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 needs” LWOP 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 needs” LWOP 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 “O” Division 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 “expert” was 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.  
[244] Mr. Proulx stated that on June 7, 2005, he sent his email to C/Supt. Brown. He did not  
fully understand the various types of leave without pay. He set out the issue in his memo  
and figured Human Resources could make a ruling. Making this type of decision was not  
his job. Mr. Proulx set our four questions:  
1. By his actions has Constable Peter Merrifield contravened the RCMP regulation  
58.4(1) taking into the account the policy ruling from 2004? This includes  
reactivating its website and distributing pamphlets.  
2. By his “public” views on certain topics as outlined in his campaign platform, has  
he placed himself in a conflict of interest situation?  
3. Should the special leave of 2004 be modified to reflect two (2) periods of LWOP  
personal leave as per AM.II.5.S.5? Meaning, Constable Merrifield’s entitlement  
for two periods of LWOP in his career has been expanded. [sic expended]  
Page: 47  
4. By his actions, has Constable Merrifield contravened the RCMP regulation 56.1  
and impaired his ability to be impartial with a view to work within national  
security investigations within the RCMP (INSET)?  
[245] This memo shows that Supt. Proulx thought that Mr. Merrifield originally had special  
LWOP and wondered if it should be classified as personal needs. This is the opposite of  
what happened.  
[246] Mr. Proulx said that he did not initiate a Code of Conduct investigation regarding the fact  
that Mr. Merrifield attended a nomination meeting without LWOP. He stated that he felt  
it was a misinterpretation of policy. It was not a conduct matter. He saw it as an  
administrative issue.  
[247] Mr. Proulx stated that he made a decision to transfer Mr. Merrifield out of TAG. Mr.  
Merrifield was concerned about how this would be perceived. Mr. Proulx stated that he  
wanted to make sure it was not perceived negatively. He recalled making an  
announcement. He could not recall who was there. He thought there were five members  
in TAG.  
[248] Mr. Proulx was asked whether he could have seconded Mr. Merrifield to INSET with  
Insp. Jagoe’s concurrence. He stated that Insp. Brine told him that he could transfer Mr.  
Merrifield within only his unit. He agreed that Mr. Merrifield had asked to go to INSET  
but he did not ask Insp. Brine about it. He did not recall asking Insp. Jagoe whether he  
would accommodate it.  
[249] Mr. Proulx stated that in June 2005, he did not think that the 2004 LWOP coding issue  
had been fixed. He did not know whether it would be re-coded to the kind of leave that a  
member could take only two times. He did not really understand LWOP.  
[250] Sgt. Sim is a serving member of the RCMP. He has worked in the Criminal Intelligence  
section since 2003. He worked with Mr. Merrifield when he was there in 2005 along  
with Cst. Brown. He recalled that Mr. Merrifield first came into the section in the  
summer of 2005. At that time, Sgt. Penny was the OIC of the Criminal Intelligence  
section. When Mr. Merrifield was transferred to the Criminal Intelligence section he was  
“surplus to establishment” meaning that there was no vacancy in the section.  
[251] Sgt. Sim knew that Mr. Merrifield had previously been at TAG. Sgt. Sim recalled that  
he and Cst. Brown were told to take over a file relating to threats against Belinda  
Stronach. Mr. Merrifield had been the previous investigator. Sgt. Sim understood that  
there was some conflict of interest with Mr. Merrifield and the file.  
[252] Sgt. Sim stated that he and Cst. Brown were handling human sources and getting  
information from them. They introduced Mr. Merrifield to their sources. Sgt. Sim said  
that Mr. Merrifield had a knack for intelligence work. He was one of the best. His work  
was exemplary. He was invaluable to the section, especially with respect to intelligence  
Page: 48  
probes regarding criminal groups. Sgt. Sim stated that they never had to explain anything  
to him.  
[253] Mr. Brown retired from the RCMP as a Constable. He first met Mr. Merrifield when he  
and Sgt. Sim were assigned the Stronach file. He stated that he did not know why Mr.  
Merrifield was transferred from TAG to Criminal Intelligence. He thought that  
something was going on between Mr. Merrifield and his superiors.  
[254] Mr. Brown stated that at Criminal Intelligence, he, Sgt. Sim and Mr. Merrifield were  
developing sources and they were working on issues relating to guns. Mr. Brown stated  
that Mr. Merrifield was innovative and sharp. He was good at getting information out of  
people who did not want to provide it.  
[255] Supt. Proulx stated that he received a phone call from Insp. Jagoe on July 11, 2005. Mr.  
Merrifield had been on the Bob Pritchard show on Saturday July 9, 2005. He understood  
that Mr. Merrifield had talked for a few hours on counter-terrorism and Insp. Jagoe had  
some concerns about it. He did not know why Mr. Merrifield would do this. He told  
Insp. Jagoe that he would look into it, get a copy of the tape and listen to it and then  
speak to Mr. Merrifield.  
[256] Mr. Proulx stated that the RCMP is sensitive about public speaking. Members were not  
allowed to go out and speak on their own initiative. Public speaking on local issues had  
to be authorized by a line officer or him. Public speaking on national issues had to be  
authorized by the C.O. The C.O. should have authorized this interview.  
[257] Mr. Proulx stated that he researched the show on the internet. He was able to listen to the  
first part of it and recognized Mr. Merrifield’s voice. He had identified himself as a  
consultant in terrorism. The whole interview was not available on the website.  
[258] Mr. Proulx then called Sgt. Penny, the officer in charge of Criminal Intelligence where  
Mr. Merrifield was working. He wanted to know whether Sgt. Penny was aware of the  
interview. Sgt. Penny told him that it was not the first time that Mr. Merrifield had  
spoken. He said that Supt. Proulx only needed to Google Mr. Merrifield’s name and he  
would find other occasions. Sgt. Penny told Supt. Proulx that he had not authorized it.  
[259] Mr. Proulx then called Mr. Merrifield at home where he was recovering from knee  
surgery. Mr. Merrifield said that Bob Pritchard was a friend of his and he had spoken on  
the show on Saturday. He stated that Bob Pritchard had called him 45 minutes in  
advance. Mr. Proulx told Mr. Merrifield he should not have done it because terrorism is a  
sensitive issue and public speaking on the issue had to be pre-approved. Mr. Proulx  
stated that he told Mr. Merrifield that Insp. Jagoe was very concerned and that he would  
have to listen to the tape and determine whether Mr. Merrifield’s comments were from  
open sources. His concern was that people who listened to the show would want to  
identify Mr. Merrifield. They would Google him and they would find out that he was an  
RCMP officer. They would think his comments were coming from the RCMP. Mr.  
Merrifield had to refrain from doing this without proper authorization.  
Page: 49  
[260] Mr. Proulx stated that the next morning he sent an email about the interview to Insp.  
Schmidt (because C/Supt. Mazerolle was on holidays) and to C.O. Seguin to give them  
some notice. Mr. Proulx stated that he copied the email to Insp. Jagoe keep him updated.  
[261] Mr. Proulx stated that on July 13, 2005, Mr. Merrifield called him and wanted a  
clarification of their discussion. He asked if he was under investigation. Mr. Proulx  
stated that he was not but he had to ascertain that Mr. Merrifield had not divulged any  
secrets in the interview.  
[262] On July 18, 2005, Supt. Proulx received the DVD of the show. A copy of it was made  
and sent to Insp. Jagoe so that he could listen to it and determine whether Mr. Merrifield  
said anything that was top secret. Mr. Proulx testified that in his view, it was a huge  
conflict of interest for a member to speak about national security in the media. He was  
concerned that Mr. Merrifield might have released top secret information to the public.  
[263] On the same day, Supt. Proulx sent an email to Sgt. Paradis. He wanted a transcript of  
the show and wanted to know if a search could be done to see if Mr. Merrifield had  
participated in other shows. In addition, Supt. Proulx wanted to know if Mr. Merrifield  
had permission to speak on these shows and whether he did this regularly.  
[264] On July 18 or 20, 2005, Supt. Proulx received an email from Sgt. Paradis. She advised  
him that she had requested a transcript and could not identify any other shows in her  
search through the media system. Mr. Proulx stated that he received the transcript and  
read it before July 27, 2005.  
[265] Mr. Proulx stated that by July 21, 2005 he had not received an answer from C/Supt.  
Brown regarding his email dated June 7, 2005 setting out the four questions. He sent a  
follow up email. Mr. Proulx testified that he was in the process of cataloguing the other  
shows and they would be forwarded to C/Supt. Brown. The tape was being analyzed to  
determine if there was a Code of Conduct breach. He did not know if anything on the  
tape was outside of public knowledge. Mr. Proulx stated that regardless of whether Mr.  
Merrifield had released information that was not public, he was still considering whether  
Mr. Merrifield had breached the Code of Conduct.  
[266] Mr. Proulx stated that he did not order an investigation under Part IV of the Code of  
Conduct at that time. He believed that the matter could be resolved at the lowest level  
and that this was preferable because Code investigations “make people uneasy.” At that  
point, he had not made a final decision yet as to whether a Code of Conduct investigation  
was warranted and was still waiting for an answer from C/Supt. Brown. He thought that  
talking about national security publicly without authorization might have been a breach  
of the Code.  
[267] Mr. Proulx stated that on July 26, 2005, he received a copy of two emails between from  
Supt. Trueman and Sgt. Davis of Professional Standards and Employee Relations. He did  
not know who Sgt. Davis was. It appears that Sgt. Davis was providing advice to Supt.  
Trueman regarding the relevant policy sections to consider.  
Page: 50  
[268] On July 27, 2005, Supt. Proulx sent a memo to Supt. Trueman in Ottawa. It states, “As  
per my discussion with Cpl. Dunn of your unit last week, here is a summary of the  
preliminary research I have conducted on the parallel activities of Cst. Peter Merrifield as  
a “panelist” or as a “host” of a radio/TV show.” Supt. Proulx provided details regarding  
Mr. Merrifield’s speaking on the Coran show, on the Pritchard show and at a B’nai Brith  
event. He stated:  
I strongly believe that Mr. Merrifield has placed himself in a  
conflict of interest situation by appearing on those shows and may  
cause some embarrassment for the RCMP as a result of his views,  
actions or comments. However, I am seeking your view on this  
from a National Policy Center’s perspective regarding the  
“Conflict of Interest” policy/guidelines.” Transcripts and media  
articles were attached to the memo.  
[269] Supt. Trueman was located at the National Policy Center and was an expert on conflict  
issues. Mr. Proulx stated that he wanted his advice before making a harsh decision. Mr.  
Proulx stated that he sent an email to Supt. Trueman dated July 27, 2005 with a number  
of attachments. One was the end of the transcript of the Pritchard show. He was seeking  
review from the National Policy Centre with respect to conflict issues. The fourth  
paragraph in the memo noted the B’nai Brith panel discussion on February 2, 2005. Supt.  
Proulx stated in the memo to Supt. Trueman that Mr. Merrifield had attended a panel  
with police chiefs and was referred to as a security expert with RCMP’s INSET. Mr.  
Proulx said that he was seeking advice from Supt. Trueman because Mr. Merrifield had  
appeared on other shows. Mr. Proulx stated, “I’m not a Code of Conduct guy. I wanted  
to take a different approach with other actions.”  
The Secret File 2005-1117  
[270] On July 26 2005, Supt. Proulx opened a file marked “Secret”. It was coded as a  
Professional Standards matter, “XX82”. The word “Secret” was written on the file  
jacket. Mr. Merrifield stated that he was never served with notice of a Professional  
Standards investigation relating to this file. He obtained this file jacket in 2014 on the eve  
of trial from the Professional Standards unit, (which investigates allegations of  
misconduct made against members), only because he made an access to information  
request after several years of litigation. This document was not produced by the Attorney  
General. There were no contents in the file jacket.  
[271] Mr. Proulx stated that he had a number of documents regarding the inquiries that he was  
making with respect to Mr. Merrifield. On July 25 or 26, 2005, he gave all of the  
documents to his assistant, Ms. Robson, and asked her to open an official file. He was  
going away on holidays and wanted all of the documents to be accessible to others while  
he was away. He explained that an Occurrence Report (form 2500) is the first page of  
any file that is opened. An Occurrence Report was prepared for this file. In the upper  
right hand corner there is a file number, 2005-1117. In the left hand corner, there is a  
reported date which is July 26, 2005. An “OSR” classification is noted on the document.  
Page: 51  
Mr. Proulx did not know what OSR stood for. He stated that he reviewed a code cheat  
sheet with Ms. Robson and decided that the file would be coded XX82 which indicates an  
internal complaint against a RCMP member. He chose this classification because Insp.  
Jagoe had brought some concerns to him regarding Mr. Merrifield’s participation in the  
radio talk show. The form shows that the complaint was “taken by Supt. Marc Proulx”.  
