  
Merrifield required and then to make a recommendation to the C.O. for approval. If a  
member wanted LWOP, he would submit a request through his Line Officer (immediate  
superior) setting out the need for it. It would come to Sgt. Boos’ department. A staffing  
interview would be conducted to advise the member of the LWOP conditions followed  
by a recommendation to the Officer in Charge (OIC) of CDR, who was his superior. The  
OIC would then forward the recommendations to the C.O. for approval or denial of  
LWOP. If it was approved, the recommendation would come back. The OIC of CDR  
could authorize a transfer notice. Once it was issued, it would be distributed to various  
sections involved. One would be the Compensation Branch so that they could stop  
payment of the member’s salary and physically separate the member from the  
organization. The transfer notice would also be sent to the member’s Line Officer.  
[41] Sgt. Boos stated that he had a telephone discussion with Insp. Josey. They discussed that  
there had been a previous occasion when Mr. Merrifield had stood for nomination as a  
federal election candidate. Sgt. Verecchia had provided direction with respect to LWOP  
Page: 14  
on the same day as the nomination meeting. There was not enough time to go through  
the full LWOP application process.  
[42] Sgt. Boos noted that Sgt. Verecchia said that “regular” LWOP was required. In fact there  
is no such thing as regular LWOP.  
[43] Sgt. Boos looked through the six types of LWOP. He stated that only two potentially  
applied to Mr. Merrifield, being personal needs LWOP and special LWOP. He explained  
that special LWOP is for exceptional circumstances. He did not consider Mr.  
Merrifield’s running as a candidate to be an exceptional circumstance. He thought  
exceptional circumstances would be a death in the family or something beyond the  
member’s control. Special LWOP had to be in the best interests of the RCMP. Sgt. Boos  
acknowledged that he did not have training regarding interpretation of policy. He had no  
previous experience with personal needs or special LWOP. This was the one and only  
political leave that he ever had to deal with.  
[44] Sgt. Boos stated that he had a formal interview with Mr. Merrifield to explain LWOP to  
him. Prior to this time, Mr. Merrifield did not know that personal needs LWOP was  
limited to two terms. Mr. Merrifield provided information as to what constituted  
campaigning and what did not. He described what he thought he could do without  
LWOP. Sgt. Boos described when LWOP was required. He described the nature of  
personal needs LWOP. A member could take it two times in his career up to a period of  
15 months cumulative. Mr. Merrifield said he would need 35 to 40 days of leave for the  
election. They discussed some possible start dates. The election call was expected in the  
very near future. Since LWOP was subject to approval by the C.O., Sgt. Boos told Mr.  
Merrifield that he would make the recommendation to go forward with LWOP. Sgt.  
Boos stated that he went through the policy line by line with Mr. Merrifield. He said the  
election could be called on Sunday May 23, 2004. Monday May 24th was a holiday. The  
party wanted him to start campaigning on May 25th. Mr. Merrifield agreed to call and let  
Sgt. Boos know as soon as he learned that the election had been called. Mr. Merrifield  
would also call his OIC. A system would be put in place where theoretical approval  
would be obtained and then Mr. Merrifield could be on LWOP before the documents  
were actually signed.  
[45] Sgt. Boos made a note of this discussion and spoke to Insp. Josey the next day. They  
discussed the first two occasions when Mr. Merrifield sought nomination without LWOP.  
Insp. Josey was going to deal directly with the C.O. They decided that the two days when  
Mr. Merrifield should have had LWOP would be considered one day.  
[46] On May 18, 2004 when he had the approval from the C.O., Sgt. Boos sent an email to  
Insp. Josey with a copy to Mr. Merrifield. He provided his work cell and personal home  
number. He was working diligently to make LWOP in two periods work. Sgt. Boos’  
strategy was to consider the earlier two days to be one first request for LWOP, even  
though they were not continuous, and the election period to be the second request for  
LWOP. He prepared the transfer authorizations and submitted them.  
Page: 15  
[47] One of the transfer documents shows Mr. Merrifield’s transfer from the Air Marshalls to  
LWOP. At the bottom of the form it says, “personal needs without pay – no relocation  
expenses.” The implementation date was to be May 22, 2004. Sgt. Boos learned that the  
first two requests, being the request to consider two non-consecutive days as one request  
for LWOP, had been approved by C.O. Holman on May 17, 2004. Sgt Boos advised Mr.  
Merrifield that the LWOP for the electoral period had also been approved by the C.O.  
[48] Sgt. Boos explained that when Mr. Merrifield did not have LWOP, steps were taken to  
retroactively approve LWOP for the two dates, February 11 and March 30, 2004, and to  
stop Mr. Merrifield’s pay for them. The LWOP was put into effect.  
[49] After the two personal needs LWOPs were granted, Sgt. Boos reflected on the situation  
and began to wonder whether personal needs LWOP was the right type of LWOP to use.  
He did not share this concern with Mr. Merrifield. Upon making an inquiry on June 23,  
2004, he learned that the compensation department was having some difficulty with the  
fact that there were three time periods that had to be coded to personal needs but the  
system only allowed for two. This issue was addressed by re-coding the two personal  
needs LWOPs to three special LWOPs. Since a special LWOP had no restrictions with  
respect to the cumulative length or number of approved requests, it appeared to be a  
better fit when LWOP was required for three dates. Sgt. Boos learned about this re-  
coding in an email but he did not forward it to Mr. Merrifield.  
[50] Sgt. Boos recalled that he had a conversation with Mr. Merrifield following the election,  
after Mr. Merrifield returned to work. He could not recall where the conversation  
occurred and whether it was in person or over the phone. He advised Mr. Merrifield that  
the LWOPS were re-coded to special LWOPs so the two personal needs LWOPs  
remained for future use. He stated that this was the only conversation that he had with  
Mr. Merrifield about the re-coding. He could not find any notes or documents with  
respect to this conversation.  
[51] Mr. Seguin was the C.O. of “O” Division. He retired from the RCMP on March 31,  
2008. He testified that he became the C.O. of ODivision beginning on October 12,  
2004. He was aware of the regulations governing participation in political activities. He  
understood that members could participate but they had to apply for a leave during  
campaigns. Requirements with respect to running for nomination in a party were also  
included in the regulations. Mr. Seguin was familiar with the Administrative Manual  
and appendix 12.12 regarding the leave requirements. The C.O. had to approve requests  
for LWOP.  
[52] The Administrative Manual states that LWOP can be approved for education, spousal  
relocation, care of pre-school children and personal needs. With respect to special  
LWOP, in contrast to personal needs LWOP, it was granted for exceptional  
circumstances. Furthermore, the Division had to be in a position to allow someone to go  
on leave without impact on its operations. Mr. Seguin did not receive an application  
from Mr. Merrifield for LWOP to run for a political party, either for special LWOP or  
Page: 16  
personal needs LWOP. In his term as C.O., he never received a request by a member for  
LWOP for political activities.  
[53] Mr. Seguin became aware at some point that Mr. Merrifield had run in the 2004 election  
for the Conservative Party. He understood that Mr. Merrifield had applied for LWOP and  
had received it for the election.  
[54] Mr. Merrifield had another performance evaluation for the period February 2004 to  
October 2004. This covered the time when he was participating in political activities.  
Some excerpts are as follows:  
As a member of this unit who is particularly passionate about  
counter-terrorism, Cst. Merrifield took the initiative to provide  
instructional lectures to the Peel Regional Police Airport Division  
via their training section. These lectures included topics such as  
The History of Aviation and Airport Terrorism and an authorized  
explanation of the Canadian Air Carrier Protection Program…  
Cst. Merrifield recognizes the importance of keeping abreast of  
terrorist trends, profiles and recent intelligence. He is very  
passionate about this issue and in addition to reviewing all of the  
intelligence information that is forwarded to our office from  
various agencies, he researches and seeks out materials related to  
terrorism. He also readily shares this information with other  
members of the unit and applies it to his work on a daily basis…  
Cst. Merrifield is a highly motivated, dedicated, productive  
member of this unit. Cst Merrifield has the respect of his peers and  
supervisors and his positive attitude influences others to perform at  
higher levels.  
Cst. Merrifield’s input is value added,  
demonstrating many of the qualities necessary for a supervisor  
role. Cst. Merrifield is an asset and credit to the force and will do  
well in his future endeavours. A pleasure to have on the unit.  
INSET/TAG 2004  
[55] In addition to the Air Marshalls unit, the Integrated National Security Enforcement Team  
(INSET) was also established after the terrorist attack that occurred in the United States  
on September 11, 2001. It was responsible for all criminal investigations in Ontario  
relating to people who posed a threat to Canada. There were two sides to INSET:  
investigations and intelligence information gathering. It carried out long-term  
investigations and had a quick response team for day-to-day investigations. It also had an  
intelligence component comprised of analysts.  
[56] During his time as an Air Marshall, Mr. Merrifield expressed an interest in working at  
INSET.  
Page: 17  
[57] Mr. Merrifield was transferred to INSET on October 17, 2004. He then reported to S/Sgt.  
King and Insp. Jagoe. On October 19, 2004, after being at INSET for two days, he  
participated in a radio talk show hosted by Michael Coren. The topic was “What is  
terrorism?” Apparently, someone made a complaint to INSET about Mr. Merrifield’s  
participation on the show.  
[58] Two days later, S/Sgt. King learned that Mr. Merrifield had been on the show. S/Sgt.  
King asked him about comments that he provided on the radio show. Subsequently,  
S/Sgt. King asked him to review a security information sheet and sign it, which he did.  
S/Sgt. King asked Mr. Merrifield not to make any more appearances while he was  
working at INSET. Mr. Merrifield stated that he respected this direction and agreed to it.  
[59] Mr. Merrifield stated that early in 2005, he was doing open source work with the Jewish  
community. Speaking at events was considered community outreach. He did this  
approximately six times in the course of his duties. He never requested permission to  
attend these speaking engagements. The Indo-Canadian Community in Mississauga  
recognized him at an awards dinner and named him Police Officer of the Year.  
[60] Mr. Merrifield explained that within INSET was a small unit known as the Threat  
Assessment Group (TAG). The members of TAG carried out threat assessments on  
international people who came to visit Canada including heads of state and special  
dignitaries. Mr. Merrifield explained that in addition to investigators, TAG also had  
analysts. They did tactical analysis on active investigations. The analysts looked at  
trends, predictors and human intelligence.  
[61] Mr. Merrifield expressed an interest in working in TAG. On January 20, 2005, Sgt. Rick  
Cousins carried out a “file review” at Headquarters to consider whether Mr. Merrifield  
would be suitable for TAG. Mr. Merrifield did not meet with Sgt. Cousins. In the  
written review, Sgt. Cousins’ point form notes state: “able to handle any type of  
investigation; very intelligent person, learns and comprehends quicker than most;  
Commanding Officers Certificate of Appreciation for apprehending dangerous offender  
in trying circumstances; ability to express himself verbally/written are [sic] exceptional;  
well rounded police officer with unlimited potential.He concluded, “It is recommended  
Cst Merrifield be planned to INSET TAG”  
[62] On February 2, 2005, Mr. Merrifield was invited to and attended an event at B’nai Brith,  
a Jewish organization, where he gave a short speech as a member of the RCMP. Julian  
Fantino, (then Chief of Police for Toronto Police Service), among others, gave a speech  
as well.  
[63] On February 10, 2005, Mr. Merrifield was permanently posted to TAG. His work  
consisted of monitoring criminal extremist and terrorist groups. He gathered open source  
information, carried out community outreach and worked to recruit confidential  
informants.  
He investigated threats to national security and Very Important Persons  
(VIPs) such as the Prime Minister. He also looked after threat assessments of official  
visitors like the Royal Family and Members of Parliament. At times, he travelled with the  
Page: 18  
Prime Minister’s protective detail when the Prime Minister made visits to various places.  