In the details section, two allegations are set out being, “S-1 alleged to seek federal  
election nomination seat without prior authorization” and “S-1 alleged to have appeared  
on TV and radio talk shows discussing national security terrorism without prior  
authorization”. Mr. Proulx stated that he provided this information to Ms. Robson. At  
the bottom of the form on the left is a due date, September 14, 2005. This is a diary date  
for the file to come up for review.  
[272] Mr. Proulx stated that his initials are on the file jacket. In the middle at the bottom it says  
“05-10-05” and there is a slash across it. Mr. Proulx stated that this shows the date that  
the file was concluded. This was the day after Supt. Proulx had given Mr. Merrifield the  
administrative memo setting out his expectations.  
[273] “Secret” is written in the centre of the file jacket. Mr. Proulx stated that secret files can be  
accessed by only certain people. He did not know why this file was considered secret. He  
stated that he did not write this word on the file. He was not aware of any special coding  
for a Code of Conduct investigation. There were no Occurrence Reports (16-24) in the  
file because it was not an investigation file. Mr. Proulx explained that this was an  
administrative file and was used to hold documents in order to keep track of them.  
[274] Mr. Proulx stated that he did not know why the file was marked secret. Mr. Proulx then  
stated that he did know why the file was marked secret. A security classification on a file  
is related to the highest document in the file. If there was a top secret document in a file,  
even if it was only one out of five documents, then the file has to be classified as top  
secret. Mr. Proulx then stated that there were a few pages in this file that were classified  
as secret and this is why the notation Secret was placed on the file.  
[275] Although Mr. Proulx initially testified that the Secret file was simply a file to hold  
documents and that he had advised Mr. Merrifield that he was not under investigation, he  
subsequently stated that he had carried out a fact-finding investigation. He denied that he  
interviewed Mr. Merrifield at the London meeting on May 27, 2005. He described it as a  
discussion between a boss and an employee.  
[276] Mr. Proulx did not know that the Secret file was not produced until 2014, on the eve of  
trial. He had no explanation for this. He never indicated to Mr. Smith, the person in  
charge of gathering the documents for this action, that a document might be missing.  
[277] Sgt. Verecchia examined file XX82 and the related occurrence report. She stated that  
XX82 means there was an internal complaint made by Supt. Proulx and that one of the  
allegations was “alleged to seek federal election and nomination seat without prior  
authorization”. In her view, this meant that a Code of Conduct investigation was  
underway.  
Page: 52  
[278] Sgt. Nicota reviewed the Occurrence Report with respect to the Secret file. He  
recognized it and stated that it is a form that commences an investigation. It shows that  
there was an internal complaint against a member. Supt. Proulx had opened the file and  
Mr. Merrifield was the subject of the investigation. Mr. Nicota also reviewed the file  
jacket. He stated that he was familiar with it. He said that it was curious that the file had  
an access restriction. Sgt. Nicota was familiar with the classification of documents for  
the RCMP. He testified that a secret file denotes a national security investigation. An  
investigation against a member should fall within the administrative or criminal side. An  
“A” file is a confidential file, a “B” File is a secret file and a “C” file is a threat to life  
file. Sgt. Nicota stated that the fact that “Secret” was written on the file folder shows that  
someone believed the allegations were a threat to national security. It indicates a very  
sensitive investigation. Sgt. Nicota stated that he would expect to see occurrence reports,  
exhibit reports, surveillance, investigators’ comments and evidence in a file like this. An  
investigative report (Form 16-24) outlines every action taken by an investigator. It is a  
mandatory form. Without it, one does not know what has occurred in the investigation.  
[279] Supt. Jagoe stated that he would expect to find investigative reports and exhibit reports  
(Form 16-24) in this type of file. These types of allegations are investigated by the  
Professional Standards unit. They maintain the documents and hold them separately.  
[280] C.O. Seguin testified that he was not familiar with the Secret file and did not recall if  
Supt. Proulx had told him that he had opened such a file. C.O. Seguin stated that he had  
never previously seen the related Occurrence Report. The purpose of such a report was  
to collect data for the opening of an operational file. He had no involvement in the  
opening of this file and did not know to what it related. He did not know whether Supt.  
Proulx had initiated a Code of Conduct investigation. If Supt. Proulx had done so, it  
would not have come to C.O. Seguin’s office because Supt. Proulx would be within his  
authority to order it. If a Code of Conduct investigation was referred to a disciplinary  
hearing it, would come to his office. He stated that he was not aware of the action that  
Supt. Proulx was taking.  
[281] Commr. Paulson stated that if he saw a document like the Occurrence Report in a file, it  
would suggest that a Code of Conduct investigation was underway. He said a member  
should be notified as soon as possible of a Code of Conduct investigation. Commr.  
Paulson stated that the allegations on the Occurrence Report were poorly written  
explanations. They seemed to be significant suggestions of misconduct. He stated if an  
individual ordered a Code of Conduct investigation, he would expect that it would be  
appropriately documented.  
[282] Commr. Paulson testified that a person could use a document such as an Occurrence  
Report and assign a file number to it without having an issue move forward as a Code of  
Conduct matter. This could happen because, in an early assessment, there might be a  
determination that it is no longer a Code of Conduct matter or it might be informally  
resolved. He stated he would expect that the person who was making these  
determinations would document them in the file. Subject to canvassing alternative  
explanations for where some documented analysis and accounting considerations were  
Page: 53  
placed, Commr. Paulson said he would be concerned if there were no Occurrence Reports  
or evidence lists in file 2005-1117. He would still expect to see a record of the  
investigation maintained in some form. This would include detailed notes as to  
statements or investigative steps taken and the provenance of exhibits.  
[283] Mr. Smith stated that in 2008, he started requesting documents for production in this  
action. He generated a document list in 2010. The first supplementary document list was  
provided on June 16, 2010 in advance of examinations for discovery. The second  
supplementary document list was provided on February 21, 2014.  
The third  
supplementary document list was provided on September 30, 2014. The fourth  
supplementary document list was provided on October 31, 2014. From June 2010 up to  
the pre-trial conference in June 2014, the AG produced no additional documents. No  
additional documents were produced until the trial began.  
[284] Mr. Smith stated that he received the Secret file between 2008 and 2010. Access to it  
was restricted to himself as S/Sgt., C.O. Seguin, Supt. Proulx, Sgt. Gilchrist and the  
office manager Ms. Robson.  
[285] Mr. Smith stated that he was not privy to the contents of the file. When he received it, he  
skimmed through the file to see if any information should be redacted before disclosure.  
He stated that hand writing on the file jacket states, “conclude file” Oct 12, 2005.  
[286] Mr. Smith then referred to a different copy of the file jacket that has a further notation on  
it. It shows a further entry in 2010, under the 2005 “conclude file” entry. The day and  
month next to 2010 are illegible. The writing next to this date appears to be “Annual  
Review by civ lit” although the entry has a line through it and is difficult to read. The  
word “Secret” is not on this copy of the file jacket with the 2010 entry.  
[287] The copy of the file jacket with the word “Secret” written on it predates the copy of the  
file jacket with the 2010 entry and without the word “Secret” on it. “Secret” could not  
have been easily removed later on because there is a background pattern on the document  
that is intact. No explanation was provided for the fact that the word “Secret” is not on  
the copy of the file jacket that contains the 2010 notation “Annual Review by civ lit”.  
[288] Mr. Smith stated that the copy of the file jacket with the word “Secret” was made prior to  
2010. He provided it to the Department of Justice prior to 2010. It was not produced in  
this action until 2014.  
[289] Mr. Smith reviewed the related Occurrence Report. He said that it could have been  
attached to the inside cover of the file. He did not recall when it was produced. He did  
recall that Mr. Merrifield’s counsel requested the documents in file jacket. The  
Occurrence Report was provided only after that request was received. Mr. Smith stated  
that he did not see the Occurrence Report on his initial review because it was produced  
by someone else. He assumed the contents of the file had been produced to the  
Department of Justice.  
Page: 54  
[290] Mr. Smith stated that by looking only at “occurrence 2005-1117” on the file jacket, he  
could not determine the nature of the file. He stated that prior to becoming the file  
manager, he was not aware of the details of allegation S1 (alleged – seeking election  
without authorization, on TV). Between 2008 and 2010, before the commencement of  
the trial, he was aware that Supt. Proulx had made these allegations against Mr.  
Merrifield and that there was an internal investigation. Mr. Smith stated that someone  
identified that there was a “wallet”, which was like an accordion file that would contain  
the contents of the file 2005 – 1117. He became aware of the wallet in 2010. He stated  
that he went through it briefly and sent it to the Criminal Intelligence branch. He asked  
them to review it prior to disclosure to determine if any redactions were required.  
Criminal Intelligence returned the wallet. He then provided the wallet and its contents to  
the Department of Justice. Mr. Smith could not recall whether he thought that the wallet,  
its contents and a cassette were produced before November 2014.  
[291] Mr. Smith stated that file 2005 – 1117 was reviewed in 2014 because it related to Mr.  
Merrifield’s political activities and speaking to the media on several occasion. It was  
relevant to this action. He did not know that the file number was provided in response to  
an access to information request made by Mr. Merrifield.  
[292] Mr. Proulx stated that he received an email from Cpl. Dunn on September 22, 2005,  
which contained references to policy. He stated that he thought that this email was in  
response to his June 7, 2005 memo to C/Supt. Brown in which he set out the four specific  
questions. Mr. Proulx stated he assumed that the issue regarding the appropriate type of  
leave had been resolved internally. He was not privy to it. With respect to the question of  
whether Mr. Merrifield had contravened RCMP Regulation 58.4(1), the answer was not  
clear. There was no answer regarding whether Mr. Merrifield had placed himself in a  
conflict by stating his public views on topics outlined in his campaign brochure. There  
was no response as to whether Mr. Merrifield had contravened the Regulation. There  
was no ruling on anything. Mr. Proulx stated that he still wanted to resolve this “for Mr.  
Merrifield”. There were new chapters regarding the policy. He had not made a final  
decision.  
[293] Mr. Proulx testified that he received an email from Mr. Merrifield dated September 23,  
2005, in which he had stated that 19 weeks had passed without any resolution as to  
whether he had violated the RCMP Act. Supt. Proulx took offence to this follow up email  
from Mr. Merrifield because he was Mr. Merrifield’s superior. His view was that superior  
officers do not respond to diary date inquiries from junior officers. Mr. Merrifield asked  
whether he was the “subject of an internal investigation”. Supt. Proulx responded and  
advised Mr. Merrifield that he was not under investigation. He had not interviewed  
anyone. He said, “I sent some documents to HQ in Ottawa (as I told you) because the  
“conflict of interest” is not in the manual as of yet and wanted to get guidance from the  
policy center.” Mr. Proulx stated that in his mind he was not investigating. He just  
wanted direction so he could he could make the right decision.  
[294] Although Mr. Proulx stated that he was not “investigating”, at a minimum, he was doing  
research regarding Mr. Merrifield’s public speaking. The Coran show and the B’nai  
Page: 55  
Brith event preceded the Barrie nomination meeting. The Pritchard show occurred after  
Mr. Merrifield had been transferred to Criminal Intelligence.  
[295] Mr. Proulx stated that Mr. Merrifield sent him a response dated September 23, 2005  
indicating that he meant no offence by his follow up email. He said he was operating  
under a cloud with the stress of not knowing the result of a serious allegation. He had  
been suffering from symptoms that he believed were stress related. Mr. Proulx stated that  
he was not aware of Mr. Merrifield’s stress before he received the email. He thought he  
acted as quickly as he could and was waiting for Ottawa to respond.  
[296] SRR Nicota sent an email to Supt. Proulx in which he stated:  
Five months is a long time to wait living under the gun or a very  
dark cloud. He [Cst. Merrifield] was the subject of rumour and  
inuendo [sic] despite your trip to INSET-TAG to deal with his  
situation. When his investigations were turned over to another  
Unit, further questions arose as to his character and work ethic. I  
am suggesting your reaction to his message was an overreaction.  
[297] Sgt. Nicota said that he was under the impression that Mr. Merrifield was being  
investigated.  
[298] Mr. Proulx stated that he did not respond to Sgt. Nicota’s email.  
[299] On September 23, 2005 at 11:30 a.m., right after he had sent his email to Mr. Merrifield,  
Supt. Proulx spoke to Supt. Trueman about how to close the matter. Supt. Trueman said  
that the policies were not clear in the past. The best way to close out the matter was to  
write an administrative memo to go into Mr. Merrifield’s file which would set out Supt.  
Proulx’s expectations as to media relations, conflict of interest and how not to get into a  
conflict. Supt. Trueman did not state that Mr. Merrifield had any conflict.  
[300] Supt. Proulx took Supt. Trueman’s advice and provided a memo to Mr. Merrifield dated  
September 28, 2005. It is entitled “Potential Conflict of Interest relevant to Political  
Activities/Outside Activities”. It states:  
This memorandum is prepared in order to address certain concerns  
I have with your “outside activities”. More specifically, I am  
concerned you may have unwittingly placed yourself in a conflict  
of interest position relevant to your political activities. Your  
participation at various TV/Radio shows as a guest speaker or  
panelist when dealing with sensitive issues, such as terrorism,  
clearly has the potential to place you in contravention of existing  
policy.  
Sections 56 to 58.7, RCMP regulations outline your rights and  
obligations when contemplating engaging or participating in  
Page: 56  
political activities. I encourage you to carefully read those sections  
prior to engaging in any further activities. Prior approval must be  
sought by the appropriate officer before engaging in a “political  
campaign”.  
In so far as your participation at various TV/Radio talk shows or  
discussion panel, I would refer you to A.M. XII.12 Secondary  
employment/Outside activities published 2005-08-12. Furthermore,  
all media releases, media interviews or press conferences which  
are likely to be controversial and are of National Interest must be  
pre-approved by the Commanding Officer of the Division (O.M. –  
Divisional policy, 27.1).  
While you are conducting those activities, concerns for conflict of  
interest will ensure:  
1. that the member is not representing himself as an RCMP  
member to the public while doing the activity  
2. that he is not providing a service that competes with the RCMP  
3. that it is the member’s responsibility to ensure that he avoids any  
actual, apparent or potential conflict of interest  
While this serves only as a reminder of your obligations and rights  
as a member of the RCMP, I am confident that if you keep those  
guidelines in sight while conducting outside activities, you will  
continue to be a valuable member of the RCMP and contribute to  
our organizational goals and mission.  
Be assured of my continued support with your future career  
endeavors, and I remain available to further discuss these issues  
should you wish.  
[301] It should be noted that A.M. XII.12 was published on August 12, 2005, a month after Mr.  
Merrifield’s appearance on the Pritchard show. C.O. Seguin said it was actually a new  
administrative chapter.  
[302] Mr. Seguin stated that he did not order anything to be done regarding Mr. Merrifield’s  
participation in the radio show on terrorism. Insp. Schmidt had already directed Supt.  
Proulx to follow up and get the details. Mr. Seguin stated that when something was in  
the media, normally a briefing note would be provided to Ottawa. As of July 12, 2005,  
he was not aware of any other media appearances. He never listened to the radio  
interview or read a transcript of it. He said that the radio address was not a big deal.  
Page: 57  
[303] C.O. Seguin stated that he reviewed the memo dated September 28, 2005 from Supt.  
Proulx to Mr. Merrifield. C.O. Seguin stated that Supt. Proulx was within his authority to  
prepare this. He did not provide any direction to Supt. Proulx regarding the specific steps  
that he was to take.  
[304] Mr. Brown stated that on December 12, 2005, he and Sgt. Sim met in a boardroom with  
Supt. Proulx. He and Sgt. Sim were trying to make a bid to have Mr. Merrifield stay in  
Criminal Intelligence. He was fun to work with and they were getting things done.  
They questioned why Mr. Merrifield was leaving Criminal Intelligence. Mr. Brown  
recalled that Supt. Proulx said that someone had it out for Mr. Merrifield but it was not  
him. Mr. Brown said that he prepared a statement setting this out. Supt. Proulx said that  
Mr. Merrifield’s transfer from Criminal Intelligence was out of his hands.  
[305] Mr. Proulx’s recollection of the meeting confirmed Mr. Brown’s testimony.  
[306] Mr. Proulx stated that he had no involvement in the ultimate staffing process for Mr.  
Merrifield once he determined that Mr. Merrifield could no longer be in TAG. Mr.  
Proulx stated he did not have any positions available in Newmarket.  
[307] A/Sgt. Crane stated that honesty is a core value in the RCMP and that a breach of it is  
reportable. He told Supt. Proulx that Mr. Merrifield lied to him and that he did not  
believe Mr. Merrifield. This was not reflected in Mr. Merrifield’s performance report  
dated October 11, 2005. There are no comments in the report that say Mr. Merrifield was  
dishonest and a liar.  
[308] Commr. Paulson reviewed Mr. Merrifield’s performance evaluation for the period August  
1, 2004 to August 1, 2005. He understood that the document was signed by A/Sgt.  
Crane, Insp. Jagoe and Supt. Proulx. Commr. Paulson stated that if a line officer thought  
that a junior that he was evaluating had lied to him about the use of leave without pay or  
unauthorized public speaking, he would expect it to be set out in the performance review.  
He stated that appraisals are supposed to be evidence-based, accurate and actionable.  
They were to help people improve rather than to criticize and punish them. If the writer  
of a performance evaluation felt that someone was not truthful, the reference in the  
performance review should be linked to some work related issue that might have some  
consequences for the work.  
[309] Mr. Proulx stated that by the time the performance report was written, the issues were  
concluded. He had given Mr. Merrifield the memo dated September 28, 2005. Mr.  
Proulx felt that the issues were dealt with on October 4, 2005 when he gave Mr.  
Merrifield the memo.  
[310] Mr. Merrifield stated that after the summer of 2005, he submitted multiple search  
warrants, production orders, one-party consents and 540 affidavits containing evidence  
with respect to nuclear proliferation prosecutions. The Public Prosecution Service  
elected to proceed based on his 540 sworn submissions. He was the chief witness in this  
prosecution.  
Page: 58  
[311] In January 2006, Mr. Merrifield was transferred to a permanent position in the Customs  
and Excise section at the airport.  
[312] Mr. Proulx said that he could not keep Mr. Merrifield in TAG “because he was a  
candidate in a federal election”.  
[313] Mr. Seguin stated that Supt. Proulx prepared a Briefing Note to the Commissioner dated  
January 17, 2006. It was written on the recommendation of C/Supt. Mazerolle in order to  
provide a review of Mr. Merrifield’s transfers from INSET to TAG and then to the  
Criminal Intelligence Branch. C.O. Seguin approved the Briefing Note. It states:  
During the summer, while this review was ongoing, Cst. Merrifield  
participated in a radio talk show where he identified himself as a  
“Security and Counter-terrorism consultant”. Although Cst.  
Merrifield did not reveal any classified information or his  
affiliation with the RCMP, his line officer once more brought the  
issue of a potential conflict of interest to his attention. The review  
of this matter revealed that the new conflict of interest policy came  
into effect in September 2005. It was therefore determined by  
Supt. Proulx than an administrative memorandum would resolve  
any ambiguity regarding this issue with Sgt. Merrifield,  
specifically regarding his behaviour and demeanour. In October  
2005, he was given an administrative memo outlining clearly the  
expectation of his line officer and a copy of the appropriate related  
policies.  
[314] Mr. Seguin noted that the recommendation section of the Briefing Note to the  
Commissioner states:  
It is clear that the member has placed himself in a position of at  
least a perceived conflict of interest which jeopardizes the  
effectiveness and reputation of both the RCMP and the member.  
As a result, measured and reasonable steps have been taken to  
minimize the conflict and ensure the effectiveness of the RCMP.  
[315] Supt. Proulx concluded that Mr. Merrifield had a conflict issue even though Supt.  
Trueman, who was an expert on these issues, did not concur. He said the policy was  
unclear.  
[316] Mr. Seguin signed the Briefing Note. It was forwarded to Ottawa. He did not recall  
receiving any response from the Commissioner’s office to the briefing note. He knew  
that Mr. Merrifield had been removed from TAG and had been transferred to Toronto  
North Customs and Excise. He did not make the decision. Rather he was briefed on it.  
The decision was made by the Criminal Intelligence branch.  
Page: 59  
[317] Mr. Proulx stated that Mr. Merrifield was not disciplined regarding his participation at  
the Barrie nomination meeting without LWOP or his participation on the radio show.  
[318] Mr. Proulx’s evidence that he had nothing to do with Mr. Merrifield’s transfer is  
contradicted by Mr. Seguin’s evidence. The Criminal Intelligence branch was under  
Supt. Proulx’s command.  
The Special Operations Center - October 23, 2005  
[319] Mr. Merrifield testified that on September 11, 2005, he received a call from Sgt. Sim. A  
terrorist threat had been made against Toronto. Accordingly, the Special Operations  
Center (SOC) was “stood up.” The SOC was a large room with a number of TV screens  
and twenty desks for use by various police agencies across Toronto. Each agency would  
have one or two desks to use during national security events. The purpose of the SOC  
was to facilitate information sharing. The situation required “all hands on deck”. Mr.  
Merrifield was directed to report to the SOC. While he was en route, Sgt. Sim called him  
and told him to turn around and go home.  
[320] Mr. Merrifield stated that he was the only member in the Division ordered to not attend  
the national emergency. He testified that this meant he was not trusted by the  
organization and his days were numbered. He could not comprehend why, in the middle  
of efforts to thwart a national terrorist attack, Insp. Van Doren, the incident commander,  
would have the presence of mind to direct that he be ordered to not attend the SOC. This  
would mean that two other members would have to work twelve hour shifts rather than  
eight hour shifts. Mr. Merrifield contacted SSR Bohus about this. Mr. Merrifield had the  
highest of security clearance.  
[321] Mr. Merrifield requested an explanation from Supt. Proulx. The response was that Insp.  
Van Doren believed that he was “not the appropriate resource.” He said this response  
was essentially “none of your business.”  
[322] Mr. Merrifield stated that he felt destroyed after he was called back from the SOC and  
was told that he was not the appropriate asset when “all hands on deck” were required  
for a national emergency.  
[323] Sgt. Sim was in charge of the SOC investigators. Sgt. Penny told him to stand up the unit  
and staff the desks. He contacted Mr. Merrifield and Cst. Brown to tell them that he was  
doing this. Subsequently, Sgt. Penny told him that Mr. Merrifield was not allowed to go  
to the SOC and be part of the team. Sgt. Sim believed that Mr. Merrifield was not  
allowed to go because of perceived conflicts with politics. He was a black sheep among  
the higher ups. He had been blackballed. Sgt. Sim stated that when this type of thing  
happens, you are not going anywhere in the force. He recalled that Mr. Merrifield was  
extremely upset when he was told he could not work at the SOC.  
[324] C/Supt. Mazerolle was overall commander of a project known as Obolt. It concerned the  
bomb threats to various locations in the Greater Toronto Area. This was the reason why  
the SOC was stood up. C/Supt. Mazerolle stated that on one day, during the evening,  
Page: 60  
Insp. Van Doren came into his office and said he had dealt with a minor issue. He said  
that Mr. Merrifield had been called into work in the SOC and Insp. Van Doren had  
decided to stand him down. C/Supt. Mazerolle stated that he had no reason to question  
Insp. Van Doren. It was his call to make these decisions.  
[325] Mr. Van Doren is retired. He explained that the RCMP was responding to what appeared  
to be a serious threat to the country. They had information that there were two stashes of  
explosives and that the first people on the scene would be subject to car bombs. This  
required a multi-jurisdictional response involving chiefs of police from various police  
forces. Insp. Van Doren stated he was second in command and was looking after the  
national security part. He was in the London headquarters when all of this was  
happening.  
[326] Insp. Van Doren’s notes show that on October 23, 2005, Sgt. McIntyre contacted him for  
relief for the overnight shift. Sgt. Penny, Mr. Merrifield’s supervisor, had recommended  
him. Insp. Van Doren requested that someone else be selected instead of Mr. Merrifield.  
He knew that Mr. Merrifield had been removed from INSET and felt that it was not fair  
to him or to the organization that he be at the SOC. He believed that if something bad  
happened and if Mr. Merrifield had been responsible for it by either doing something or  
not doing something, the RCMP would be blamed for it. Insp. Van Doren agreed that a  
decision to not allow someone to work at the SOC was significant. He stated that this  
was a critical situation and he did not think that Mr. Merrifield should be put in the  
situation because he had recently been removed from INSET.  
[327] On the next day, October 24, 2005, SRR Bohus, came to his office and wanted to talk  
about Mr. Merrifield. Insp. Van Doren stated that he took time to speak to SRR Bohus  
because he felt that Mr. Merrifield deserved an explanation as to why he had been stood  
down. He told SRR Bohus that his decision was based on the fact that it was a national  
security incident. He was aware that Mr. Merrifield had been removed from INSET and  
did not feel it was appropriate for Mr. Merrifield or the RCMP to “force him back into  
the situation.” He believed that Mr. Merrifield “was not the appropriate resource”.  
[328] Insp. Van Doren recalled a conversation with Supt. Proulx on the same day. Supt. Proulx  
came into his office and stated that Sgt. Penny had told him the previous night that Mr.  
Merrifield believed that the decision to exclude him from the SOC was workplace  
harassment. Insp. Van Doren stated that his discussions with Insp. Jagoe did not have  
any bearing on his decision that Mr. Merrifield should not report to the SOC.  
[329] The inquiry about Mr. Merrifield’s working at the SOC would not normally have come to  
Insp. Van Doren’s attention. Generally, he did not make decisions as to who manned the  
SOC but Sgt. McIntyre had called him. It was unusual for someone to request staffing  
advice from him. Insp. Van Doren said he knew that Mr. Merrifield had been removed  
from INSET but he did not know how that information had come to him. He stated that  
probably Insp. Jagoe or Supt. Proulx told him.  