For example, he travelled with the Prime Minister to four or five media outlets in the  
Greater Toronto Area (GTA) where the Prime Minister was addressing issues arising  
from the sponsorship scandal.  
[64] Mr. Merrifield was required to have top secret security clearance to perform this job.  
He was also a top level marksman. His work at TAG was an achievement of a career  
goal. It was his dream job.  
[65] In February or early March, 2005, a threat was made against then Liberal Prime Minister  
Paul Martin and U.S. President George W. Bush. Mr. Merrifield was the lead  
investigator for the team that investigated this threat. They successfully located the  
person who made the threat. As a result of Mr. Merrifield’s work, that person was  
arrested, tried and convicted of a criminal offence.  
[66] Up until May 2005, Mr. Merrifield got along well with everyone at TAG. He was asked  
to train others. He loved the work. An incident occurred when a person penetrated the  
U.S. Oval Office’s electronic inbox and bombarded it with emails. Mr. Merrifield carried  
out an extensive internet tracing operation through numerous countries. He and TAG  
located the person who was subsequently convicted.  
[67] No concerns were ever raised about Mr. Merrifield’s earlier political activities,  
involvement with the Conservative Party and any impact they might have on his ability to  
do his job at TAG, which included providing protection for a Liberal Prime Minister.  
[68] In June or July 2004, Supt. Proulx became the “O” Division Intelligence Officer (DIO)  
for the Criminal Intelligence branch. He held that position until June 2006 and was the  
Superintendent responsible for TAG. As DIO, he reported to C/Supt. Mazerolle whose  
superior officer was the C.O. Supt. Proulx retired on May 15, 2009.  
[69] Mr. Proulx explained that TAG was an anomaly. TAG reported in a straight line directly  
to him but Insp. Jagoe, who was in charge of INSET, had authority over TAG’s day-to-  
day operations. TAG took their day-to-day tasks from INSET. Mr. Proulx described his  
role in TAG as primarily administrative.  
[70] Mr. Proulx learned of Mr. Merrifield in January 2005. There was a vacancy in TAG. He  
was approached by someone who stated that there was a member who wanted to come to  
TAG. He received a staffing note about Mr. Merrifield. He came highly praised. The  
transfer was subsequently authorized. Supt. Proulx agreed to the transfer. He stated that  
anyone would want to take on Mr. Merrifield, given the contents of the staffing note.  
[71] Prior to May 2005, Supt. Proulx did not know anything about Mr. Merrifield’s political  
activities. He did not learn about them until May 16, 2005.  
[72] In December 2002, Insp. Jagoe was promoted to run INSET and was its OIC until 2007.  
Insp. Jagoe was promoted to Superintendent in December 2007. Insp. Jagoe reported to  
Page: 19  
C/Supt. Mazerolle. Subsequently, he reported to Insp. Van Doren whose portfolio  
included national security and border integrity.  
[73] All employees at INSET reported to Insp. Jagoe except for the people in TAG who  
reported to Supt. Proulx. Insp. Jagoe received regular briefings from A/Sgt. Crane who  
worked in TAG. Insp. Penny was Insp. Jagoe’s second in command.  
[74] Supt. Jagoe recalled that shortly after Mr. Merrifield arrived at INSET, S/Sgt. King spoke  
to him about his participation in a radio interview. Supt. Jagoe understood that S/Sgt.  
King told Mr. Merrifield that speaking about national security matters was not  
appropriate and he agreed that he would discontinue it. Insp. Jagoe did not hear the  
interview. He briefed Insp. Van Doren about Mr. Merrifield’s participation in the radio  
show.  
[75] A/Sgt. Crane explained that he was acting as Sgt. with respect to TAG. It had existed  
since at least 2000 when he joined it. In January 2005, it had seven members although  
they were not at the office all the time. In addition, there were two TAG members who  
provided personal protection to VIPs when they visited. TAG was the intelligence side to  
the VIP visits. A/Sgt. Crane reported to Supt. Proulx who was his Line Officer. A/Sgt.  
Crane also reported to Insp. Jagoe daily so that he had an operational awareness of  
TAG’s activities.  
[76] TAG members would monitor known subjects of interest with potential to cause any  
danger or embarrassment to any VIPs coming to the area. They would also perform  
Order in Council checks which were requests from the government to carry out  
background checks on certain people with respect to criminal activity. A check could be  
requested with respect to anyone who was going to be appointed to do something. TAG  
also did risk assessments for the criminal intelligence branch and the federal government.  
[77] When Mr. Merrifield joined INSET, TAG was understaffed and had a vacancy. A/Sgt.  
Crane spoke to Mr. Merrifield about joining TAG and suggested that he apply. At the  
time, A/Sgt. Crane knew that Mr. Merrifield had offered himself for political candidacy  
previously but he did not know the details of his political background. He was aware that  
Mr. Merrifield had run in an election in 2004 but he did not recall the party that he  
represented. The fact that Mr. Merrifield had run for office previously did not cause  
A/Sgt. Crane any concerns whatsoever.  
[78] A/Sgt. Crane stated that initially, he did not know much about LWOP. He just knew that  
a member could not participate in politics without it.  
[79] In April 2005, A/Sgt. Crane had a conversation with Mr. Merrifield about his future  
participation in politics because there was another upcoming federal election. A/Sgt.  
Crane asked Mr. Merrifield, out of curiosity, whether he had any ambition to run in the  
next federal election. A/Sgt. Crane thought that if Mr. Merrifield did have ambitions, he  
could have a conflict of interest because the RCMP’s primary duty was to serve the  
elected Liberal party. The RCMP had duties to the other parties but to a lesser degree.  
Page: 20  
A/Sgt. Crane said Mr. Merrifield’s answer was “none whatsoever. It was too expensive.”  
He did not differentiate between running at a nomination meeting and running as a  
candidate in a Federal election.  
[80] In spring 2005, there were a lot of high level VIP visits. Mr. Merrifield had no limits on  
the work that he could do. A/Sgt. Crane stated that he had an excellent working  
relationship with Mr. Merrifield. He was a good member and who showed a lot of  
promise. In fact, on May 3, 2005, he asked Mr. Merrifield to mentor another member  
and help raise his standard of performance.  
[81] Supt. Jagoe stated that he was aware that Mr. Merrifield had investigated death threats  
against Prime Minister Martin and U.S. President George Bush. He read somewhere that  
Mr. Merrifield had done a good job. Nobody was concerned about his investigating these  
threats. Nobody was concerned about Mr. Merrifield’s working in TAG after running in  
an election.  
[82] Mr. Merrifield had another performance evaluation covering the period August 1 2004 to  
August 1, 2005. On the evaluation, A/Sgt. Crane stated that “his educational background  
and expertise in world politics are well suited for the TAG environment.Mr.  
Merrifield’s role as lead investigator with respect to the threat against the Prime Minister  
and the U.S. President, which concluded with charges being laid, was also noted.  
Operation Bridgeout  
[83] Sgt. Park worked at INSET from 2003 to 2007.  
He was in charge of Operation  
Bridgeout, a complex tactical exercise held in May 2005. Mr. Merrifield helped to  
organize it which required several months of intensive planning. He did this in addition  
to his regular duties.  
[84] Sgt. Park had a lot of interaction with Mr. Merrifield during the planning for the exercise.  
They drove back and forth to Sault Ste. Marie, London and Sarnia to attend meetings so  
that they could keep abreast of the project.  
[85] Sgt. Park recalled that Mr. Merrifield had mentioned running for a Conservative seat in  
either Newmarket or Barrie. This came up during a trip to Sault Ste. Marie. Sgt. Park  
could not recall exactly when this occurred. There was not much conversation about it.  
Sgt. Park knew that Mr. Merrifield had run for a seat a year earlier.  
[86] Mr. Merrifield had worked a minimum of twenty hours of voluntary overtime on the  
Operation Bridgeout. He was not paid for these hours nor did he receive any additional  
time off. Sgt. Park stated that Mr. Merrifield was enthusiastic about national security  
work and he put more time and effort into Operation Bridgeout than even Sgt. Park did.  
[87] At the conclusion of the project, Sgt. Park signed a performance log dated May 17, 2005  
with respect to Mr. Merrifield. He described Operation Bridgeout as follows:  
Page: 21  
Operation bridge out was a multi-agency/bi-national exercise that  
took place between Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and Sault Ste.  
Marie, Ontario. It was the largest exercises between Ontario and  
the State of Michigan and possibly the largest in Canadian and US  
history of its kind. Three separate exercises were occurring  
simultaneously, Detroit/Windsor, Sarnia and Sault Ste. Marie,  
Ontario and Michigan. The operation commenced May 9 and  
terminated in the evening of May 11, 2005. The exercise was  
designed to challenge agencies on both sides of the border to react  
to a national, state and local emergency, namely a terrorist  
incident. Canadian, U.S. federal, state and local agencies would be  
participating in Operation Bridgeout, more than 70 agencies in the  
U.S. and Canada in the Sault Ste. Marie region.  
During the scenario Constable Merrifield wore many hats. He  
acted as a referee/marshal along with Sergeant Park. He assisted in  
coordinating and controlling the scenario to ensure the script and  
timelines were on track. He was diligent in his duties and along  
with Sergeant Park worked 16 hour days back-to-back. Although  
Constable Merrifield came down with flu-like symptoms, he  
pushed forward and at the end of the day the scenario proved to be  
a big success. Sergeant Park received comments from several  
personnel involved in the exercise stating that this had been the  
best planned scenario that they had been involved in, in recent  
times and for some it was the best ever. Much of the success is  
attributed to the hard work and dedication of Constable Merrifield.  
During the actual exercise and the months of planning leading to  
the exercise I was very impressed with the above average abilities  
and strong work ethic displayed by Constable Merrifield. He  
presented himself professionally throughout the exercise and was a  
good ambassador for the force. In my opinion, Constable  
Merrifield was the best selection I could have made in planning  
and preparing a scenario of this magnitude. Should something of  
this nature arise in the future he would no doubt be my number one  
selection. Outstanding job!!  
[88] Sgt. Park stated that there was general talk on the floor that Mr. Merrifield was going to  
run for a seat for the Conservative Party; however, he did not pay much attention to it.  
[89] Supt. Jagoe stated that he did not have any concerns about Mr. Merrifield’s entering  
TAG. The first significant conversation he had with Mr. Merrifield was in Sault Ste.  
Marie during Operation Bridgeout. Mr. Merrifield sat next to him when a large group of  
people went out for dinner at the end of the exercise. At that point, he and Mr. Merrifield  
got into a discussion about Mr. Merrifield’s interest in politics. They discussed Mr.  
Merrifield’s previous run for the Conservative Party and that when he did this, he had to  
Page: 22  
take a leave of absence from the Force. There was some conversation about the  
upcoming election. Mr. Merrifield said it was very expensive to be involved in  
campaigns and running for politics. Insp. Jagoe did not ask Mr. Merrifield whether he  
was going to be running in the upcoming election.  
Barrie Nomination Meeting - May 14, 2005  
[90] Mr. Merrifield stated that after he ran unsuccessfully for the Richmond Hill seat, he was  
still interested in politics but mostly from a policy, criminal justice reform and national  
security perspective. He wanted to contribute to the direction of the Party in a non-  
partisan way.  
[91] He had been to events as the candidate of record for Richmond Hill. They were hosted  
by Belinda Stronach and Peter Van Loan. It was public knowledge that he had stood for  
election as a Conservative in 2004. Mr. Merrifield’s personal friendship with Belinda  
Stronach was also well known. He would openly attend a lunch or breakfast with her and  
her staff.  
[92] Mr. Merrifield recalled that before May 12, 2005, at the end of Operation Bridgeout, all  
the participants went out for dinner. He was sitting near Insp. Jagoe, Sgt. Park and A/Sgt.  
Crane. He received a call and left the table to take it. The Richmond Hill riding  
association was offering him a candidacy. He returned to the table and mentioned the  
call. He was asked if he would run again in election and said he would not do that  
“anytime soon.” It was too expensive and he had issues with the process.  
[93] Mr. Merrifield stated that some things were happening in the Barrie riding that he did not  
think were proper. The riding association was not following the rules. He was told that  
the only way he could speak to the riding association was by being a candidate at a  
nomination meeting. He had to renew his party membership. He stated that he did not  
want to pursue candidacy in another election.  
[94] Mr. Merrifield stated that he mentioned to Sgt. Park, during one of their many car trips  
that he would participate in another nomination meeting. The nomination meeting was  
not discussed at the Bridgeout dinner. He did not tell Insp. Jagoe that he would be  
running at a nomination meeting.  
[95] Based on his earlier conversation with Sgt. Boos, when he learned his LWOPs were re-  
coded such that only one had been used for the Richmond Hill nomination meeting and  
the election, Mr. Merrifield concluded that he did not need LWOP to participate in a  
nomination meeting. Furthermore, s. 3.2 of the Administrative Manual, part XII.12,  
entitled Political Activities stated, “If LWOP is not required to participate in political  
activities, a member must conduct any politically related activities on his/her own time.”  
At the end of April 2005, just prior to the deadline, Mr. Merrifield put in his name for the  
Barrie riding nomination meeting which was to be held on Saturday, May 14, 2005.  
Page: 23  
[96] On May 2, 2005, Mr. Merrifield sent a letter to members of Conservative Party National  
Council regarding his concerns, specifically that the nomination process was being  
abused. He asked the Council to take control of the nomination selection.  
[97] While he was away at Operation Bridgeout, Mr. Merrifield’s wife and his former  
Richmond Hill campaign manager sent out three hundred campaign cards. They were  
recycled from the Richmond Hill election.  
[98] On May 6, 2005, Mr. Merrifield was part of Prime Minister Paul Martin’s protective  
detail for his visit to Hamilton and Brantford. Around the same time, he spoke to Cpl.  
Frith, who worked at INSET, about his running at the nomination meeting. Cpl. Frith was  
a member of the Conservative Party and had received a campaign card.  
[99] On Friday May 13, 2005, the day before the Barrie nomination meeting, Mr. Merrifield  
had the flu and took the day off. He stated that several RCMP members were fully aware  
in advance of the date that he intended to run at the Barrie nomination meeting. They  
included C/Supt. Mazerolle, Sgt. Gilchrist, S/Sgt. Smith and Insp. Jagoe. None of them  
expressed any concerns to him about it prior to the event.  
[100] Mr. Merrifield stated that on Saturday May 14 2005, which was a day off for him, he ran  
at the Barrie nomination meeting. He stated that mathematically, he could not have won  
the nomination. It was all about selling memberships. The only point to his attending  
was to try and draw votes away from the leading candidate and throw the election in  
favour of the second candidate.  
[101] When Mr. Merrifield returned to work on Monday, May 16, 2005, A/Sgt. Crane said  
that Insp. Jagoe was upset. A co-worker said he was in trouble. He understood that there  
were three issues: first, he had run in the meeting without LWOP, second, he had  
identified himself as working in national security, and third, the campaign literature  
mentioned defending the traditional concept of marriage and challenging the gun registry.  
[102] A/Sgt. Crane stated that he first learned of Mr. Merrifield’s running at the Barrie  
nomination meeting on Friday May 13, 2005, the day before the meeting, when Cpl. Frith  
came into his office and said, “Did you hear Merrifield is running for nomination?”  
A/Sgt. Crane said that Cpl. Frith told him about the campaign literature. He had joined  
the party so he had received it. A/Sgt. Crane stated that he scoffed at this suggestion  
because he had already spoken to Mr. Merrifield about it. Cpl. Frith had the literature  
with him. A/Sgt. Crane stated that he had a look at it for a couple of minutes and asked if  
he could keep it. Cpl. Frith said no. He wanted it back. A/Sgt. Crane returned it. Cpl.  
Frith also advised him that the nomination meeting was being held the next day, on  
Saturday, May 14, 2005.  
[103] A/Sgt. Crane said that he was shocked by the campaign literature. Mr. Merrifield had said  
that he was not going to run in an election but now he was doing so. He felt that Mr.  
Merrifield had lied to him.  
Page: 24  
[104] A/Sgt. Crane then had a brief conversation with Insp. Jagoe in his office. A/Sgt. Crane  
said, “Are you aware that Cst. Merrifield is running for nomination in the Barrie riding?”  
Insp. Jagoe was not pleased. He told A/Sgt. Crane to contact Supt. Proulx.  
[105] Supt. Proulx was not in the office that day so A/Sgt. Crane spoke to Sgt. Gilchrist on the  
phone. He was acting for Supt. Proulx. Mr. Merrifield was not on duty that day either so  
A/Sgt. Crane did not have an opportunity to speak with him at the office. A/Sgt. Crane  
did not recall whether he attempted to call Mr. Merrifield at home. He stated that he had  
Mr. Merrifield’s phone number and could have called him.  
[106] A/Sgt. Crane discussed the matter at length with Sgt. Gilchrest. They both agreed that  
they should review the provisions of the RCMP Regulations so that they would have the  
information when they had an opportunity to speak to Supt. Proulx.  
[107] A/Sgt. Crane stated that he had not received from Mr. Merrifield a request for LWOP for  
the nomination meeting. If Mr. Merrifield had obtained LWOP for the nomination  
meeting, he would have known about it.  
[108] A/Sgt. Crane stated that he was shocked, hurt and annoyed when he learned that Mr.  
Merrifield was running for the nomination. He felt that Mr. Merrifield had told him one  
thing and then had done the opposite. He thought Mr. Merrifield had lied to him. He  
testified that he still believes that Mr. Merrifield lied to him.  
[109] A/Sgt. Crane agreed that if he was aware that a member was going to act contrary to  
policy, he should stop the member. Section 37(e) of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police  
Act R.S.C. 1985 c. R-10R states, It is incumbent on every member…to ensure that any  
improper or unlawful conduct or of any member is not concealed or permitted to  
continue.” A/Sgt. Crane stated that he did not know where Mr. Merrifield was in the  
process with respect to the nomination meeting. He had not attended it yet. A/Sgt. Crane  
felt he had to update himself on the rules. He believed he did not have all of the facts.  
[110] A/Sgt. Crane stated that after the nomination meeting, a lot of members in INSET were  
upset and dismayed that Mr. Merrifield had referred to himself as an RCMP officer in his  
political materials. There were approximately eighty-five people at the office. They  
understood that he was promoting himself an expert. A/Sgt. Crane stated that he would  
never say that he, himself, was an expert on anything. It seemed that Mr. Merrifield had  
taken an air of authority. A/Sgt. Crane acknowledged that the term expertwas not used  
in any of Mr. Merrifield’s campaign materials.  
[111] C/Supt. Mazerolle was the Criminal Operations (CROPS) officer for “O” Division from  
2004 until the end of the April 2012. From August 2010 until the end of May 2011 he  
was acting C.O. Both Supt. Proulx and Insp. Van Doren reported directly to him. All  
three of them, as well as C.O. Seguin, had offices on the same floor near each other in  
London.  
Page: 25  
[112] C/Supt. Mazerolle stated that on May 13, 2005, Insp. Van Doren told him that there was a  
concern with respect to a nomination pamphlet relating to Mr. Merrifield. Insp. Van  
Doren said that he had directed Insp. Jagoe to address the matter with Supt. Proulx.  
[113] C/Supt. Mazerolle stated that he did not know that Mr. Merrifield had run in an election  
in 2004 when he spoke to Insp. Van Doren on Friday, May 13. He learned about it after  
the brochure came to his attention. The 2004 election did not present any issues because  
policies and procedures were followed at that time.  
[114] C/Supt. Mazerolle said that he did not see the pamphlet prior to the nomination meeting.  
On Sunday, May 15, 2005 he first spoke to Supt. Proulx about it. He was shopping and  
ran into Supt. Proulx. He took him aside and asked him if he was aware of the pamphlet  
and that Mr. Merrifield had been seeking a nomination. Supt. Proulx was not aware of it  
and said that he would look into when he got back to the office.  
[115] C/Supt. Mazerolle stated that if Mr. Merrifield had gone through the right procedure,  
there would have been no concern about his running at the Barrie nomination meeting.  
C/Supt. Mazerolle said that he did not have all of the information but believed there was  
no need to intervene because matter had been sent to a competent Superintendent, being  
Supt. Proulx.  
[116] A/Sgt. Crane stated that he spoke to Mr. Merrifield when he returned to work on  
Monday, May 16, 2005. Mr. Merrifield said that he had concerns about the Conservative  
party and had issues with people who were standing for the nomination. The only way  
that he could speak out about it was to put his name forward at the nomination. Mr.  
Merrifield said it was not going any further. He said his campaign manager had sent out  
literature without his knowledge while he was working on Operation Bridgeout. A/Sgt.  
Crane reviewed the provisions of the RCMP Regulations with Mr. Merrifield and told  
him that he still had to meet the requirements, which included being on LWOP or  
resigning from the Force. Mr Merrifield felt that he had done nothing wrong. A/Sgt.  
Crane described the tone of the meeting as cordial. He stated that after he reported the  
matter, it was out of his mind. He was on holidays for the following week and did not  
have any further involvement in the matter until he returned on May 24, 2005.  
[117] Supt. Jagoe stated that he was aware that Mr. Merrifield had previously run for political  
office and had obtained the approvals. It was general knowledge that Mr. Merrifield had  
run as a Conservative. Supt. Jagoe stated that on Friday, May 13, 2005, he was not aware  
that the Barrie nomination meeting was happening the next day. If Cpl. Frith gave a  
statement saying that he told him about the upcoming nomination meeting, it would be  
wrong. If A/Sgt. Crane stated that he told him about the upcoming nomination meeting,  
he would also be wrong. Supt. Jagoe stated that he had no information as to the date of  
the nomination meeting. If he was aware that Mr. Merrifield’s conduct was potentially  
improper, he would have been required to take steps to prevent it in accordance with Part  
IV, s. 37(e) of the RCMP Act. He understood that if a person were to participate in a full  
campaign, some special leave would be required. He had to obtain approval from his  
Line Officer.  
Page: 26  
[118] Supt. Jagoe stated that a few days after the Operation Bridgeout dinner, Cpl. Frith, an  
INSET employee, came into his office. Cpl. Frith showed him Mr. Merrifield’s  
pamphlet. Supt. Jagoe stated that he was busy at the time and asked Cpl. Frith if he could  
have the pamphlet. Cpl. Frith declined but offered to get one for him. Supt. Jagoe stated  
that he did not order Cpl. Frith to get it.  
[119] Insp. Jagoe asked Cpl. Frith for the pamphlet because was interested in looking at the  
content. He knew that the Assistant Commissioner had to approve investigations into  
sensitive sectors such as politics. Supt. Jagoe stated that he did not know that the  
pamphlet was going to be used at a private political function. He also stated that he did  
not know that the pamphlet had been distributed for a campaign  
[120] A couple of days later, Cpl. Frith brought him the pamphlet and then he took the time to  
read it. He stated that he was surprised by the content. Mr. Merrifield had identified  
himself as a member of the RCMP. There was information in the pamphlet that was  
critical of the sitting government and the gun registry. Supt. Jagoe stated that this  
concerned him because Mr. Merrifield’s duties in TAG included conducting threat  
assessments on internationally protected people including the Prime Minister. Supt.  
Jagoe questioned whether this was appropriate. If the Force had a member conducting a  
threat assessment and if that member was very critical of the government and if  
something happened to an internationally protected person such as the Prime Minister,  
this would be a conflict. It would result in an inquiry.  
[121] Insp. Jagoe wanted to ensure that Mr. Merrifield had sought the appropriate authority.  