Page: 61  
[330] Mr. Van Doren stated that he received an email from SRR Bohus on December 14, 2005  
in which he requested a meeting with Supt. Proulx, the C.O. and himself to clear the air.  
In the email, SRR Bohus stated:  
I also believe it prudent at this time to request a meeting between  
yourself, Supt. Proulx, the C.O. and the SR/OPS officer with  
myself and my client to clear up once and for all any  
misinformation that might be floating about in regards to my  
client’s past political activities. In my view, there has been a great  
deal of innuendo that is circulating about and I strongly believe we  
have to have a roundtable discussion to clear the air once and for  
all.  
[331] Insp. Van Doren sent an email to SRR Bohus in response on December 19, 2005. He  
stated:  
I was managing an “O” Division response to a N.S. incident that  
had the potential for serious consequences for Canada and her  
citizens.  
As a line officer O INSET, I was aware the Constable Merrifield  
was recently transferred from the O INSET (TAG) site. That  
decision was based on concerns about his suitability to carry out O  
INSET work. Supt. Proulx as the line officer for CID was dealing  
with that aspect.  
Further to my responsibility to manage the O INSET response to  
the above noted N.S. incident, I directed that Constable Merrifield  
be advised not to report for duty at the SOC. My decision was  
based on the need to select the most appropriate resources for that  
assignment. I concluded, based on the information available at the  
time, the Constable Merrifield was not the most appropriate  
resource.  
As regards your request to arrange a meeting with division senior  
management, that request should be directed to Supt. Proulx, as  
Constable Merrifield’s line officer, for his consideration and  
response.  
[332] Insp. Van Doren stated that he was not asked to attend a meeting with Mr. Merrifield  
after this.  
[333] Even though Supt. Proulx’s memo to Mr. Merrifield dated September 28, 2005 resolved  
all outstanding issues, no one ever told Insp. Van Doren that there were no concerns  
about Mr. Merrifield.  
Page: 62  
[334] Mr. Proulx stated that he had a conversation with Mr. Merrifield about his being stood  
down from the SOC. Mr. Merrifield was concerned and wanted a reason for why this had  
happened. Mr. Proulx stated that he had spoken with Insp. Van Doren about it. Insp.  
Van Doren told him that he was aware that Mr. Merrifield had been pulled from TAG  
and had said that he would wait until that was resolved before he put him back in the  
SOC.  
[335] Mr. Proulx stated that he did not tell Insp. Van Doren that the election and radio program  
issues were resolved because he did not know whether Insp. Van Doren was aware of  
them. Insp. Van Doren never asked him about Mr. Merrifield’s working at INSET or at  
the SOC. Supt. Proulx only learned of Mr. Merrifield’s callback from the SOC after it  
happened. Mr. Proulx said that he did not tell Insp. Van Doren that the matter was  
resolved because there was still a Human Resources question as to where Mr. Merrifield  
was going to be posted. Insp. Van Doren thought the matter was not resolved and Supt.  
Proulx did not correct him.  
[336] C/Supt. Mazerolle recalled Insp. Van Doren’s briefing him about standing down Mr.  
Merrifield from the SOC. The reason was something about a conflict of interest. By that  
time, C/Supt. Mazerolle had read Supt. Proulx’s September 28, 2005 memo to Mr.  
Merrifield. He did not tell Insp. Van Doren that Mr. Merrifield had done nothing wrong.  
He did not make inquiries as to what the conflict was. He did not want to know why Mr.  
Merrifield was stood down from the SOC. Insp. Van Doren had made the decision.  
C/Supt. Mazerolle did not question it. He was not aware of the information Insp. Van  
Doren had when he made the decision.  
[337] C/Supt. Mazerolle stated that a couple of days later, Insp. Van Doren told him that he had  
been questioned about his decision by SSR Bohus and he gave him the reason for it.  
C/Supt. Mazerolle did not ask about the reason. The issue had been addressed by Insp.  
Van Doren and he had confidence in his abilities. C/Supt. Mazerolle stated that even  
though the SRR had spoken to him about concerns with respect to Mr. Merrifield and he  
knew that Mr. Merrifield had been stood down from the SOC, he was not concerned. He  
stated he had no contact with Mr. Merrifield. The decision had been made by others.  
Even though he knew that Mr. Merrifield had been cleared, he did not inform Insp. Van  
Doren.  
[338] C/Supt. Mazerolle had the authority to intervene in a decision made by a Superintendent  
who reported to him, when that Superintendent was within his authority to make the  
decision. He could have told Insp. Van Doren that Mr. Merrifield was cleared of conflict  
issues.  
[339] There is no logical explanation for the fact that both Supt. Proulx and C/Supt. Mazerolle  
neglected to tell Insp. Van Doren that all concerns about Mr. Merrifield had been  
resolved a month earlier. Mr. Proulx said that a decision still had to be made about Mr.  
Merrifield’s transfer. This was an excuse. The transfer was an administrative matter  
resulting from Supt. Proulx’s decision that Mr. Merrifield could not work in TAG. It had  
no bearing on whether Mr. Merrifield was suitable to work in the SOC. C/Supt.  
Page: 63  
Mazerolle chose to ignore the matter. He knew that Supt. Van Doren had made a  
decision based on incorrect information. C/Supt. Mazerolle was indifferent. Both Supt.  
Proulx and C/Supt. Mazerolle had opportunities to set the matter straight but they  
neglected to do so. They allowed the perception of Mr. Merrifield’s tarnished reputation  
to continue.  
[340] Supt. Jagoe stated that in the early fall of 2005, SRR Bohus called him one day. He  
asked him whether he would accept Mr. Merrifield as a transfer to INSET from TAG.  
Supt. Jagoe stated that he could not accept Mr. Merrifield as a transfer because of his  
involvement in the media. He stated that INSET had to be able to investigate all threats  
to national security. It was clear to him that he needed people to follow procedures and  
protocols in everything they did. At that time, he was thinking only about the radio  
interview that Mr. Merrifield had done. Supt. Jagoe stated that this was Supt. Proulx’s  
decision to make as he was Mr. Merrifield’s line officer.  
[341] Supt. Jagoe stated that he did not typically use words such as “Merrifield had burned his  
bridges”; however, SRR Bohus could have understood him to say that. Mr. Merrifield’s  
public speaking and political activities caused him to have this view; however, he did not  
consider his refusal to have Mr. Merrifield at INSET as discipline. When he spoke to  
SRR Bohus in the fall of 2005, he did not know what had become of his concerns with  
respect to the nomination meeting. He assumed that they had been dealt with. He also  
assumed that the matter regarding the Pritchard radio show interview was concluded.  
Nevertheless, he remained concerned enough to tell SRR Bohus that he was not going to  
have Mr. Merrifield back at INSET.  
[342] Supt. Jagoe stated, “he did not demonstrate to me that it was appropriate for him to come  
back.” Supt. Jagoe stated that he made this determination without knowing the outcome  
of any steps that Supt. Proulx might have taken. Even as of the date of his testimony,  
Supt. Jagoe’s view of Mr. Merrifield’s appearance on the Pritchard show was that he  
went too far and disclosed sensitive issues. He knew that Supt. Proulx’s memo to Mr.  
Merrifield dated September 28, 2005 did not result in any discipline.  
[343] Supt. Jagoe stated that he knew Mr. Merrifield had been temporarily transferred to  
Criminal Investigations and ultimately, about six months later, that he was formally  
transferred to Customs and Excise under the command of Insp. Johnson. He was aware  
that the Customs and Excise unit did some counter proliferation work.v He knew that  
Mr. Merrifield had been the lead on one case that had an excellent result. This did not  
surprise Supt. Jagoe. Mr. Merrifield was a talented investigator. Supt. Jagoe stated that he  
knew that this type of work would require access to sensitive information. He was not  
aware that Mr. Merrifield’s security clearance was ever reduced nor did he ask for it to  
be. He knew that the work in Customs and Excise touched on international security. The  
unit would prepare affidavits for search warrants and mutual legal assistance treaties.  
Members, including Mr. Merrifield, would give evidence give at preliminary inquiries,  
trials and before administrative tribunals. He was not concerned about Mr. Merrifield’s  
believability. Counter proliferation investigations fell under Border Integrity which was  
under the command of Insp. Van Doren. Supt. Jagoe stated that he never advised Insp.  
Page: 64  
Johnson about his concerns regarding Mr. Merrifield’s judgment. He never advised Insp.  
Andy White, who was in charge of Serious Organized Crime, of his concerns about Mr.  
Merrifield’s judgment. He knew that Insp. White ran counter proliferation investigations.  
[344] C/Supt. Mazerolle recalled that SRR Bohus had approached him about Mr. Merrifield.  
He said that senior management was missing an opportunity because Mr. Merrifield was  
a good member and should be moving up the ranks. C/Supt. Mazerolle recalled that SRR  
Bohus mentioned this a number of times while Mr. Merrifield was still at TAG. When he  
went to Customs and Excise, SRR Bohus mentioned it. He was a strong supporter of Mr.  
Merrifield. SRR Bohus said that Mr. Merrifield was not happy with how he was being  
treated.  
[345] In October, 2005, Supt. Proulx sent an email to Insp. Brine in Human Resources to  
request a staffing interview so that Mr. Merrifield could be re-posted. He stated, “I am  
convinced at this moment that Cst. Merrifield cannot work within the TAG…it would be  
in the best interest of the RCMP and of Cst. Merrifield if he was assigned to other duties  
not related to “politics”.”  
[346] Mr. Merrifield stated that staffing interviews are usually conducted to determine a  
member’s interests and abilities and to provide an opportunity for the member to learn  
about vacancies. A recommendation is made. Everyone knew about his participation in  
the 2004 federal election. He had been posted to TAG less than three months after he  
stood for election. He believed that his work relating to Liberal Prime Minister Martin  
after he had stood for the election showed that he did not have a conflict.  
[347] Mr. Merrifield had a personnel interview with Sgt. McCann on November 7, 2005. He  
stated that he wanted to work on the investigative side of INSET which had vacancies. In  
fact, a workshop was held on October 18, 2005, the topic of which was how to attract and  
retain qualified members to work in national security because there were many vacancies.  
There were retention issues. Working on the investigative side of INSET would involve  
investigating terrorists. Mr. Merrifield’s previous political activities would have been  
irrelevant because the work did not involve VIPs with political affiliations.  
Mr.  
Merrifield would not consider a posting that required moving because he had a young  
family. Sgt. McCann told him that he would make an inquiry “through the back door”  
about the possibility of Mr. Merrifield’s working at INSET.  
[348] When Supt. McCann began the staffing interview, he knew that Supt. Proulx had decided  
that Mr. Merrifield could not work in TAG. He could not recall whether he contacted  
Insp. Jagoe to see if Mr. Merrifield could be transferred to INSET. His notes dated  
November 23, 2005 show that he had a conversation with Insp. Jagoe and that Insp. Jagoe  
was familiar with Mr. Merrifield. His notes also state, “INSET inquiry.” Based on this,  
Supt. McCann stated that he likely made the inquiry.  
[349] Mr. Merrifield stated that he believed he was well qualified to do investigative work at  
INSET. His performance evaluation that covered the period from August 1, 2004 to  
August 1, 2005 was drafted by A/Sgt. Crane. Insp. Jagoe and Supt. Proulx added  
Page: 65  
comments. They were extremely positive. He had been doing community outreach  
because he thought that the RCMP was relying on dated information. Mr. Merrifield  
explained that doing community outreach was essential if you wanted people to provide  
information. He attended various events outside of his shifts. He went to communities  
that he thought could provide the most useful information. He recruited sources. Some  
of this was an extension of the relationships that he had through politics. It allowed him  
to collect information from a wider spectrum of human sources. His performance  
evaluation noted that his planning and organization skills were good and that he had  
worked a lot of voluntary overtime on Operation Bridgeout to the disadvantage of his  
family. Regarding his interpersonal skills, he was noted to be a popular and respected  
member of INSET. A/Sgt. Crane signed this evaluation on September 12, 2005.  
[350] Mr. Merrifield stated that he was told Insp. Jagoe would not have him back at INSET,  
given the security level required for their work. This made no sense because Mr.  
Merrifield had the top secret security level which was required to work at INSET. No  
additional security level would have been required to do the work.  
[351] Mr. Merrifield said that “unofficially, the wall had gone up.” He stated that Sgt. McCann  
made every effort for him. He was candid. A transfer to Customs and Excise, which  
had a vacancy, was going to happen whether Mr. Merrifield wanted it or not. There was  
nothing else.  
[352] Supt. McCann disagreed that if Insp. Jagoe had agreed to have Mr. Merrifield at INSET,  
he likely would not have been transferred to Customs and Excise. He stated that Customs  
and Excise was an appropriate fit for Mr. Merrifield.  