He called Supt. Proulx and asked him if he was aware of Mr. Merrifield’s interest in  
politics. Supt. Proulx stated that he was not. Insp. Jagoe said that he would send the  
pamphlet to him.  
[122] Supt. Jagoe stated that he was not familiar with section 57(2) of the Regulations which  
states that a member who is running for nomination may disclose his rank, level, position  
and work experience. He stated that he was more concerned about whether Mr.  
Merrifield had approval to attend the meeting. He stated that he did not know whether  
Mr. Merrifield needed approval with respect to the platform he was advancing because he  
did not have that level of detail. Nevertheless, he was concerned about the platform. He  
drew that concern without looking at the Administration Manual.  
[123] Supt. Jagoe recalled that within a few days of receiving the pamphlet, A/Sgt. Crane and  
Sgt. Gilchrist came into his office and told him that they were aware that Mr. Merrifield  
was interested in running for politics. Supt. Jagoe stated that he told them that the  
information they had should be shared with Supt. Proulx and that it was a matter between  
A/Sgt. Crane, Mr. Merrifield and Supt. Proulx.  
[124] On Wednesday May 18, Insp. Jagoe sent a memo to Supt. Proulx. The email begins with,  
“further to our discussions and emails…” (None of the emails that preceded this one  
were produced.) Supt. Jagoe stated that he kept all the emails related to making decisions  
of substantive value. There may have been previous emails that he deleted. Supt. Jagoe  
Page: 27  
stated the archival system at the RCMP keeps documents for ninety days. He searched for  
other emails but did not find any in his deleted box. He did not obtain archived tapes or  
take any other steps to look for them.  
[125] In addition to sending the email to Supt. Proulx, Insp. Jagoe also briefed his superior,  
Insp. Van Doren who was happy with the steps he had taken. Supt. Jagoe said he had  
two or three phone conversations with Insp. Van Doren specifically regarding the  
pamphlet and that Mr. Merrifield might be considering running. Supt. Jagoe stated that  
he did not take any notes of these conversations.  
[126] Mr. Van Doren retired from the RCMP as a Superintendent. He was the Assistant  
Criminal Operations Officer (CROPS) for border integrity and national security. In May  
of 2005 he was an Inspector acting as a Superintendent. He oversaw responses to  
national security for Ontario. Insp. Van Doren was the Line Officer for INSET. He  
stated that Insp. Jagoe reported to him. His own superior was C/Supt. Mazerolle. He  
would speak to Insp. Jagoe daily in briefings on operational issues and sometimes on  
human resources issues.  
[127] Mr. Van Doren had a vague recollection of a conversation with Insp. Jagoe on Friday  
May 13, 2005. Insp. Van Doren took notes dated Friday May 13, 2015. At 11:30 a.m.  
there is a reference to Insp. Jagoe. In his point form notes, Insp. Van Doren stated, “Re:  
Peter Merrifield - ran in the last election as a conservative lost - proper authorities  
previously sought - pamphlet identifies RCMP’s role – NS team INSET- background in  
NS. Threat Assessment group Marc Proulx – OIC CROPS advised.” Insp. Van Doren  
spoke to Insp. Jagoe about Mr. Merrifield. He was seeking a nomination for a political  
position. Mr. Van Doren recalled there was a pamphlet. Mr. Merrifield was part of TAG  
under the authority of Supt. Proulx. Mr. Van Doren recalled that he told Insp. Jagoe to  
deal with Supt. Proulx regarding any concerns relating to Mr. Merrifield. He stated that  
he briefed C/Supt. Mazerolle about the telephone call and then took no further steps. He  
left Insp. Jagoe and Supt. Proulx to deal with the matter.  
[128] Supt. Jagoe stated that he was familiar with the Ministerial direction regarding  
investigations into sensitive sectors dated November 4, 2003. It was issued after the  
terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Insp. Jagoe knew about the policy when he  
spoke to Cpl. Frith about the pamphlet. Investigations into political parties required  
Ministerial approval. Supt. Jagoe was aware that allegations had been made that he  
violated the policy and that he ordered Cpl. Frith to attend a political meeting. He stated  
that he never ordered Cpl. Frith to attend any meeting. The allegation was not true.  
[129] Mr. Frith retired from the RCMP in 2010 as a Corporal. He worked in the National  
Security section from 2002 to 2008. He worked in the same building and on the same  
floor as Mr. Merrifield did when he was in TAG. In 2005, he lived in the Barrie riding.  
[130] Mr. Frith stated that he became a member of the Conservative Party to support Mr.  
Merrifield at the nomination meeting. Since Mr. Merrifield was in his riding, Mr. Frith  
volunteered to vote for him. Mr. Merrifield did not ask him to do it. Mr. Frith stated that  
Page: 28  
he received Mr. Merrifield’s nomination meeting campaign brochure. He brought it to the  
office before the election and showed it to several people. He was impressed by it  
because there was a good picture of Mr. Merrifield’s family on it. He stated that he  
thought it was sharp. He was proud of the brochure which is why he brought it to the  
office. Mr. Frith stated that he was not sure whether he showed the brochure to A/Sgt.  
Crane. They all worked in the same area.  
[131] Insp. Jagoe had an open door policy. Mr. Frith stated that he showed the brochure to Insp.  
Jagoe on Thursday, May 12 or Friday, May 13 2005. Mr. Frith said that he told Insp.  
Jagoe about the nomination meeting to be held on Saturday, May 14 2005.  
[132] Mr. Frith said that Insp. Jagoe wanted the brochure for his personal use. Mr. Frith did not  
give it to him. It was his property. They discussed the upcoming nomination meeting.  
Insp. Jagoe knew that Cpl. Frith was going to the nomination meeting. Cpl. Frith told  
him that the only place he could get a brochure for Insp. Jagoe was the nomination  
meeting location. Mr. Frith stated that he was comfortable getting a brochure for Insp.  
Jagoe if it was only for his personal use and not for any other use. Insp. Jagoe stated that  
it would be for his personal use only. Mr. Frith stated that his understanding of personal  
use was whatever a person might want to do with the brochure in his own house, such as  
displaying it. Sending the brochure to headquarters for scrutiny would not be personal  
use. Mr. Frith testified that if Insp. Jagoe had wanted it for any other purpose beyond  
personal use, he would not have obtained a campaign brochure for him. He would have  
had to get his own if he wanted it for other reasons.  
[133] There were three candidates at the nomination meeting: Mr. Merrifield, Mr. Brian Broley  
and Mr. Patrick Brown. Mr. Frith stated that he attended the nomination meeting with his  
wife and went for the sole purpose of voting for Mr. Merrifield. He obtained a brochure  
for Insp. Jagoe, took it home and gave it to Insp. Jagoe on the following Monday. He told  
Insp. Jagoe that the brochure was only for his personal use.  
[134] Cpl. Frith did not know anything about the rules regarding participation in political  
events. He did not know whether Mr. Merrifield had applied to participate. Mr. Frith  
stated that he went to vote because he thought Mr. Merrifield might win. He did not want  
the other candidate to win. He was not ordered by Insp. Jagoe to attend. He stated he  
had always planned to attend.  
[135] Supt. Proulx stated that prior to the Barrie nomination meeting, no one mentioned to him  
that Mr. Merrifield had investigated a threat made against President Bush and Prime  
Minister Martin. He did not recall discussing this with anyone after Mr. Merrifield ran in  
the 2004 election. It never came up.  
[136] On Monday, May 16 2005, A/Sgt. Crane called Supt. Proulx and told him that Mr.  
Merrifield had run in a nomination meeting over the weekend. A/Sgt. Crane told him  
that Mr. Merrifield had a previous career as a politician. Supt. Proulx asked A/Sgt. Crane  
if Mr. Merrifield had followed the correct process. A/Sgt. Crane said that Mr. Merrifield  
had told him that he did not need leave because the nomination meeting occurred on a  
Page: 29  
Saturday and he did not want to win. He just wanted to make a speech. Supt. Proulx  
asked A/Sgt. Crane whether Mr. Merrifield had permission to attend the nomination  
meeting and A/Sgt. Crane stated that he did not think so.  
[137] Right after he spoke with A/Sgt. Crane, Supt. Proulx called Insp. Jagoe and asked him to  
send the campaign materials to him so that he could review them.  
[138] Mr. Proulx recalled that Insp. Jagoe did not express any concerns prior to the nomination  
meeting. He received Insp. Jagoe’s comments on May 18 or 19, 2005. Supt. Proulx was  
not concerned about what happened in 2004 because it was approved. He was concerned  
about Mr. Merrifield’s attendance at the 2005 nomination meeting, possibly without  
LWOP.  
[139] Mr. Proulx stated that on Monday, May 16 2005, he reviewed the Operations Manual and  
determined that members were allowed to run in politics but they had to have approved  
leave. At that time he did not quite understand the various types of leave. He stated that  
he still does not really understand them. He just knew that Mr. Merrifield needed  
permission.  
[140] Mr. Proulx stated that he also either looked in the HRMIS system or asked his assistant to  
look into it. He stated that all of the holidays, leave and sick days are recorded in this  
system for all of the members. He did not find anything in the HRMIS system that  
indicated that Mr. Merrifield had been granted leave. Then he made a call to Sgt.  
Cousins in Career Resource Development.  
[141] Sgt. Cousins told him that the coding for Mr. Merrifield’s leave in the previous year was  
done improperly. It would have to be re-done. Sgt. Cousins also told him that Mr.  
Merrifield would have to ask permission for the recent nomination meeting after it  
occurred and this would have to be approved by the C.O.  
[142] Mr. Proulx stated that at some point in the same week, he spoke to Sgt. Verecchia. She  
was very familiar with Mr. Merrifield and believed that he had been granted leave in  
2004. Sgt. Verecchia told him she had outlined the process to Mr. Merrifield in 2004.  
Mr. Proulx testified that at some point in the same week, Insp. Jagoe sent him the  
campaign brochure. He read it and had a conversation on the Thursday or Friday with  
Mr. Merrifield. He told Mr. Merrifield that he had run without authority and that he  
would have to ask for retroactive permission. He should write a memo to explain the fact  
that his name had been in the nomination. Mr. Proulx stated that he told Mr. Merrifield  
that Sgt. Cousins had explained to him that there were errors in the coding of his leave in  
2004. Sgt. Cousins had said that Mr. Merrifield’s two opportunities for elections had  
been used. Mr. Proulx stated that he told Mr. Merrifield that if he wanted to run again, he  
should not bypass the policy. Rather, he should write a memo to him. They would then  
visit the C.O. Supt. Proulx thought that this would be the end of the matter, and that Mr.  
Merrifield would write the memo.  
Page: 30  
[143] Supt. Proulx attended a briefing meeting with C/Supt. Mazerolle and C.O. Seguin in C.O.  
Seguin’s office on May 26, 2005. He discussed his concerns about Mr. Merrifield’s  
involvement in the Barrie nomination meeting without LWOP. He did not tell them that  
he was planning to have a meeting with Mr. Merrifield on the 27th.  
[144] Mr. Seguin stated that his earliest recollection of Mr. Merrifield was in May 2005. The  
nomination meeting in Barrie came to his attention. Mr. Merrifield had put his name  
forward for the riding nomination. He first heard of this from Supt. Proulx. He did not  
make any notes of the discussion. He did not know that Mr. Merrifield had previously  
run in an election. Mr. Seguin stated that when Mr. Merrifield ran for office in 2004, he  
was not the C.O.  
[145] Mr. Seguin stated that he was not aware of any concern about Mr. Merrifield’s working  
in TAG and, in the previous year, having run as a Conservative candidate in a federal  
election. He stated that he subsequently learned that other officers knew about the  
nomination meeting before it occurred. He learned this from Supt. Proulx and by reading  
statements. Mr. Seguin stated that he was not aware that anybody took any steps to  
prevent Mr. Merrifield from attending the Barrie nomination meeting. He would have  
expected someone to take action if that person knew of Mr. Merrifield’s involvement.  
[146] Mr. Seguin stated that he asked Supt. Proulx whether Mr. Merrifield had submitted a  
request for leave and he told him to make sure the policy was being followed. He left the  
issue with Supt. Proulx to follow up and report to C/Supt. Mazerolle.  
[147] Mr. Seguin stated that he was unsure of whether he knew, at the time, that Mr. Merrifield  
attended the nomination meeting. Mr. Seguin stated that he did not discuss these  
activities with Insp. Jagoe then. It was probably a year or two afterwards when they  
discussed it. He recalled that he was at INSET one day and Insp. Jagoe still had the  
brochure regarding Mr. Merrifield’s nomination meeting attendance. Mr. Seguin stated  
that he glanced at it but did not read it. He had not seen it previously.  
[148] Mr. Seguin stated that in the end, a review was done. Mr. Merrifield was given a memo  
dated September 28, 2005, was advised of policy and was reminded of his obligations.  
The memo resulted in no discipline. Mr. Seguin stated that the memo satisfied him. The  
issue was resolved. Mr. Seguin testified, “I wasn’t concerned that Mr. Merrifield attended  
the nomination without my consent.”  
Stronach Investigation - May 19, 2005  
[149] Mr. Merrifield stated that after the nomination meeting, he returned to work on either  
May 18 or 19, 2005. TAG received a request for an Order in Council check on Belinda  
Stronach because she was going to be a Liberal cabinet minister. Mr. Merrifield stated  
that he declined to do the check because he was friends with her.  
[150] Shortly afterwards, Ms. Stronach received a death threat. She had received a number of  
threatening emails after she crossed the floor and became a Liberal. One of the threats  
was, “You just signed your death sentence, you German whore.” This was taken  
Page: 31  
seriously. A/Sgt. Crane stated that after he returned from holidays, he learned about the  
death threat. The investigation was assigned to Mr. Merrifield.  
[151] Mr. Merrifield stated that on May 19, 2005, A/Sgt. Crane called him at home. The  
protective unit was going to extend security to Ms. Stronach and A/Sgt. Crane needed to  
find her. Mr. Merrifield had Ms. Stronach’s cell number. He gave it to A/Sgt. Crane.  
[152] A/Sgt. Crane was the officer who assigned the investigation to Mr. Merrifield. Mr.  
Merrifield stated that he worked on it for six days. On the first day, he went to Ms.  
Stronach’s constituency office and reviewed many emails. Mr. Merrifield stated that he  
contacted Ms. Stronach directly on that day to ask her if she was comfortable with his  
doing the investigation. Mr. Merrifield said that she stated that she had no concerns. She  
said that she would prefer that he do the investigation because she knew that he would  
take care of her and her children. Mr. Merrifield said he was going above and beyond  
expectations. It was about the victim.  
[153] Mr. Merrifield stated that he received information regarding the location of the phone  
where the death threat had been made. It was a payphone. He went to the area to see if  
there was any video surveillance. He went to Ms. Stronach’s home, spoke to the person  
responsible for security and made arrangements to install a panic button. He organized a  
special level response for this. He worked many hours on the investigation. He stated  
that everyone in TAG was aware that he was handling the investigation. His information  
was turned into briefing notes that were sent up to his superiors.  
[154] A/Sgt. Crane wondered whether Mr. Merrifield should be working on the file as he had  
just run for the Conservative nomination in Barrie. A/Sgt. Crane stated that he was  
concerned about it. His specific concern was that there was a potential for a conflict of  
interest as Ms. Stronach had gone from being a Conservative to a Liberal. A/Sgt. Crane  
stated, “You can’t have a Conservative candidate guarding a Liberal MP.” Furthermore,  
A/Sgt. Crane stated that he learned that Mr. Merrifield had called Ms. Stronach. Mr.  
Merrifield said that he called her and that she had no problem with his conducting the  
investigation. This call raised a red flag with A/Sgt. Crane. The issue was that Mr.  
Merrifield was seeking the opinion of the complainant. This did not sit well with him.  
A/Sgt. Crane stated that he told Supt. Proulx about the situation. Supt. Proulx had the  
same concerns. Therefore, Mr. Merrifield was removed from the Stronach file. It was  
re-assigned. A/Sgt. Crane said that his instructions were that Mr. Merrifield was not to  
deal with any VIP visits. All of the files were taken away from him, not just those  
relating to politics.  
[155] Mr. Merrifield testified that on May 24, 2005 he met with A/Sgt. Crane who told him that  
he was being removed from the Stronach investigation on Supt. Proulx’s instructions.  
A/Sgt. Crane may have said that this was due to a conflict of interest. The next day he  
was actually removed from the investigation. Mr. Merrifield stated that he had also been  
doing a threat assessment for the Royal Family. He was removed from this assessment  
as well as a Prime Minister’s visit.  
Page: 32  
[156] Mr. Merrifield testified that he was upset that he had been removed from the  
investigation and that other work was taken away from him. There was certainly no  
conflict regarding the Royal Family. Everyone knew that he had been removed from the  
Stronach death threat investigation. It was unusual. There was an appearance that he had  
done something wrong.  
[157] Mr. Merrifield stated that Insp. Jagoe alleged he had broken a policy by having direct  
communication with a victim, Ms. Stronach. He spoke to Sgt. Boos who referred him to  
the local MPA representative, Sgt. Nicota.  
[158] Supt. Jagoe stated he was concerned that a junior Constable would be phoning a Member  
of Parliament and having a conversation. He did not feel that this was appropriate. He  
believed that officers must remain an arm’s length from victims. Otherwise, it would  
appear that Ms. Stronach was deciding who was doing the investigation and this could be  
viewed as a conflict. Supt. Jagoe stated that he was not aware of any policy that would  
have prevented Mr. Merrifield from contacting Ms. Stronach.  
[159] Mr. Proulx stated that in February 2005, he was not aware of Mr. Merrifield’s past  
political activities. When he was in charge of TAG, he could not recall deaths threats  
being made against Prime Minister Martin and President Bush. Later on he became  
aware that Mr. Merrifield had investigated the threats. He learned that Mr. Merrifield  
had received a related commendation. He agreed that Mr. Merrifield’s 2004 election  
activities were probably well known. Nobody at that time suggested that there was a  
conflict. Mr. Proulx stated that if he had known about the 2004 election activities back  
then, he would have seen them as a conflict. Mr. Proulx said that Mr. Merrifield’s  
running against Prime Minister Martin in 2004 and then at a nomination meeting in 2005  
meant that he could not investigate a death threat. He did not know that a nomination  
meeting takes place at a private party event. He did not see the distinction between this  
and running in an election.  
[160] Mr. Proulx stated that when he discussed the Stronach matter with A/Sgt. Crane, A/Sgt.  
Crane said that he felt there was a conflict of interest. Mr. Proulx shared his concern,  
specifically that Mr. Merrifield was a member of the Conservative party. Most members  
of the Conservative party were upset with Ms. Stronach. If something were to happen to  
her, the RCMP’s threat assessment would be reviewed. If Mr. Merrifield’s name was  
attached to it, the RCMP would be blamed regardless of whether Mr. Merrifield had done  
a perfect job. Someone might think he was happy that something happened to her. (Mr.  
Proulx was confused. He thought Mr. Merrifield was doing a threat assessment. As  
noted above, he was investigating a death threat.) Mr. Proulx stated that he instructed  
A/Sgt. Crane to take the file away from Mr. Merrifield. He then asked A/Sgt. Crane  
what kind of work could be assigned to Mr. Merrifield if he could not work on a political  
file because of his past. A/Sgt. Crane said not much. Anyone could make a point of it.  
They agreed to schedule a meeting on Friday morning in London to discuss the matter.  
Mr. Proulx stated that prior to the meeting in London, he did not know that Mr.  
Merrifield had spoken with Ms. Stronach. He said that this heightened the conflict and it  
was not acceptable.  
Page: 33  
[161] Mr. Proulx stated that he had a second conversation with Sgt. Verecchia on May 24,  
2005. He wanted to ask her about the Stronach issue and whether he was wrong to think  
that there was a conflict. Sgt. Verecchia told him that he was correct and that she would  
send him the policies. She said the conflict could be real, apparent or potential. She sent  
him a copy of the email that she had received from Mr. Merrifield on February 3, 2004  
and the response from Professional Standards.  
[162] Mr. Merrifield said that he explained to Supt. Proulx that he had already spoken to Ms.  
Stronach and that she had no issue with him carrying out the investigation. Mr. Proulx  
stated that this was also a conflict. One is not supposed to talk with a Member of  
Parliament. He stated that if the RCMP does a threat assessment on a U.S. President, the  
RCMP does not speak to him.  
[163] In his testimony, Mr. Proulx subsequently agreed that Mr. Merrifield was assigned to  
investigate a death threat against Ms. Stronach. It was not a threat assessment. A threat  
assessment is about gathering information and determining a threat. He stated that A/Sgt.  
Crane described it as a threat and risk assessment. Mr. Proulx stated that even if it was  
only a death threat, he would still have seen a conflict. A/Sgt. Crane said there was a  
conflict.  
[164] Mr. Proulx agreed that there was no policy that would prohibit a member from speaking  
to a Minister. Mr. Proulx then changed his testimony and stated that he did not see  
anything wrong with an officer’s contacting a victim of a potential death threat.  
[165] Mr. Proulx stated that his concern was not about Mr. Merrifield’s integrity or the quality  
of his work. It was about what would be perceived if something happened. Mr. Proulx  
stated that he told Mr. Merrifield that he had asked A/Sgt. Crane to remove him from the  
Stronach investigation.  
[166] C/Supt. Mazerolle recalled that there was one meeting with Insp. Proulx and C.O. Seguin  
close to the end of May in C.O. Seguin’s office about the issues relating to the Stronach  
investigation. After the meeting in the C.O.’s office, C/Supt. Mazerolle recalled that  
Insp. Proulx told him that he intended to remove Mr. Merrifield from TAG and assign  
him to Criminal Investigations North.  
[167] Mr. Seguin stated that the Stronach investigation was an operational matter and that  
C/Supt. Mazerolle was taking care of it. He was not sure if there was a policy would  
prevent Mr. Merrifield from contacting Ms. Stronach. There was perception of conflict  
and a decision was made to remove Mr. Merrifield from the investigation. He agreed  
with the decision. He stated that the actions taken were within the authority of the  
officers who made the decisions. He was not aware that Mr. Merrifield had been taken  
off a 2005 Royal Family visit. He agreed that this visit was not a political matter.  
[168] Sgt. Verecchia stated that on May 26, 2005, Supt. Proulx sent her a request for guidance  
regarding the conflict of interest policy and whether Mr. Merrifield had contravened the  
policy on this issue. He provided Mr. Merrifield’s brochure for the Barrie nomination  
Page: 34  
event. Sgt. Verecchia stated that it was not just a coincidence that Supt. Proulx contacted  
her. He contacted her because he already knew that she had provided advice to Mr.  
Merrifield in 2004.  
[169] Sgt. Verecchia explained that Supt. Proulx had asked her for the information that she had  
given to Mr. Merrifield earlier regarding LWOP and political activities. She sent it to  
him. She understood Supt. Proulx wanted an opinion as to whether Mr. Merrifield had  
contravened the conflict of interest policy and whether his campaign material was  
contrary to the requirements in the RCMP Regulations.  
[170] Supt. Proulx then sent her an email with respect to Mr. Merrifield’s website and  
information about the Stronach investigation. She told Supt. Proulx that Mr. Merrifield’s  
investigation of Ms. Stronach’s death threat was a conflict. He was partisan and his  
objectivity might be questioned. The RCMP had to be objective especially with respect  
to political investigations. Sgt. Verecchia stated she believed that objectively, it was an  
apparent conflict for Mr. Merrifield and the RCMP. If something had happened, Mr.  