[353] This is completely illogical. Supt. McCann knew that Mr. Merrifield’s interest was in  
national security work. He had received high praise for the work that he had done at  
TAG. The fact that Supt. McCann contacted Insp. Jagoe shows that Supt. McCann  
thought that transferring Mr. Merrifield to the investigative side of INSET made sense. It  
had a number of vacancies.  
The Promotion Process  
[354] Insp. MacKinnon was the Promotion Co-ordinator. He introduced a new promotion  
system in 2006. The new promotion system had five stages: 1) a job simulation exercise  
exam (JSE exam), 2) line officer/supervisor support, 3) advertisement, 4)  
validation/competency and 5) line officer selection. Insp. MacKinnon explained that the  
job simulation exercise JSE exam would typically be held in February. Usually in  
November of each year, there would be a publication alerting members interested in  
promotion regarding when the next JSE exam would be held. It was a voluntary system.  
Members had to identify their interest to Insp. MacKinnon’s office regarding which exam  
they wanted to write and state how many years of service they had within the RCMP.  
[355] Sometime in 2005, a notice went out entitled “NCO Promotion Exams Job Simulation  
2006.” Insp. MacKinnon stated that this would alert members that they had to register to  
Page: 66  
write an exam. Members had to have seven years of service by April 1, 2008 before they  
could write the JSE exam in 2006. This was because the RCMP adopted a two year cycle  
for writing the exam. Members were allowed to write the exam without having to wait for  
the two years if they would have the amount of service before the expiry of the two year  
period.  
[356] Mr. Merrifield expressed an interest in writing the Corporal exam. He sent an email to  
Insp. MacKinnon’s office dated December 8, 2005 to register to write the JSE exam in  
February 2006.  
[357] Insp. MacKinnon explained that a member who was interested in writing the JSE exam  
would submit a competency resume. For example, a position might require the ability to  
develop resources and obtain judicial authorizations. Candidates would have to supply  
examples of their work in that area. If appropriate, these examples would be validated as  
sufficient for the requirements of a promotion.  
[358] Various job vacancies with required ranks and relevant criteria were listed on the Force’s  
intranet. If Mr. Merrifield wanted to apply for one of these jobs, he would have to pass  
the JSE exam and submit a package outlining his various competencies to show that he  
had the ability to do the job. Then, the application would be forwarded to the line officer  
for selection. Insp. MacKinnon stated that initially, only three validated candidates were  
forwarded. The line officer would determine which one was the best for the position.  
[359] Under the new promotion system, the line officer who had the vacancy would be the  
person to select the best candidate for it. If the line officer felt that there was any  
conflict, he could ask another line officer to make the selection. That would be up to him  
or her.  
[360] If Mr. Merrifield had wanted to move into a promotion in INSET in 2006, he would have  
had to go to the line officer of INSET to be selected. This was Insp. Jagoe. If Mr.  
Merrifield was in one position and wanted to go into another, there was a way to do it  
without a staffing interview but it was not the correct process. A secondment could have  
accomplished this back in 2005 and 2006.  
Loss of Income due to Delayed Promotional Opportunities  
[361] Mr. Merrifield stated that he wanted to write the JSE exam as soon as possible. He  
obtained some practice exams to help him prepare. He explained that once he passed the  
JSE exam, he would receive a four percent pay raise to the level of a senior Constable  
even if he was not yet promoted.  
[362] Mr. Merrifield explained that he was not eligible to write the exam until his seventh year  
of service. He had to write it to be promotable in his eighth year. Mr. Merrifield  
provided a list of his competencies up to December 2013. Effective April 30, 2009, he  
had the following competencies: “prepare/present testimony; develop/manage human  
sources; obtain judicial authorizations; conduct invest-general; concern for safety; and  
records/information management”. As of December 16, 2013, he had additional  
Page: 67  
competencies: “legis-no specific context and legis-border integrity-IBET”.  
Competencies are rated on a scale from 1 to 4. Mr. Merrifield’s rating for prepare/present  
testimony was rated two. All of the rest were rated three. In addition, Mr. Merrifield had  
firearms training. He was a top level marksman.  
[363] Mr. Merrifield was unable to write the JSE exam in 2006 because he was off duty sick.  
He claims that as a result, he has suffered a loss of income. If he had been able to write  
the exam, he should have been promoted to Corporal effective July 1, 2006. Instead, he  
was actually promoted to Corporal on July 1, 2009. Similarly, if he had been promoted to  
Corporal on July 1, 2009, he should have been promoted to Sergeant effective July 1,  
2008. Instead, he was actually promoted to Sergeant on March 1, 2014.  
[364] Stephen Raine was the chair of the National Staffing Committee for the RCMP. He is  
now retired. He was qualified as an expert in the RCMP’s hiring process, including the  
means by which potential candidates demonstrate their credentials and methods by which  
potential candidates are identified and qualified in relation to promotions. A Statement of  
his Expert Opinion dated May 8, 2014 was filed.  
[365] Mr. Raine was provided with a list of twelve job postings for Corporal positions for the  
period April 2007 to January 2013. He was also provided with a list of nine job postings  
for Sergeant positions for the period April 2007 and January 2013. These are found in  
Appendix 1 of his Statement of Expert Opinion.  
[366] Mr. Raine was asked to make the following assumptions:  
a. Mr. Merrifield would have applied for these positions had he been able to;  
b. Mr. Merrifield would have had the qualifications set out in his NCO application  
dated November 2013 with the exception of rank when he applied for the  
Corporal positions;  
c. Mr. Merrifield would have had the qualifications including the rank of Corporal  
when applying for Sergeant positions;  
d. Mr. Merrifield would have applied for each of the positions identified;  
e. The job summary, job requirements and competency profile for each position  
were as set out in each of the Corporal and Sergeant postings; and,  
f. Mr. Merrifield was not subject to any Code of Conduct investigations.  
[367] Mr. Raine was asked to provide his opinion regarding whether Mr. Merrifield would have  
been qualified for the above noted positions. He was not asked to provide an opinion as  
to whether Mr. Merrifield “would have been awarded the position but simply whether, all  
else being equal, he would not have been disqualified.”  
Page: 68  
[368] Mr. Raine’s expert opinion, set out on page 4 of his Statement of Expert Opinion, is:  
Based on the items I received, I am satisfied that Peter Merrifield  
had all the necessary qualifications and Competencies required to  
perform the positions as set out in Appendix 1 and that, providing  
his [sic] submitted his application on time, and to the right location  
and with the assumption that he was not under any discipline  
investigation or formal sanction, he would have been able to  
compete for the positions noted.  
[369] Mr. Raine noted that he could not make an assessment of whether Mr. Merrifield would  
have been successful in his application for any particular position because he did not have  
access to the packages of other applicants who applied for those positions. Nevertheless,  
he stated that Mr. Merrifield’s application would have been competitive.  
[370] Ian Wollach is a member of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants and is  
designated as a specialist in forensic and investigative accounting. He was qualified as an  
expert in quantifying damages. His Income Loss Report regarding Mr. Merrifield dated  
March 24, 2014 was filed.  
[371] Mr. Wollach stated that initially, he was provided with certain documents including a  
series of Mr. Merrifield’s T4 slips, the RCMP pay scale and Mr. Merrifield’s pension  
statement. He was asked to determine Mr. Merrifield’s income losses due to delayed  
promotional opportunities. In doing so, he made certain assumptions that are set out on  
pages two and three of his report. They are the following:  
a. Mr. Merrifield’s income losses commence effective July 1, 2006 (when he  
should have been promoted to a Corporal), and cease as of March 1, 2015 (the  
projected date he will reach the top pay step on the salary scale for Sergeants);  
b. The difference between his post-incident earnings (per his T4 slips) and his  
annual salary (per salary scales provided) is assumed to be additional income  
earned primarily through overtime opportunities;  
c. his pre-incident earnings should be determined as the sum of his annual salary  
and estimated overtime income; and,  
d. His pre-incident overtime income was estimated assuming he would have  
worked the same amount of overtime as he did in the past (for example, in  
2011, his overtime income as a Corporal was estimated at approximately  
11.7% of his salary, and therefore, we assume his pre-incident earnings as a  
Sergeant in 2011 should be 11.7% greater than his applicable salary).  
[372] Mr. Wollach compared Mr. Merrifield’s pre-incident earnings (the amount he would have  
earned had he been promoted to Corporal on July 1, 2006 and to Sergeant on July 1,  
2008) to his post-incident earnings (the amount he actually earned given his promotion to  
Page: 69  
Corporal on July 1, 2009 and to Sergeant on March 1, 2014). A number of charts are  
contained in Mr. Wollach’s report showing how he considered the amounts set out in Mr.  
Merrifield’s T4 slips, the RCMP pay scale and Mr. Merrifield’s pension statement and  
how he applied the above noted assumptions to calculate Mr. Merrifield’s loss of income  
due to delayed promotional opportunities. His opinion is that Mr. Merrifield’s loss is  
$71,913.  
Transfer to Customs and Excise - January 2006  
[373] Mr. Merrifield left Supt. Proulx’s chain of command on January 16, 2006 when he was  
transferred to Customs and Excise.  
[374] Mr. Merrifield stated that from January to July 2006, he was on sick leave supported by  
his family doctor. He was suffering from stress, dizziness, nausea. He was angry and  
frustrated. He inappropriately lashed out at his family. He feared that he would lose his  
job. He was ill, depressed and scared. It was a very dark spot in his life. He turned in his  
service pistol. The RCMP Health Services unit did not challenge his need for sick leave.  
[375] Mr. Merrifield could not write the JSE examination.  
Mr. Merrifield’s American Express Card  
[376] In January 2006, Supt. Proulx ordered a Part IV Code of Conduct investigation against  
Mr. Merrifield alleging disgraceful conduct regarding the use of his American Express  
(Amex) credit card. To understand the very serious allegations that Supt. Proulx made  
against Mr. Merrifield, a detailed review of the communications and events leading up to  
the investigation is necessary.  
[377] Mr. Merrifield explained that he was issued a RCMP covert Amex credit card in 2002 or  
2003 when he was in the Air Marshalls program. These cards were “covertly  
backstopped” meaning that they could not be linked to the RCMP. If someone had  
possession of the card, he would not know that the user was an RCMP officer. Mr.  
Merrifield stated that as an Air Marshall, he would use the Amex card to purchase clothes  
if his luggage was delayed.  
[378] When Mr. Merrifield was seconded to INSET, he had to move to Ontario. Nevertheless,  
the statement for the Amex card continued to be sent to his former address in  
Saskatchewan. Accordingly, he was receiving delayed statements.  
[379] Mr. Merrifield stated that he had an outstanding balance on his card of approximately  
$1,200. He acknowledged that ultimately, he was personally responsible for all the  
expenses incurred on the card. At that time, he had significant expenses on the card for  
travel and various items for Operation Bridgeout. Nevertheless, he was owed  
reimbursement for expenses and payment for overtime work. At one point, the gas card  
for police vehicles was not working. He used his Amex for gas. He had to use it once for  
Page: 70  
gas for his personal vehicle when no police vehicles were available. Mr. Merrifield  
explained that he would fill out an expense report based on his receipts. It would be  
submitted to his supervisor for review and approval. Then the line officer would sign off.  
Then it would go to the pay office where a cheque would be issued for reimbursement.  
[380] Mr. Merrifield stated that he completed all of his expense claims and left them with  
A/Sgt. Crane before he was temporarily transferred to Criminal Investigations.  
[381] On November 7, 2005, Mr. Merrifield received an email from John Steeves, Manager of  
Accounting Services, stating that he had been sent a duplicate payment for certain  
expenses that he had submitted for a trip to Ottawa in the spring of 2005. Mr. Steeves  
described the manner in which the administrative error had been made and said an  
account receivable would be issued to cover the overpayment.  
[382] Mr. Merrifield replied to Mr. Steeves on the same day, advising him that would be on  
two RTOs (Regular Time Offs) and would address the matter when he returned. He  
pointed out that he had not received payment for overtime claims submitted in June, 2005  
exceeding $1,400. He stated that the amount identified by Mr. Steeves was part of a  
claim that had not been paid in a reasonable time.  
[383] Mr. Merrifield stated that he spoke to a public servant in the RCMP and said that he  
would pay the balance if the card was going into default but he did not want to pay the  
amount from his personal funds when he was owed money.  
[384] Supt. Proulx sent an email to Mr. Merrifield on November 8, 2005. It referred to an  
earlier conversation between them on October 24, 2005. Supt. Proulx wrote:  
In our first conversation, you made reference to two things that  
struct [sic] my attention:  
1. You said that the “missing money” were [sic] from the  
expenses claims [sic] related to your trips to SSM regarding the  
training exercise “Rouge [sic] Tanker. You submitted two  
expense claims related to this. The first one was submitted on  
the 19 April for $713.13. A cheque was issued on June 9. The  
second claim was submitted on May 18 and a cheque was  
issued on June 10 for $722.30. So I take from this that by June  
13th or 14th you had received both payment [sic] and should  
have cleared your Amex.  
2. The second fact was that during our conversation of Oct. 24th  
when I brought to your attention the present mater, you stated  
that this was “all” resolved and that you had made payment  
two weks[sic] ago and that the cheque had cleared your bank  
account. When I dealt with Corporate on this issue the next  
Page: 71  
day, they had your cheque in hand, which they had received a  
few days prior and it wasn’t cashed as of yet.  
3. Now, it appears corporate claims you have been inadvertently  
paid twice for the same claim in the amount of $838.35. As  
you say, it is bizarre. I will ask Corporate to conduct a  
complete review/reconciliation of your Amex - 1393 accounts  
for the past two years in order to ascertain that you are treated  
fairly and that you do not over pay the RCMP.  
[385] Mr. Merrifield sent an email response to Supt. Proulx on November 10, 2005. It stated:  
The claims were from Rogue Tanker (2) and TA Course Ottawa  
(1) so there should [be] a total of three cheques payable to me in  
addition to the OT.  
As I stated previously two cheques were issued to Amex by my  
wife both in excess of $1100.00 in order to clear the bill. The  
second cheque was ordered not to be issued by London and was  
reissued to the Receiver General and forwarded to John Steeves as  
per his request. The first cheque had indeed cleared and the  
second was sent to John Steeves on the 13th of October by  
interoffice mail. At that point I believed the matter [was] resolved.  
You and I spoke on the 24th and I informed you of these details.  
As of the 24th I believed that I had no balance owing to Amex or  
the Receiver General and believed that both cheques had cleared.  
Upon arriving home [on] the 24th my wife checked on internet  
banking and the second cheque to the RG had not cleared some 11  
days after being forwarded to London. I would have gladly  
informed you of this had you called me back…I appreciate that  
you are very busy and I am also aware that you were off sick but I  
believe that these details should clarify the issues that “struck your  
attention” and were available by the morning of the 25th.  
I also believe that much of the confusion was caused by claims that  
were forwarded to the incorrect offices for signing by INSET. The  
TA claim went to London then back to INSET instead of to Ottawa  
causing a delay. The Rogue Tanker claim was sent by INSET to  
CSIS attn: the facilitator of the TA course who contacted me  
regarding the confusion and advising that he had not received the  
correct claim. The third claim which was a Rogue Tanker claim  
was the only one paid in a timely fashion. These three claims total  
nearly $2,400.00 which was the amount owing on Amex.  
I will complete a review from my end as well which should  
provide a clearer picture of what the status of payments is. At the  
Page: 72  
end of the day the Amex should be clear and the expense issue is  
being resolved.  
[386] Supt. Proulx sent another email to Mr. Merrifield dated November 10, 2005. It stated:  
You are absolutely right, there were three claims (2 for Rouge [sic]  
Tanker and one for a course in Ottawa) totalling over $2300. I also  
noticed that one claim took over 52 days to be resolved, however  
all those payments were made from the RCMP to you prior to mid-  
June 2005. Therefore, your Amex should have been cleared  
around the end of June 2005, not in October 2005. It apears [sic]  
that you have had an outstanding balance with Amex prior to those  
claims, hence the reason I asked for an audit of your  
expenses/Amex card payments.  
Once corporate have [sic]  
completed this review, I will bring the finding to your attention and  
we can discuss then what happened.  
[387] Mr. Merrifield replied on November 10, 2005 as follows:  
One other factor to mention was that when I was transferred to  
INSET from CACPP my AMEX bill did not follow for a couple of  
months, the same thing happened in June when I was transferred  
from TAG to TNDCIS and despite changing the address it still  
goes to the INSET building to date.  
[388] Mr. Merrifield stated that he understood that Supt. Proulx was going to have a two year  
audit done. He was waiting for Supt. Proulx’s response.  
[389] On January 4, 2006, Mr. Merrifield received an email from Mr. Steeves which said, “the  
A/R issued to you for the duplicate payment you received is now 30 days past due.  
Please advise of your intentions.”  
[390] On January 5, 2006, Mr. Merrifield responded, “I was advised that a two year  
audit/review was under-way of my 1393’s and Amex as ordered by Supt. Proulx.  
Awaiting results.” Mr. Steeves responded on the same day and said:  
The review was completed and Supt. Proulx was advised. I  
suspect that if you have not heard any different then things were  
fine. Supt. Proulx is aware of the duplicate payment.  
I have also CCd him on this message.  
It was during this review that the duplicate payment was  
discovered. I have a copy of the RG cheques and the claims  
involved if you wish to see then. It would appear that the same  
claim was faxed twice to Ottawa in error but this was not caught  
Page: 73  
by the DBA unit and payment was issued to you on both  
occasions.  
The invoice issued to you is for the exact amount of the second  
payment. [Emphasis added]  
[391] On January 5, 2006, at 12:07 pm, Mr. Merrifield sent an email to Mr. Steeves requesting  
the date that the audit was ordered and the date when it was completed. On January 5,  
2006 at 12:10 pm, Mr. Steeves sent an email to Supt. Proulx stating, “How do you wish  
me to handle this?”  
[392] On January 5 at 3:33 pm, Supt. Proulx sent an email to Mr. Merrifield stating:  
I sent you an email on November 8th and informed you I was  
requesting a review of your Amex…I sent the request to John  
Steeves the same day…He gave me a reply at the end of  
November…it did not provide the information I wanted and asked  
John Steeves this morning for further clarification. As a manager, I  
have to be certain that your Amex is used in relation to your work  
and not for personal expenses. In a nut shell, if you take a cash  
advance, there should be an expense account submitted shortly  
thereafter to offset the use of the money. If not then why was the  
cash advance used for…Once John Steeves completes this review I  
will address his findings with you accordingly.  
[393] On January 5, 2006 at 5:07 pm, Mr. Merrifield sent Supt. Proulx an email which stated:  
My request of John Steeves which has gone unanswered by him  
and now responded to by you is in relation to the following details.  
Mr. Steeves stated in his e-mail to me that the audit he conducted  
revealed an overpayment. This overpayment was brought to my  
attention in writing on November 07 by Mr. Steeves. Your e-mail  
to me stating your intention to order an audit was not issued until  
Nov. 08. I am therefore confused as to how this audit found an  
overpayment before it had been ordered.  
In your e-mail to me of Nov. 08, you stated that you ordered the  
audit to “ensure that I was treated fairly by the RMCP” and not  
overpay the RCMP. You also stated at that time that you would  
contact me with the results to discuss. It would appear that the  
audit was completed at the end of November. Your attached  
message today states a completely different reason for the audit.  
Page: 74  
My request today of Mr. Steeves was for Mr. Steeves. It was not  
“regarding your actions” sir it was to clarify dates of request and  
actions by Mr. Steeves office which I believe I am entitled to.  
With regards to your message today I believe that you are already  
in possession of the information you are seeking. My AMEX  
balance at the time of the expense submissions was approximately  
$2300.00. The amount of expenses submitted was approximately  
$2300.00 I am now confused as to your reasoning explained today  
for the audit.  
It is an accusation of improper use of  
AMEX/Expenses? Is there reason to believe that my AMEX was  
used for anything other than RCMP business?  
I will treat the lack of response by Mr. Steeves and his decision to  
involve you as the choice by him not to respond to my request. I  
must state for the record that I am very concerned by the actions of  
“O” division HQ personnel in my treatment over the last year. I  
have responded quickly and honestly to every request made of me.  
I have provided responses to every person who made requests of  
me in this matter and other more serious matters. I am more than  
disappointed with the treatment I have received, the lack of  
answers to my requests and the clandestine like investigation of my  
activities in and outside the RCMP. These investigations have  
been intrusive, harassing and stressful. They impacted negatively  
on my home life as well as my professional life.  
I have until now attempted to deal with matters informally and at  
the lowest level.  
[394] Supt. Proulx replied on January 6, 2006 and stated, “If you have any concerns, you know  
where I am and I have never refused to meet with you and whoever you wanted to bring  
along.”  
[395] Supt. Proulx did not tell Mr. Merrifield that he had in fact prepared a memorandum to  
order a Part IV investigation to be carried out by Professional Standards.  
[396] Mr. Proulx stated that the first time he became aware of any issues regarding Mr.  
Merrifield’s credit card was on October 24, 2005. Claude Caron, Director General of  
Finance, sent a letter dated October 13, 2005 to Mr. Merrifield advising him that the  
outstanding balance on his Amex card had been paid by the RCMP pursuant to its  
agreement with Amex. Supt. Proulx received a copy of it. He understood from that  
letter that Mr. Merrifield had failed to make a payment on his Amex corporate card in the  
amount of $1,223.74 and that the RCMP had cancelled his card. The RCMP had paid the  
Amex balance and now Mr. Merrifield was supposed to reimburse the RCMP by way of a  
certified cheque to the Receiver General. Mr. Proulx understood that the Amex balance  
was 90 days past due.  
Page: 75  
[397] Mr. Proulx stated that he called Mr. Merrifield to speak to him about it. His response was  
that everything had been resolved two weeks ago. His cheque had been cashed. His  
explanation was that the Amex account was not paid on time because the RCMP had not  
paid him some expenses on time.  
[398] Mr. Proulx stated that the next day, he went to see John Steeves because he figured that if  
the RCMP was late in paying Mr. Merrifield and there was a mix-up in the payment of  
the credit card, maybe the Amex card should not have been cancelled. Mr. Steeves  
advised Mr. Proulx that he had just received Mr. Merrifield’s cheque the previous day.  
Mr. Proulx stated that he was surprised by this because when he spoke to Mr. Merrifield,  
he said that the cheque had been cashed. There was an obvious inconsistency. Mr.  
Proulx asked Mr. Steeves to check to see if the RCMP had been late in paying Mr.  
Merrifield and if so exactly how late the payment was.  
[399] Mr. Proulx recalled receiving a copy of an email that Mr. Merrifield had sent to Mr.  
Steeves. It stated:  
Following up on our dealings regarding Amex. I had spoken with  
Bev Scott in Ottawa prior to the RCMP paying the AMEX. When  
the period of time had expired and the Force paid Bev was not  
working on that Monday and I had directed my wife to pay Amex  
on that date before the Force would have to.  
You then forwarded me an e-mail to Not pay Amex but instead  
forward a cheque to your office. I did that on the week of October  
10-14 on the 13th to ensure it would leave Newmarket by  
interoffice mail. It was sent to your attention. I received a phone  
call from Supt. Proulx on October 24 advising that he had been  
contacted by Ottawa to look into this. A review at my bank on the  
24th October did not show the cheque clearing. Have you received  
it and is this matter concluded?  
[400] Mr. Proulx received a copy of an email dated October 28, 2005, which was Mr. Steeves’  
reply to Mr. Merrifield that the cheque had been received.  
[401] Mr. Proulx recalled that he next saw Mr. Steeves on November 2. Mr. Steeves stated that  
he had sent an email to Mr. Proulx which showed that Mr. Merrifield had no outstanding  
expense account and that everything had been paid for. Then Mr. Steeves sent Supt.  
Proulx an email dated November 2 and stated that Cst. Merrifield had been paid a double  
payment of an expense account and that the amount was $800. (The actual amount of the  
double payment was $838.35.) Mr. Proulx stated that Mr. Merrifield had not submitted  
any expense accounts after the May 8 to 12 period, for Operation Rogue Tanker. Mr.  
Merrifield had submitted a claim in May for the week of April 11 to 15 but the RCMP  
took 52 days to pay this amount. Mr. Proulx stated that this was unusually long. It was  
paid in June. He called Mr. Merrifield and told him he had received some information  
from Mr. Steeves who had uncovered double payment for an expense account. Mr.  
Page: 76  
Merrifield stated that he did not recall receiving two cheques for the same expense and  
said he would look into it.  
[402] Mr. Proulx stated that he thought all of a sudden there were a lot of inconsistencies in Mr.  
Merrifield’s story regarding whether the cheques had been cashed and about the fact that  
the RCMP had paid him late. Mr. Steeves had sent Mr. Merrifield an email dated  
November 7 notifying him about the duplicate payment. Mr. Merrifield responded to  
Mr. Steeves stating that he had not received payment for an overtime claim that he had  
submitted in June which exceeded $1400. Mr. Proulx stated that there was no  
relationship between overtime and payment of expense accounts. They come from  
different pockets of the RCMP. Mr. Proulx responded to Mr. Merrifield by email dated  
November 8, 2005. In that email, he said that he was going to ask the corporate  
department to conduct a complete review reconciliation of Merrifield’s Amex account for  
the past two years in order to ascertain that Merrifield was treated fairly and that he did  
not overpay the RCMP. Mr. Proulx stated that there were a lot of inconsistencies with  
respect to Mr. Merrifield’s account. He believed that Mr. Merrifield had not recognized  
the fact that he had received double payment even though Mr. Steeves had been clear  
with both cheque numbers. Mr. Proulx stated that his only purpose at that time in  
requesting the complete review reconciliation for the past two years was to make sure  
that Mr. Merrifield was not being overcharged and that he received the money that he  
was entitled to receive. Mr. Proulx forwarded the email to Mr. Steeves asking him to do  
the review.  