Merrifield’s integrity could be questioned and the Force’s objectivity could be questioned  
as well. His involvement in the Stronach investigation created both perceived and  
apparent conflicts.  
[171] Sgt. Verecchia stated that she had some concerns about the material that Supt. Proulx sent  
her. Mr. Merrifield was not on LWOP at this time and was still working for the RCMP.  
She was concerned that the pamphlet had been distributed. Mr. Merrifield was speaking  
against some of the laws of the day, including the gun registry, while not on LWOP. The  
gun registry was a law of Canada and it had to be enforced. Mr. Merrifield was voicing  
political opinions and undertaking political activities contrary to the RCMP Regulations  
and the conflict policy. She discussed four specific concerns with Supt. Proulx:  
(a)  
(b)  
(c)  
(d)  
speaking about the gun registry;  
the distribution of the campaign material;  
an active website in which it appeared that Mr. Merrifield was campaigning; and  
his involvement in a political investigation with respect to Ms. Stronach.  
[172] She stated that he should not be involved in any of them. She stated that she felt Mr.  
Merrifield had crossed a line, that he was using the RCMP to further his political  
activities and to sell himself as a nominee. While working as an RCMP officer, he  
should not have taken a public stance against the government and its existing laws. He  
had an obligation to enforce the laws and remain objective. Mr. Merrifield was  
proceeding contrary to the advice that she had given him in 2004.  
[173] Sgt. Verecchia stated that section 12.12 F of the Conflict of Interest Policy states that  
once a member returns from LWOP, the officer is to determine a suitable assignment  
taking into account political opinions expressed, political impact that may result from the  
posting and investigations with political overtones being conducted by the proposed unit.  
Page: 35  
Sgt. Verecchia stated that she advised Supt. Proulx that Mr. Merrifield should not be  
doing any political investigations as it was a conflict.  
London Meeting - May 27, 2005  
[174] Mr. Merrifield stated that he and A/Sgt. Crane were summoned to a meeting on May 27,  
2005 at the London office. He was led to believe that Supt. Proulx wanted to discipline  
him for his participation in the Barrie nomination meeting and deal with his removal from  
the Stronach investigation. Two days before the meeting, he contacted Sgt. Nicota, who  
was a part-time Staff Relations Representative (SRR) because he wanted a SRR with him  
at the meeting. Mr. Merrifield explained that SRRs help to guide members through  
policy issues and provide advice regarding grievance matters, among other things.  
[175] Mr. Merrifield stated that he met with Sgt. Nicota for an hour. He in turn contacted Sgt.  
Bohus who had a full-time SRR position. Sgt. Nicota wanted Sgt. Bohus to be at the  
meeting.  
[176] The meeting was held on May 27, 2005. Mr. Merrifield recalled that he, Supt. Proulx,  
Sgt. Smith, Sgt. Bohus and Sgt. Nicota attended. The meeting was approximately two  
hours long and centered around Mr. Merrifield’s participation in politics, the Barrie  
nomination meeting, the Stronach matter and the alleged conflict in TAG. Supt. Proulx  
asked him if he had obtained LWOP. The meeting started out in a professional manner  
but deteriorated after Sgt. Bohus excused himself to attend another matter.  
[177] Mr. Merrifield stated that he showed Supt. Proulx s. 3.2 of the Administration Manual,  
XII.12, the same section that he had shown to A/Sgt. Crane. He said he believed that  
LWOP was not required for nomination meetings based on his discussion with Sgt. Boos.  
[178] Mr. Merrifield stated that Supt. Proulx became condescending and belligerent as he made  
a series of allegations: that he was using the Force to advance his political career; that a  
Conservative policy was in contravention of the Force policy, being the position on the  
firearms registry; and that the Conservative position on the traditional definition of  
marriage was hate literature. Mr. Merrifield stated that the views on the traditional  
definition of marriage were his own. The conversation went in circles. Supt. Proulx  
attacked his personal integrity. He did not understand or would not accept the difference  
between running in a nomination meeting which was a private event open to only  
members of the Conservative Party in contrast to running in a public election. Mr.  
Merrifield stated that he explained the difference at least twice.  
[179] Mr. Merrifield stated that Supt. Proulx asked him why he had run in the nomination  
meeting. He explained that it was to protest. Supt. Proulx did not believe that he would  
be involved only for reasons of ethics and integrity. Supt. Proulx stated that he would  
have to choose between politics and the RCMP.  
[180] Mr. Merrifield said that he was very upset by Supt. Proulx’s accusation that he was using  
the Force to further his political career. He stated that in his seven years as a police  
Page: 36  
officer, he had been shot at, attacked with a knife and steel bar, run off the road and left  
for dead. He had a strong commitment to the RCMP.  
[181] At one point, Supt. Proulx stood up and leaned across the table, balancing himself on his  
fingers. He then went into the partisan aspect of politics and stated that Ms. Stronach was  
a Liberal and Mr. Merrifield was a Conservative. If anything happened when he was  
investigating a threat, there would be a big problem. Mr. Merrifield stated that he  
reminded Supt. Proulx that he had investigated the threat related to Prime Minister Martin  
who was a Liberal and there was no issue. He disclosed his political views before he  
became part of TAG. Supt. Proulx stated that he would forward the campaign literature to  
headquarters for review and he would be looking into it. Mr. Merrifield had the  
impression that he would be under investigation.  
[182] Mr. Merrifield stated that Supt. Proulx had already made a decision before the meeting  
started. He told him to clean up his things at TAG and report to Toronto. Mr. Merrifield  
stated that he felt intimidated. He had worked in the private sector before he became a  
member of the RCMP. He had not been on the Force long enough to qualify for a  
pension. He had three young children. The prospect of being unemployed was very  
stressful.  
[183] Mr. Nicota retired from the Force in August 2009 as a Sergeant. He recalled attending the  
meeting on May 27, 2005 and said it was two hours long. Going into the meeting, he  
believed that Mr. Merrifield had followed all of the relevant policies. He was aware that  
Mr. Merrifield had run as a candidate in Richmond Hill during the 2004 election.  
[184] Mr. Nicota’s recollection of the meeting was that it started with a discussion of the  
Stronach situation. Mr. Merrifield had been investigating a threat to her life. After Sgt.  
Bohus left, the meeting turned into an attack on Mr. Merrifield by Supt. Proulx. He  
started looking at Mr. Merrifield’s resume and questioned its validity. It was a trenchant  
attack on Mr. Merrifield’s character, on everything that he had done prior to joining the  
Force and during his career with the Force. Mr. Nicota recalled that Sgt. Smith quietly  
took notes. A/Sgt. Crane looked flushed and upset. Supt. Proulx was agitated, his voice  
was elevated and his tone was sarcastic.  
[185] Mr. Nicota stated that it was the most unusual meeting that he had ever seen in the Force.  
He said it was like watching a totally unforeseen, bad train wreck. After Sgt. Bohus left,  
the atmosphere completely changed and the meeting became out of hand. The tone went  
from professional and collegial to disrespectful. Supt. Proulx stated that he did not  
believe anything that Mr. Merrifield said about his previous work. He questioned Mr.  
Merrifield’s political motives and asked what he was doing in the Force. Supt. Proulx  
could not seem to understand the difference between Mr. Merrifield’s putting forward his  
name as candidate at a nomination meeting and actually running for office. Mr. Nicota  
understood that Mr. Merrifield did not intend to win the nomination meeting. He  
attended because he had a problem with one of the other candidates.  
Page: 37  
[186] Mr. Nicota stated that other people will say that Sgt. Bohus never left the meeting. Mr.  
Nicota said that they are incorrect and that Sgt. Bohus did leave half way through. He  
noted this in an email one year later because he found it was suspicious and interesting  
that Supt. Proulx would change his tone after Sgt. Bohus left. It was as if he waited for  
Sgt. Bohus to leave and then went into attack mode.  
[187] Mr. Nicota stated that Supt. Proulx’s demeanor and questioning was intrusive,  
inappropriate and unprofessional. He was questioning Mr. Merrifield’s campaign  
literature and waving his hands. He was not behaving the way a Superintendent should  
behave.  
[188] At the meeting, an issue regarding Cpl. Frith was discussed. Mr. Merrifield believed that  
Cpl. Frith had been directed to attend the political meeting where Mr. Merrifield was  
standing as candidate. He was directed to bring back materials and report on the meeting.  
Mr. Nicota stated that this was a gross violation of RCMP Policy and the law.  
[189] Prior to the meeting, Mr. Nicota thought that the issues between A/Sgt. Crane, Supt.  
Proulx and Mr. Merrifield could be resolved; however, Supt. Proulx said Mr. Merrifield  
should choose between politics or the RCMP. Mr. Nicota stated that based on his own  
experience with the RCMP and how it works, he believed that Supt. Proulx had  
commenced an investigation. Mr. Nicota stated, “You have a feeling when something  
just doesn’t add up.” He stated that after he left the meeting, he wondered where the  
matter would be going. To him, it seemed like it was heading toward disciplinary action  
rather than an informal resolution. He stated that Supt. Proulx’s manner of dealing with  
the issues at the meeting came right out of left field and was totally unexpected.  
[190] Mr. Nicota stated that after the May 27, 2005 meeting, he called C.O. Seguin, who was a  
troop mate and personal friend. He asked C.O. Seguin to contact an officer from outside  
of the Division to come in and conduct an investigation, to try to unravel what other  
issues might be at hand. He wanted to make sure C.O. Seguin had all of the information  
from an independent investigator.  
[191] Sgt. Nicota sent an email later on to SRR Ford and Mr. Merrifield. It states:  
…in my 32 years, I never witnessed an “Accused” (let alone a  
serving member of the RCMP) confronted in the manner as Peter  
MERRIFIELD was subjected to by Supt. PROULX….Mr.  
PROULX’S manner of questioning was the epitome of harassment  
and could be used for classic textbook lecture material example.  
Supt. PROULX’S questions ridiculed, demeaned and embarrassed  
MERRIFIELD.  
[192] Mr. Proulx’s recollection of May 27, 2005 was that prior to the meeting, he spoke to Sgt.  
Bohus. Sgt. Bohus told him, “Be careful with this member. You’re treading on thin ice.”  
Sgt. Bohus said that he would support Supt. Proulx at the meeting arranged for May 27,  
Page: 38  
2005. Mr. Proulx stated he believed that Mr. Merrifield’s work on the Stronach  
investigation was a clear conflict.  
[193] Mr. Proulx stated that he called the May 27, 2005 meeting because he wanted to  
personally explain to Mr. Merrifield why he had removed him from the Stronach file and  
also to get his side of the story. Mr. Proulx said that he was considering transferring Mr.  
Merrifield from TAG and wanted to hear from him. He also wanted to discuss the  
nomination meeting, the fact that Mr. Merrifield had run without LWOP and the contents  
of the pamphlet.  
[194] Mr. Proulx stated that at the outset of the meeting, he initiated the discussion and said that  
he wanted to address three things: running in the election without approval, the Stronach  
investigation and what to do with Mr. Merrifield with respect to TAG. Mr. Proulx had a  
very different recollection of the tone of the meeting in contrast to that of Mr. Merrifield  
and SRR Nicota. He stated that overall the tone of the meeting was very good. There  
was no shouting or finger pointing. It was a civilized meeting.  
[195] Mr. Proulx stated that he told Mr. Merrifield that he should have had permission from the  
C.O. to attend the “election”. Mr. Merrifield replied that he had no intention to win the  
nomination. He was just there to speak. The nomination meeting was not an election.  