[403] Mr. Proulx said that Mr. Steeves replied to him on November 28 and said everything was  
fine. Mr. Proulx sent an email to Mr. Steeves dated December 1, 2005 in which he stated  
that Insp. Josey (Mr. Merrifield’s supervisor when he was in the Air Marshall program)  
had authorized a payment from relocation funds. Accordingly, the issue was fully  
resolved as of December 1, 2005. As of November 2, 2005, he knew that it was not an  
account receivable. In his email to Mr. Steeves, Mr. Proulx said if Mr. Steeves had not  
uncovered any irregularities, then he was satisfied.  
[404] Mr. Proulx stated that subsequently, Mr. Steeves came into his office and said that there  
was something else that he did not want to put in writing. There were two back-to-back  
$500 cash advances and a gas purchase. He was concerned that there was no matching  
expense for it. Mr. Proulx stated that this might be indicative of kiting or fraud, serious  
criminal offences. He thought Mr. Merrifield had deceived him about the duplicate  
payment. He told Mr. Steeves to stop the work that he was doing and that this would be a  
matter for a formal Part IV Code of Conduct investigation.  
[405] He described the internal investigation as simply a method for getting to the bottom of  
the issues and to give both parties an opportunity to set out in writing their sides of the  
story. Mr. Proulx recalled speaking to S/Sgt. Babinko who was in charge of internal  
investigations. In December, Mr. Proulx started to prepare a memo to order the Part IV  
investigation. If a cash advance had been taken, there should be an expense account to  
offset the use of the money. Mr. Proulx stated that prior to that, Mr. Merrifield had not  
Page: 77  
been informed that there was a concern regarding potential cash advances without proper  
expense claims.  
[406] Mr. Proulx stated that he was not prepared to tell Mr. Merrifield about it because he was  
just finalizing the memorandum to order the Part IV investigation. Mr. Proulx stated that  
he was hinting to Mr. Merrifield that some cash advances were uncovered.  
[407] Mr. Proulx had no notes of the date that Mr. Steeves came to see him or of any details of  
the conversation with Mr. Steeves.  
[408] Mr. Proulx agreed that the information that he obtained later with respect to the cash  
withdrawals showed that they were not taken back-to-back. In fact the dates were  
September 22, November 23 and November 30, 2005. Mr. Proulx did not recall the  
purpose of September 22 cash advance. He did not receive any other dates regarding the  
cash withdrawals.  
[409] His note dated 2006-01-06 states:  
Cash adv  
SW  
Sept 22nd  
2004  
SW  
Nov 23th  
Nov 30th  
?
A/R  
$3637.66  
[410] Mr. Proulx stated that he did not investigate the matter himself because he might have  
been required to make a decision on discipline and he had to stay independent.  
[411] Mr. Proulx stated that at no time did he ask Mr. Merrifield for an explanation regarding  
the cash withdrawals. He did not know that expense claims had been submitted for two  
cash withdrawals relating to Mr. Merrifield’s eye surgery and that the surgery was  
required for an injury on the job.  
[412] Mr. Steeves sent an email to Cpl. DuPuy dated January 9, 2006 requesting copies of  
documents supporting payment requests. It states, “the issue I am dealing with is  
somewhat urgent.” Mr. Proulx stated that he told Mr. Steeves to do nothing further after  
January 5, 2006 because he had already sent the memorandum ordering the Part IV  
investigation. (The memorandum was dated January 6, 2006 but he did not sign it until  
January 13, 2006.) Mr. Proulx had no explanation for why Mr. Steeves would be  
contacting Cpl. DuPuy on January 9, 2006. Mr. Steeves had completed his review by  
January 5, 2006. Mr. Proulx had told Mr. Merrifield that he would get back to him after  
the review was completed. He did not do this.  
Code of Conduct Part IV Investigation – Preceding Events  
Page: 78  
[413] Mr. Proulx sent a memorandum to S/Sgt. Wally Babinko dated January 6, 2006 ordering  
the Part IV investigation. He acknowledged that in the memorandum, he raised the issue  
that the Amex account was over 90 days due but it had already been paid. He did not  
identify two cash withdrawals without offsetting expense claims. In the memorandum,  
he stated that several cash advances were suspected to be for personal reasons. He stated:  
Cst. Merrifield is suspected of having contravened administrative  
policy concerning the use and payment of his Corporate American  
Express Card. As a result of his non payment [sic] and misuse of  
Corporate American Express Card he may have engaged in  
disgraceful conduct that could bring discredit to the Force contrary  
to Section 39(1) of the RCMP Act.  
[414] Mr. Proulx stated that he was reporting Mr. Merrifield for disgraceful conduct that could  
bring discredit to the force.  
[415] Mr. Proulx said that he had earlier told Mr. Merrifield to hold off paying the $837 until  
he had a chance to investigate. A mistake had been made in an account receivable  
showing that it was outstanding but Insp. Josey had authorized payment. When he sent  
the memorandum, he knew that this was cleared up. Mr. Proulx stated that he was  
concerned that Mr. Merrifield’s activities might constitute kiting and fraud. Cashing the  
second cheque was deceitful. He wanted the matter investigated. He felt Mr. Merrifield  
was deceiving him about the payments. Mr. Proulx did not ask Mr. Merrifield for a  
written explanation before he ordered the Part IV investigation. He stated that this was  
not a requirement in 2006. Mr. Proulx stated that he was not concerned that he had  
inaccurate information when he ordered the investigation. Mr. Steeves had given it to  
him.  
[416] Mr. Proulx had no explanation as to why Mr. Steeves was communicating with Cpl.  
DuPuy urgently on January 9, 2006. He said he did not know about it.  
[417] Mr. Proulx received an email from Mr. Merrifield on January 5 at 3:30, one day before  
the date of the memorandum. He knew that Mr. Merrifield had made a complaint about  
him.  
[418] Mr. Steeves explained that an Amex card would be issued to anyone in the Force who  
wanted one. No credit application was required because the card was protected against  
loss. The RCMP guaranteed payment.  
[419] Mr. Steeves stated that Mr. Merrifield sent an email to Lynn Huard dated August 3, 2005  
with respect to his Amex account. In that email, he stated that he was not getting his  
Amex statements in time because he had moved to a different section. This was causing a  
lag of two to three months before he received the statements. There was an issue about  
his balance on the card. In the email he stated that he had paid $1,000 a short time ago  
and that the balance was now around $1,200.  
Page: 79  
[420] Mr. Steeves stated that this did not resolve the issue because Amex does not allow  
outstanding balances. When you receive a statement, the entire amount is due. Mr.  
Steeves stated that the corporate Amex card could be used to pay for expenses related to  
travel, hotels, airfare, and car rentals. Cash advances could be taken for small amounts  
such as taxi fares. A member was required to keep the receipts and submit them with an  
expense claim. The card could not be used for anything else.  
[421] On September 16, 2005, the RCMP had issued an invoice to Mr. Merrifield indicating  
that his Amex account was 138 days past due in the amount of $1,223.74. The copy of  
the invoice shows Mr. Merrifield’s handwriting and states “cheque attached 2005/10/11”  
along with his signature. Mr. Steeves stated he did not know when Mr. Merrifield had  
received the invoice. On October 28, 2005, Mr. Steeves sent an email to Merrifield  
which stated, “cheque received.” Mr. Steeves stated that he sent a copy of this email to  
Supt. Proulx.  
[422] Mr. Steeves stated that he carried out that review requested by Supt. Proulx and sent it to  
him along with an email dated November 2, 2005. In that email, he stated that his review  
showed that Mr. Merrifield had received a duplicate payment of $838.35. An account  
receivable would be issued in the next few days to recover that amount. Mr. Steeves  
stated that two claims had been submitted by two different authorities for the same cost.  
This resulted in two payments of $838.35 made on June 6, 2005 and June 21, 2005.  
[423] Mr. Steeves stated that he had never previously dealt with a situation where the entire  
balance on an Amex card was paid by the RCMP. He stated that late submission of  
expense claims and late processing of the claims can result in a card’s going into arrears.  
Mr. Steeves said that there was no relationship between outstanding pay for overtime and  
a balance owing on an Amex card except that the card holder would have funds to pay  
the amount.  
[424] Mr. Steeves stated that he was not copied on the email that Supt. Proulx sent to Mr.  
Merrifield on November 8, 2005 which said that Supt. Proulx was going to ask Corporate  
to conduct a review.  
[425] Mr. Steeves sent an email to Mr. Merrifield dated January 4, 2006 commenting that the  
account receivable issued to him regarding the duplicate payment was thirty days past  
due and asking him to advise of his intentions. Mr. Merrifield responded on January 5,  
2006 stating that he was awaiting the results of the two year review as ordered by Supt.  
Proulx. Mr. Merrifield stated he was not aware of the results or the outcome of the audit.  
He commented that if the amount was paid twice then he had no problem paying that  
amount to the Receiver General. He requested some time to receive the outstanding  
overtime payment which would more than provide him with funds to cover the amount  
owed for the duplicate payment. Mr. Steeves did not have any concerns about this.  
[426] Mr. Steeves sent an email to Mr. Merrifield on the same day and said, “The review was  
completed and Supt. Proulx was advised. I suspect that if you have not heard any  
different then things were fine.”  
Page: 80  
[427] On January 9, 2006, Mr. Steeves sent an email to Cpl. DuPuy asking for copies of the  
supporting documentation for specific payment requests made by Mr. Merrifield. The  
email concluded as follows: “The issue I am dealing with is somewhat urgent so I am  
soliciting your earliest response.” Mr. Steeves stated that he was not sure why he  
determined the issue to be urgent or why he was contacting Cpl. DuPuy after Supt.  
Proulx told him to hold off on pursuing the matter. He received the documents. They  
were placed in the file.  
[428] Mr. Steeves stated he received an email from S/Sgt. Babinko on January 19, 2006, about  
a Part IV investigation. Mr. Steeves said that this was the first time that he knew that a  
Part IV investigation had been ordered regarding Mr. Merrifield’s use of his Amex card.  
[429] S/Sgt. Babinko requested Mr. Merrifield’s Amex statements from January 2005 to  
January 2006, his expense statements for that time, any documents signed by Mr.  
Merrifield for the use of the card, and any related policy. Mr. Steeves provided all of  
this.  
[430] Six months later, Mr. Steeves received an email from Insp. Block dated July 31, 2006  
regarding the duplicate payment. Supt. Proulx was being transferred and was discussing  
some outstanding issues with Insp. Block before he left his position. Mr. Steeves himself  
was also leaving the Division. Mr. Steeves replied the same day and stated, “There were  
some internal activities (code) being conducted and I was advised not to aggressively  
pursue this until that had been settled.”  
[431] Mr. Steeves stated that he would not have told Mr. Merrifield that “things were fine” in  
his email dated January 5, 2006 if he had thought that there was a problem. If Supt.  
Proulx had told him that there was a problem, he would not have said this. He simply  
wanted the duplicate payment to be repaid. His review showed just some late payments.  
Everything was fine. Mr. Steeves pointed out that misuse and tardiness are two different  
things.  
[432] Mr. Merrifield sent an email to Mr. Proulx dated January 5, 2006, and asked whether  
there was an “accusation of improper use of AMEX/Expenses? Is there reason to believe  
that my AMEX was used for anything other than RCMP business?” Mr. Proulx  
responded by inviting Mr. Merrifield to meet with him if Mr. Merrifield had any  
concerns.  
[433] On January 6, 2006, Supt. Proulx finalized the memorandum and spoke to Supt. Trueman  
before sending it. This was the first Part IV investigation that he had ordered. He  
understood that it would be a fact-finding mission so that he could make an appropriate  
decision as to whether there should be discipline or whether Mr. Merrifield should simply  
be cautioned about how he should manage his matters. Mr. Proulx stated at that time that  
he was not certain that Mr. Merrifield had improperly used his credit card. He had  
doubts. He stated that this is what the investigation was all about.  
Page: 81  
[434] Mr. Proulx stated that around this time, Mr. Merrifield was about to be transferred to a  
different unit. He did not know the date when this would occur. He had no further  
involvement in the credit card issue after he ordered the investigation.  
[435] Mr. Proulx stated he sent a briefing note to the Commissioner dated January 17, 2006.  
On page 2 under current status it states: “On 2006-01-13, after a review of Cst.  
Merrifield’s use and mis-payment of his AMEX card, his line officer directed a Part IV  
investigation alleging that Cst. Merrifield has repeatedly used his Corporate Amex for  
personal reasons.”  