Mr. Merrifield stated that A/Sgt. Crane had only asked him whether he would be running  
in another election. Mr. Proulx said that he told Mr. Merrifield that he was playing on  
words and that A/Sgt. Crane would not know the difference between a nomination  
election” and a federal election. Mr. Merrifield stated that he wanted to speak at the  
nomination meeting because he had a concern about one of the candidates. He did not  
want to win the nomination meeting. Mr. Proulx conceded that the tone of the meeting  
was raised at this point. Mr. Merrifield stated that he had distributed only 300 pamphlets  
whereas in the previous year, when he was running in the Federal election, he distributed  
50,000. Mr. Merrifield stated that he understood he did not need LWOP because the  
nomination meeting was on a Saturday. Mr. Proulx commented that Mr. Merrifield had  
invested money in the pamphlets but said he did not want to win. This did not make  
sense to Mr. Proulx.  
[196] Mr. Proulx told Mr. Merrifield that his website was open and that he was running for  
election. There was a lot of discussion between the difference between running at a  
nomination meeting and in an election. Mr. Proulx told Mr. Merrifield he was splitting  
hairs and that regardless of which it was, he had to be on LWOP. At the same time, Sgt.  
Nicota was saying that the nomination meeting was not an election. Mr. Proulx stated  
that voices were raised at this point as three people were trying to talk over each other.  
Mr. Merrifield was not seeing things the way he did.  
[197] With respect to the pamphlet and the website, Mr. Proulx said he asked Mr. Merrifield  
about the contents. He stated, “Don’t you think you’re criticizing the Commissioner if  
you say you’re going scrap the gun registry? You’re a member, you can’t do it.” Mr.  
Proulx stated that he was not a politician and that he did not follow politics at all. He had  
no idea of what the Conservative platform was for the upcoming election. In the  
Page: 39  
pamphlet, Mr. Merrifield stated that he had received numerous awards. Mr. Proulx stated  
that he asked Mr. Merrifield about his awards and that they discussed a couple of them.  
The pamphlet said that Mr. Merrifield had worked across North America. Mr. Merrifield  
told him that he had travelled as an Air Marshall to numerous locations. Mr. Proulx said,  
“Don’t you think you’re misleading your constituents?” Mr. Merrifield said no.  
[198] On the last page of the pamphlet, there was a statement that the traditional definition of  
marriage would be defended. Mr. Proulx stated he was concerned about this because an  
RCMP officer has to treat everybody equally. He stated to Mr. Merrifield, “Doesn’t this  
show your views against gay marriage?” He also asked Mr. Merrifield, “Didn’t you think  
that this was in conflict with your position?” Mr. Merrifield was not on LWOP. Mr.  
Proulx stated that Mr. Merrifield did not see a conflict in any of these issues. Mr. Proulx  
stated that as far as he was concerned, nominations and elections were all in the same  
group. They were the same thing. Mr. Merrifield had different definitions.  
[199] Mr. Proulx stated that he may have questioned Mr. Merrifield about his objectivity. At  
the end of the meeting, he stated that he was going to forward the campaign materials to  
headquarters for review.  
[200] Mr. Proulx stated that he subsequently had a telephone conversation with Supt. Dubeau.  
Mr. Dubeau told him to be careful about issues relating to political activity and human  
rights. Politics was a touchy issue in the Force.  
[201] Mr. Proulx said that he stated to Mr. Merrifield that ninety-five percent of TAG’s work  
dealt with politicians. TAG members have to interview them. It was important to get the  
best information available from the subject of a threat. Mr. Proulx stated that they might  
be reluctant to give information to Mr. Merrifield. He was recognizable because he was a  
candidate for three nomination meetings and one election.  
[202] Mr. Proulx stated that Mr. Merrifield told him that he wanted to continue to work at  
INSET. Mr. Proulx said that INSET was not in line of command. He told Mr. Merrifield  
that TAG was an issue and that he did not see Mr. Merrifield staying there. Mr. Proulx  
said the meeting did not provide him with any evidence that he could leave Mr.  
Merrifield at TAG. Mr. Proulx stated that at the end of the meeting, he told Mr.  
Merrifield that he would make a decision about it and get back to him. He did not  
threaten Mr. Merrifield’s employment. He said, “You’ve chosen a hobby that comes in  
conflict with TAG duties. You can’t be on TAG.” He stated that he never said that Mr.  
Merrifield would have to choose between the RCMP and politics.  
[203] Mr. Proulx stated that he returned to his office and made some notes of the meeting.  
Neither Sgt. Bohus nor Sgt. Nicota came to him on that day to raise any concerns about  
the meeting.  
[204] Mr. Smith retired from the RCMP in April, 2008 as a Staff Sergeant. He now provides  
contract services to the RCMP.  
Page: 40  
[205] Mr. Smith stated that, prior to retirement, when he was in charge of Criminal Analysis, he  
worked at London headquarters. His line officer was Supt. Proulx.  
[206] Mr. Smith stated that he did not know Mr. Merrifield until spring 2005. He did not know  
that Mr. Merrifield had been involved in politics, that he had attended a political event  
without LWOP or that he was involved in the Stronach investigation.  
[207] He first met Mr. Merrifield at the May 27, 2005 meeting. Supt. Proulx asked him to  
attend in absence of another member, Sgt. Gilchrist. He recalled that copies of pages  
from Mr. Merrifield’s website and a pamphlet were at the meeting.  
[208] Mr. Smith recalled that Mr. Merrifield responded to Supt. Proulx’s concerns. He said  
emphatically that it was not his intention to run for nomination. He was there just to  
speak publicly to members of the Conservative party. He had concerns about one  
particular candidate that was running and wanted to speak about him.  
[209] Mr. Smith stated that the exchange between Supt. Proulx and Mr. Merrifield went on for  
some time and became heated. The tone was argumentative on both sides. Mr. Merrifield  
may have felt that his integrity was being challenged. He did not recall Supt. Proulx’s  
standing up and leaning over the table during the meeting. There was a perception that  
Mr. Merrifield was not being honest and forthright.  
[210] Mr. Smith stated that Supt. Proulx was concerned about Mr. Merrifield’s exercising poor  
judgment. Supt. Proulx said that Mr. Merrifield would have to make a choice between his  
career or politics. Mr. Smith testified that Supt. Proulx did not say Mr. Merrifield could  
not work at TAG, only that he was considering it. He said he would consult with various  
policy centers in Ottawa. The meeting lasted approximately two and a half hours and  
ended at this point.  
[211] Mr. Smith stated that he would expect steps to be taken against an officer who was not  
forthright with a superior officer. No Code of Conduct proceedings were initiated against  
Mr. Merrifield, nor was he disciplined in any way regarding the issues discussed at the  
meeting.  
[212] Mr. Smith stated that Sgt. Nicota’s comments in his email to SRR Ford were false.  
[213] Mr. Smith stated that Supt. Proulx was on leave in August 2005 and previously had  
assigned to him full acting duties as Superintendent in charge of the Criminal Intelligence  
branch. He prepared an email dated August 12, 2005 to Cpl. Dunn, the OIC of the  
Conflict Resolution Team. He had obtained a cassette video regarding Mr. Merrifield’s  
appearance on the Michael Coran radio show ten months earlier, on October 19, 2004.  
Mr. Smith stated that Supt. Proulx had asked him to send the tape to Cpl. Dunn for  
review because Supt. Proulx wanted her comments.  
[214] Mr. Merrifield had another performance review for the period August 1, 2004 to August  
1, 2005 which included the time period when he participated on the Coren show, when he  
ran in the Barrie nomination meeting, and when he was at TAG. Mr. Smith noted that in  
Page: 41  
the review, Supt. Proulx stated, “Cst. Merrifield is a great asset to the RCMP. His  
leadership skills and overall communication abilities were quite apparent during his stay  
with TAG.” A/Sgt. Crane stated:  
[Cst. Merrifield’s] personable character, dedicated work ethic and  
tireless ambition are several of the notable qualities of this  
member…Though only in the Force for a limited number of years,  
he has continually stepped to the forefront and exhibited a  
willingness to apply himself to the tasks presented to him. He  
assimilated into the TAG quickly and was tasked to become a team  
leader and develop a program to establish a balanced reporting of  
the seven Strategic Criminal Extremist Groups…He was also the  
lead investigator involving an individual who was sending  
threatening letters to the Prime Minister Canada/President of the  
U.S. This file involved several local Police Services and a foreign  
agency. Cst. Merrifield directed the file and mentored several other  
members who had less experience in criminal code investigations.  
The file was concluded with charges and the unit benefited by his  
professionalism and mentoring. Cst. Merrifield is a forward  
thinking individual who seeks innovation and solutions to resolve  
operational requirements.  
[215] Regarding the questions that Supt. Proulx asked Mr. Merrifield in the London meeting,  
Mr. Seguin agreed that if Supt. Proulx had questioned Mr. Merrifield about the  
pamphlet’s contents, this would amount to a sensitive sector investigation because the  
questions would be about a private political event. Mr. Seguin stated that questions  
should have been asked about policy compliance. Mr. Merrifield should not have been  
asked about the contents of the pamphlet.  
[216] Mr. Seguin stated that his direction to Supt. Proulx was to follow up with respect to the  
Administrative Manual, as to whether Mr. Merrifield sought authority to attend the  
nomination meeting. He was not aware that an Internal Complaint file had been opened  
nor was he aware of the actions that Supt. Proulx was taking. He knew that no actions  
were ultimately taken with respect to Mr. Merrifield’s failure to obtain LWOP to attend  
the nomination meeting. Mr. Seguin said that there was no Code of Conduct  
investigation with respect to the LWOP issue because it was not a big deal. Mr.  
Merrifield’s comments on the Coran radio show were also not a big deal. He expected  
that there would be follow up on the LWOP issue and that it would be addressed.  
[217] Mr. Merrifield stated that after the May 27, 2005 meeting, he had a lot of medical issues.  
He had headaches and dizziness. He was nauseous and felt very stressed and intimidated.  
He was fearful for his employment. He felt that Supt. Proulx was targeting him. He felt  
isolated from his peers and most members of the Force. He stated that there is a  
perception of two tiered justice in the Force: one for Commissioned ranks and one for the  
others. Those who are not commissioned officers fear reprisal for stepping out of line.  
Page: 42  
[218] Mr. Merrifield stated that his colleagues perceived that he had done something wrong.  
He was stripped of his investigative role in TAG. A/Sgt. Crane had told people that he  
was in trouble. After that, he was transferred. It was an embarrassing, stressful situation.  
It left him in doubt about his future with the Force.  
Criminal Intelligence - June 2005  
[219] Mr. Merrifield stated that in June 2005, Supt. Proulx transferred him from TAG to  
Toronto North Criminal Intelligence. It had no vacancies. He was considered “surplus to  
establishment.” This unit was under Supt. Proulx’s line of command. Mr. Merrifield  
stated that he had no choice in the transfer. He discussed it with Sgt. Nicota. He asked  
Insp. Jagoe if he could stay on the investigative side of INSET where there were  
vacancies. Nobody had said that the conflict concern extended beyond TAG’s work.  
Even though INSET was under Insp. Jagoe’s command, not Supt. Proulx’s command,  
Insp. Jagoe said that it was Supt. Proulx’s decision.  
[220] Mr. Merrifield stated that the other members in Criminal Intelligence were gracious and  
supportive. He became a recruiter of confidential informants and a source handler. The  
investigations were restricted to criminal enterprise, organized crime, biker gangs,  
immigration and passports. He obtained approval to probe intelligence in areas of his  
interest. This included criminal organizations and firearms, and to identify high risk  
gangs using smuggled firearms.  
[221] Mr. Merrifield stated that there was a homicide at the Phoenix night club in Toronto. He  
had obtained related confidential information about firearms smuggling. Some  
individuals were stopped at the border and were arrested. Mr. Merrifield stated that while  
he was travelling to Niagara Falls to interview them, INSET asked him to return. Mr.  
Merrifield believed that this was an interference with the performance of his duties. He  
had top level security clearance. He was never told the reason why he was called off the  
interview.  
The Bob Pritchard Radio Show - July 9, 2005  
[222] Mr. Merrifield stated that in the summer of 2005, he had knee surgery and was off work.  
Shortly after the terrorist attacks in London, England, he was contacted by an  
acquaintance to participate in a talk show regarding the history of terrorism. He agreed to  
do it but said clearly that he could not be identified as a member of the RCMP nor would  
he speak in any official capacity. He spoke on the radio as a private citizen.  
[223] Mr. Merrifield stated that he was not aware of s. 1.1, Part 27 of the Operations Manual  
which stated that all media contacts were to be reported to the detachment or unit  
commander and to a Division Media Relations non-commissioned officer as soon as  
possible.  
[224] Mr. Merrifield recalled commenting on the talk show that Al Qaeda indicated that  
Canada was a potential target for terrorism. This was not a secret. It was widely  
reported.  
Page: 43  
[225] Mr. Merrifield stated that Supt. Proulx called him at home the next week. He accused him  
of disclosing top secret information. Mr. Merrifield stated that he tried to reason with  
Supt. Proulx. He said that the information that he had provided was about the historical  
development of terrorism which he had learned from self-study. Mr. Merrifield said that  
he had not disclosed any RCMP information. Supt. Proulx was not satisfied. He said  
several times that C.O. Seguin and C/Supt. Mazerolle were very upset. He recited several  
complaints that Insp. Jagoe had made and said that Insp. Jagoe was making calls about  
him. Mr. Merrifield said that the conversation was direct, terse and accusatory. Supt.  
Proulx said that there would be an investigation and disciplinary proceedings.  
[226] Mr. Merrifield stated that disclosing top secret information would be a violation of the  
Security of Information Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. O-5 (SOIA). The penalty for this offence  
was up to 14 years of imprisonment. The only person who could investigate this was the  
officer in charge of INSET, being Insp. Jagoe. This represented a glaring conflict  
because he had made the complaint and he would be investigating it.  
[227] Regarding the Pritchard show, Supt. Jagoe testified that he was on his way to work one  
morning in July 2005, after Mr. Merrifield had been transferred to Criminal Intelligence,  
when he received a phone call from Cpl. Oliver asking him if he was listening to the  
radio. He said that Mr. Merrifield was doing an interview on the radio and that he was  
talking about national security. Supt. Jagoe said that when he got to the office he called  
Supt. Proulx to ask him if he was aware of it. He was not. Supt. Jagoe stated that his  
immediate concern was national security. There are clear protocols and processes that  
have to be followed to do media interviews. National Headquarters was very concerned  
about providing a message in a consistent manner. It wanted only certain people to speak  
on behalf of the RCMP. Supt. Jagoe said he thought that Mr. Merrifield should have  
obtained the approvals to do an interview. He knew that Mr. Merrifield had not sought  
approval through him.  
[228] Supt. Jagoe received a recording of the show from Supt. Proulx. He listened to the entire  
interview. Mr. Merrifield was described as a consultant, someone who works within the  
field. He was not identified as an RCMP member but his name was clearly mentioned.  
Supt. Jagoe stated he was concerned because the discussion was about the history of  
terrorism. There were questions about Toronto and Canada as targets for terrorists. He  
believed that this information was getting into some very sensitive areas. The fact that  
Mr. Merrifield was not identified as member of the Force did not allay his concerns. He  
was readily identifiable as a member and therefore his comments would be viewed as  
credible.  
[229] Supt. Jagoe stated that shortly after listening to the CD, he wrote a memo dated July 20,  
2005 to Supt. Proulx in which he outlined his concerns. He stated he believed that Mr.  
Merrifield was aware that approval was required to do media interviews because S/Sgt.  
King had spoken to him about this shortly after his arrival at INSET. He believed that  
Mr. Merrifield had spoken about sensitive topics. Even if the information was available  
in the public domain, having a member validate it was potentially harmful to the Force’s  
ability to collect information in the future.  
Page: 44  
[230] Supt. Jagoe stated that people who work in the intelligence field at the RCMP are bound  
by SOIA. They are required to sign documents stating that they will not talk about secret  
information in the public domain. Supt. Jagoe stated that after he listened to the CD, he  
concluded that Mr. Merrifield had not violated the legislation. Nevertheless, he had  
concerns.  
[231] Supt. Jagoe stated that the information that Mr. Merrifield had provided on the radio  
show was widely known but in the circumstances, Mr. Merrifield, as a member of the  
RCMP, was validating the information for the public. Supt. Jagoe stated that he was not  
aware of any investigation that had been done to determine whether Mr. Merrifield had  
violated SOIA. He was not aware of any steps taken by Supt. Proulx after their  
conversation. He was not involved in this matter after he spoke to Supt. Proulx. He  
agreed that in the briefing note from Supt. Proulx to the Commissioner dated January 17,  
2006, Supt. Proulx stated, “Merrifield didn’t reveal any classified information.” Supt.  
Jagoe stated that he did not know that Supt. Proulx had made this determination.  
[232] Mr. Merrifield stated that while he was at Criminal Intelligence, Supt. Proulx attended at  
the unit to give a briefing about an upcoming restructuring. The meeting took place in a  
small boardroom. All the members of the unit were there. Supt. Proulx said, “All of you  
have a job, except for you Peter.” His expectation was that everyone would toe the line.  
Then he said, “You know what toeing the line is like eh Peter?” Mr. Merrifield stated  
that he took this as a reference to his adhering to the Conservative platform. He said that  
Supt. Proulx told a story about when he was a non-commissioned officer and how a  
commissioned officer was rude to him. Supt. Proulx stated that he was subsequently  
promoted and got even. Mr. Merrifield stated that this sense of retaliation bothered him.  
Supt. Proulx did not spend any time with him personally and did not say anything about  
the disciplinary investigation that he had threatened earlier.  
[233] A/Sgt. Crane stated he had no involvement in Mr. Merrifield’s reassignment out of TAG.  
He was not consulted about where Mr. Merrifield should go. He stated he did not talk  
with anyone about it and had nothing to do with it. He said it was up to Insp. Jagoe to  
determine whether Mr. Merrifield could go to the investigative side of INSET. A/Sgt.  
Crane stated that he was not prepared to continue to work with Mr. Merrifield after he  
misrepresented his intentions. He had asked Mr. Merrifield if he would be running in an  
election and Mr. Merrifield said no. He put his name up for the nomination. At that  
point the trust was broken. He stated that Mr. Merrifield had to work somewhere else,  
notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Merrifield told him that he was just at the meeting to  
make a speech. A/Sgt. Crane said that Mr. Merrifield was transferred because he  
participated in the nomination meeting. He did not recall asking for Mr. Merrifield to be  
removed from TAG. It was not within his purview to do this. A/Sgt. Crane stated that he  
had nothing to do with the transfer and that it was Supt. Proulx’s decision based on the  
information that he collected.  
[234] Supt. Jagoe stated that even though he did not know how Supt. Proulx was going to deal  
with his concerns and even though there was no discussion with Mr. Merrifield about the  
information provided on the radio show, he decided that Mr. Merrifield was not coming  
Page: 45  
back to INSET. In addition, there was the situation with Ms. Stronach. Supt. Jagoe  
believed that Mr. Merrifield’s contacting her directly and asking her if it was okay to  
conduct the investigation was inappropriate. In Supt. Jagoe’s opinion, Mr. Merrifield  
showed very poor judgment.  
[235] Supt. Jagoe stated that he did not discuss his concerns about Mr. Merrifield with the  
officers who administered Criminal Intelligence because he did not want to tarnish Mr.  
Merrifield’s reputation. Regardless of whether a Code of Conduct proceeding had been  
initiated, it did not alter his belief that Mr. Merrifield had poor judgment.  
[236] C/Supt. Mazerolle took some notes regarding Mr. Merrifield’s remaining in TAG or  
potentially being transferred to INSET. His note dated June 2, 2005 states “Jagoe called  
to say he tried to accommodate Merrifield at INSET.” C/Supt. Mazerolle stated that he  
took this to mean that Mr. Merrifield was seeking a position at INSET. The note went on  
to say, “he was concerned about the review and hoped the C.O. in CROPS knew what  
they were doing.” C/Supt. Mazerolle stated that this was about the pamphlet. He knew  
that Mr. Merrifield wanted to be in INSET. He did not recall having any concerns about  
Mr. Merrifield’s working at INSET.  
[237] C/Supt. Mazerolle stated that several months later, Insp. Jagoe told him that he would not  
have Mr. Merrifield at INSET. He said that Mr. Merrifield has not been truthful with  
him. Insp. Jagoe did not tell him whether he or Supt. Proulx had asked Mr. Merrifield for  
an explanation.  
[238] C/Supt. Mazerolle stated from June 2, 2005, Mr. Merrifield wanted to return to INSET  
and that INSET probably had vacancies. C/Supt. Mazerolle was asked whether there was  
any reason why Mr. Merrifield could not return to INSET. He stated it was not his call.  
There were no findings against Mr. Merrifield. By this time, Insp. Jagoe said that Mr.  
Merrifield could not go to INSET. He would not support it. Insp. Jagoe would not  
support it then or even in 2006.  
[239] Mr. Proulx stated that on May 30, he was not sure whether he had authority to remove  
Cst. Merrifield from TAG. He met with Insp. Brine, who was in charge of Human  
Resources in London, to ask him what he could do and what the best approach would be.  
Mr. Proulx stated that he learned that he could transfer Mr. Merrifield to another one of  
his units as long as it did not involve a lot of extra travel for Mr. Merrifield. He knew  
that Mr. Merrifield lived in Barrie at that time and that the drive to Criminal Intelligence  
in Newmarket was less than the drive to Steeles where TAG was located. Mr. Proulx  
stated that he could not transfer Mr. Merrifield to INSET because it was not one of his  
units. That would require full staffing transfer. Mr. Proulx stated that he decided to  
transfer Mr. Merrifield to Criminal Intelligence. He was still being paid through TAG. It  
was a temporary, good solution. It allowed him to properly assess the matter before  
making a final or radical decision. Mr. Proulx stated that he also spoke to C.O. Seguin  
and C/Supt. Mazerolle on May 30.  
Page: 46  
[240] Mr. Proulx stated that on June 1, he travelled to Toronto and met with Mr. Merrifield and  
A/Sgt. Crane. He confirmed that he was transferring Mr. Merrifield to Criminal  
Intelligence temporarily. He explained that the reason for this was because there were  
hardly any duties for Mr. Merrifield in TAG. Mr. Merrifield was concerned about the  
optics of the transfer and what others would think. Mr. Proulx stated that he met with the  
other people in TAG to advise them that he was transferring Mr. Merrifield to  
Newmarket temporarily and that he had done nothing wrong. He was not under  
investigation.  
[241] Mr. Proulx stated that Mr. Merrifield was in fact not under investigation. He had not  
interviewed anyone and had all of the information he needed. He knew that Criminal  
Intelligence in Newmarket was busy but there were no Constable vacancies there.  
[242] Mr. Proulx stated that he sent an email to A/Sgt. Crane to ask him some questions.  
A/Sgt. Crane answered the questions in his email to Supt. Proulx. Mr. Proulx stated that  
he wanted to be precise in the memo that he would be sending to C/Supt. Brown, head of  
Human Resources for Central Region.  
[243] Mr. Proulx stated that on June 6, he received another email from A/Sgt. Crane. Mr.  
Proulx stated that his writing is at the bottom of this email. It was a summary of the  
information that he had. It states:  
Early March 2005 not running, May 13 NCO found out, PMRTO  
[regular time off] 14 NOM (lost) no intention of winning a seat  
300 pamphlets delegate, website open April 29, no LWOP as per  
last year’s running from NCPC [National Compensation Policy  
Centre] SGT Boos not of opinion that AM [administrative manual]  
2.5.H.3 special leave applied.