[436] Mr. Proulx could not say why he stated January 13, 2006 in the briefing note when the  
memorandum to S/Sgt. Babinko was dated January 6, 2006. He thought maybe he had  
missed it. He believed he had signed the memorandum on January 13, 2006. Mr. Proulx  
agreed that his notes contained material errors regarding the dates of the withdrawals and  
the payments. He thought they were back-to-back withdrawals at the time. Now he  
knows that they were not. He agreed that Mr. Steeves had sent an email to Cpl DuPuy in  
which he said he required information on an urgent basis regarding Mr. Merrifield. This  
email is dated January 9, 2006. The briefing note dated January 17 states that the Part IV  
investigation was ordered on January 13, 2006. He agreed that the memo to S/Sgt  
Babinko ordering the investigation shows a receipt stamp date of January 18, 2006.  
[437] Mr. Proulx testified that shortly after ordering the Part IV investigation of Mr. Merrifield,  
he himself was engaging in disgraceful conduct that could have brought discredit to the  
Force.  
The Investigation  
[438] Sgt. Dickinson testified that he was in the Complaints and Internal Investigation Section  
(CIIS), now called the Professional Standards Unit, in 2006. His duties at CIIS included  
carrying out Part IV investigations and occasionally doing an administrative review.  
[439] Sgt. Dickinson stated that a Part IV proceeding is initiated by a mandate letter. CIIS was  
asked to conduct a Part IV investigation into Mr. Merrifield’s conduct. He was suspected  
to have contravened administrative policy with respect to the use and payment of his  
Amex card. Sgt. Dickinson was assigned to carry out the investigation on January 24,  
2006.  
[440] He received a file that had been opened by S/Sgt. Babinko. It contained a few  
documents including a form 1624 that detailed the steps that had already been taken.  
S/Sgt. Babinko had made inquiries of John Steeves and Bev Scott in Ottawa, regarding  
the Amex user agreement. No agreement existed. The file also contained the policy  
regarding use of corporate credit cards, the mandate memorandum and a letter to Mr.  
Merrifield advising him that the RCMP had paid the outstanding balance on his Amex  
card.  
Page: 82  
[441] The file was coded “XX82 Intern COM-RCMP Member”. The occurrence date set out  
was October 13, 2005. Sgt. Dickinson stated that when the investigation started, there  
was nothing payable on the Amex card. Mr. Merrifield was hoping that Ms. Scott would  
alert him before the RCMP paid off the amount owing on card. The RCMP had paid the  
account before they alerted him. At no point did Mr. Merrifield say he would not pay the  
account. Mr. Merrifield was waiting for documents to confirm that he had received a  
double payment. This did not form part of the Part IV investigation.  
[442] Sgt. Dickinson stated that in the mandate memorandum, Supt. Proulx did not identify any  
specific transactions of concern nor did he set out a date range or a timeframe. From Sgt.  
Dickinson’s perspective, when he conducted the review, regardless of whether there was  
a $1 item or a $10,000 item, it was within his purview to investigate it. In fact, Sgt.  
Dickinson reviewed Mr. Merrifield’s expenditures and reimbursements back to 2004, one  
of which was $6.00 for parking when Mr. Merrifield was in the Air Carriers program.  
[443] Sgt. Dickinson stated that a number of people could have known that this Part IV  
investigation had been ordered. They would include the line officer, likely the Conduct  
Advisor, the C.O. through monthly reports and members in the CIIS. He stated that this  
group would be advised of the investigation. When he would go out to interview other  
people they would learn some of the details. Anyone he spoke to would know that he  
was from CIIS. He spoke to more than ten people in the course of the investigation.  
[444] Sgt. Dickinson’s first step in the investigation was to contact Mr. Steeves and obtain  
copies of the Amex bills and the expense claims. When he met with Mr. Steeves, Sgt.  
Dickinson took notes on a scratch pad. They state, “While on travel status can use card  
for almost anything.”  
[445] Sgt. Dickinson testified that he did not know that Mr. Merrifield’s card was a covert  
American Express card. The statements showed that they were being sent to the INSET  
office after Mr. Merrifield had left there. The statement for February 14, 2005 is  
addressed to 345 Harry Walker Drive which is the Toronto North detachment. This was  
not Mr. Merrifield’s address either. Sgt. Dickinson was aware that Mr. Merrifield’s  
transfer from TAG was in progress. He agreed that if Mr. Merrifield had moved in May  
2005 he would not be receiving the statements on time. There would be some delay. Mr.  
Merrifield told him that this had occurred.  
[446] Sgt. Dickinson stated that a version of s. 5.1.1 of the Financial Management Manual  
would have been in effect from January 2005 to 2006. It states that, “If suspected misuse  
of the DTC [Designated Travel Card] is identified, ask the employee to provide a written  
explanation for the transaction in question.” The file that S/Sgt. Babinko had opened did  
not contain a written explanation for the cash withdrawals.  
[447] Mr. Merrifield stated that he contacted Sgt. Dickinson in May 2006. Sgt. Dickinson told  
him that there were concerns about cash withdrawals and expenses on the card that were  
not within the authorized use. There were ten cash advances totalling $3,000. At this  
point, Mr. Merrifield did not have any information as to which cash withdrawals were in  
Page: 83  
issue. He was off work on sick leave at the time. He said that he thought the cash  
advances were taken out to make human source payments.  
[448] Sgt. Dickinson followed up on the issue of human source payments by contacting Supt.  
Proulx and Sgt. Christiansen in London. He could not substantiate Mr. Merrifield’s  
statement that he had taken money out to pay sources.  
[449] With respect to the cash withdrawals, Mr. Merrifield stated that RCMP members are not  
covered for health insurance by OHIP. Rather, they are covered by Blue Cross. On July  
19, 2006, Mr. Merrifield sent a detailed, two page email to Supt. Dickinson setting out  
explanations for entries on his Amex account. For example, Mr. Merrifield explained  
that on July 3, 2005, he took a $500 cash advance from Amex to attend a walk in clinic  
after complications from knee surgery. He did not believe that the clinic would accept  
Blue Cross. He needed an X-ray, crutches and a prescription. When he arrived at the  
clinic, it accepted his Blue Cross coverage so he returned the cash advance to his Amex  
account on July 29, 2005. On April 29, 2005, he took a $300 cash advance to purchase  
supplies and props for Operation Bridgeout. On March 3, 2005, he took a $300 advance  
for a TA course in Ottawa. He was not required to use it so he put it back into his Amex  
account. On October 5, 2004, he took a cash advance of $400 which he paid to Bell  
Mobility because the RCMP had agreed to pay for three months of his plan. It was  
submitted and approved as an expense.  
[450] Mr. Merrifield stated that on September 22 and 23, 2004, he took a cash advance of $500  
on each day to pay for eye surgery which had been approved by the RCMP. The surgeon  
would not accept Blue Cross, only cash or a cheque. Mr. Merrifield stated that when he  
received a call the day prior to the surgery to confirm the time, he was advised that  
payment had not been received from the RCMP. He spoke to Health Services. They said  
it was an oversight and that he should cover it. He would be reimbursed quickly. Mr.  
Merrifield stated that he could not cover the amount. He advised Health Services that he  
would use RCMP funds. They said that he should complete a 1393 expense report with  
the surgeon’s receipt and he would be reimbursed as soon as possible. Mr. Merrifield  
stated that he took these steps. These amounts were submitted and approved by Health  
Services. He was reimbursed by Blue Cross and he applied the funds to his Amex  
account.  
[451] In his July 19, 2006 email to Sgt. Dickinson, Mr. Merrifield stated:  
I must state at this time that on at least two occasions in writing  
prior to the ordering of a Code of Conduct, Supt. Proulx stated  
clearly that he would meet with me to discuss the outcome of the  
audit. Had he done as he stated, you may have indeed been spared  
your valuable time in an agency which seems continually short  
staffed. As I have mentioned from the beginning, I have never  
used the RCMP Amex card for non-RCMP business. I maintain at  
least two or three personal credit cards and a personal line of credit  
for a total available credit limit to me exceeding $40,000.  
Page: 84  
I wish to go on the record as very concerned about the actions of  
Supt. Proulx and Mr. John Steeves in relation to this audit and  
Code of Conduct. One day prior to the ordering of the Part IV by  
Supt. Proulx, I questioned Mr. Steeves about details relating to the  
audit. When a clear contradiction of the timing and reason  
surrounding the audit appeared between the facts claimed by Supt.  
Proulx and those of Mr. Steeves, this process went to Part IV. The  
inconsistencies between the facts presented in writing by Mr.  
Steeves and Supt. Proulx can only be described as “suspect” of  
Discreditable Conduct on behalf of the two aforementioned  
individuals. Mr. Steeves refused to answer my queries on January  
05, 2006 and forwarded my e-mail addressed only to him on to  
Supt. Proulx for a response. Supt. Proulx responded on January  
06, 2006 by ordering a Part IV investigation against me contrary to  
his twice written statement that he wished to discuss the findings  
of the audit with me first.  
Please advise me of further requirements in this matter as I will  
continue to assist in any way that I can.  
[452] Sgt. Dickinson stated that he contacted Crystal Cane at O Division Health Services to ask  
whether Mr. Merrifield had submitted a claim for the eye surgery medical expense. She  
confirmed that Mr. Merrifield had submitted an expense claim for $900. Nevertheless,  
Sgt. Dickinson believed that this was not an authorized use of the Amex card.  
[453] With respect to some other cash advances, Mr. Merrifield had stated that they were used  
to purchase gas. Sgt. Dickinson concluded that this was not an authorized use of the  
card.  
[454] The expense claim for Mr. Merrifield’s phone shows an amount of $525 and that it was  
approved. Sgt. Dickinson agreed that if Mr. Merrifield took out $400 to pay the account,  
he did not take out enough. It was definitely a business expense.  
[455] Sgt. Dickinson stated that he requested a credit report on May 18. There was nothing  
remarkable on the credit report. It showed some short-term debt but payments were  
being made.  
[456] Mr. Merrifield stated that he met with Sgt. Dickinson on September 11, 2006. He could  
not provide an interview any earlier because he was off sick. In the interview, he  
provided emails to Sgt. Dickinson showing that he had been told to hold off on making  
Amex payments. Sgt. Dickinson commented that it was already overdue and had been  
paid by the RCMP.  
[457] Mr. Merrifield voluntarily provided personal financial information to show that he had  
significant credit available. He stated that it would be impossible to kite payments on an  
Page: 85  
Amex card. Based on his professional experience, he believed that only credit cards that  
permit minimum payments can be kited.  
[458] Sgt. Dickinson confirmed that when he met with Mr. Merrifield, he produced his personal  
credit card statements which he was under no obligation to do. He was forthright and  
cooperative.  
[459] During the September 11, 2006 meeting, Mr. Merrifield provided a recorded statement.  
He listed the names of 11 officers because they would be able to support his explanation  
for certain expenses. Sgt. Dickinson stated that he did not speak with them. There was  
nothing preventing him from doing so. Sgt. Dickinson said there were unresolved issues  
in his mind but he did not see the point of making further inquiries.  
[460] With respect to the two $500 cash withdrawals, Sgt. Dickinson did not make an inquiry  
past the Health Services document. He stated he did not obtain the document. The  
people at Health Services said it showed that the amount was paid in full. He did not  
make inquiries to see if it had been submitted to the insurer. Nothing prevented him from  
doing this except that he needed Mr. Merrifield’s consent. He did not request it.  
[461] Sgt. Dickinson stated that he could not recall whether Mr. Merrifield told him that no one  
ever asked him for an explanation with respect to the cash withdrawals. He recalled Mr.  
Merrifield said that Supt. Proulx told him there would be meetings and discussions about  
it. It never happened to his knowledge. He saw nothing to document that a meeting had  
ever taken place.  
[462] When he had finished his investigation, Sgt. Dickinson prepared a final report. He stated  
that Mr. Merrifield’s failure to pay the balance due on the Amex card had contravened  
the administrative policy regarding the use of the card. Mr. Merrifield said that he had  
not read the agreement and did not know that the balance had to be paid immediately.  
[463] Sgt. Dickinson suspected that Mr. Merrifield was kiting payments. His understanding of  
kiting was that a person would take cash from one card to make a payment on another.  
When a suggestion was made to him that a person could not kite an Amex card which  
required the full balance to be paid at the end of each month, Sgt. Dickinson stated that  
he did not fully understand the concept of kiting. On the last page of his report, he stated  
that Mr. Merrifield “allowed me to view the monthly statements from one of his two  
personal credit cards. This was done to address any suspicion that he was “kiting” money  
from one card to the next in order to make his payments. Sgt. Dickinson stated at the end  
of this report, “I noted that regular monthly payments were being made and there was no  
apparent correlation between the dates of the payments and any cash withdrawals take  
out against his AMEX card.”  
[464] Sgt. Dickinson did not make any recommendation as to discipline as this was not his role.  
This was within the line officer’s authority.  
Page: 86  
[465] On September 20, 2006, Mr. Merrifield received a Performance Log from Sgt. Brown  
(who was acting officer in charge because Insp. Johnson was ill) with respect to the Part  
IV investigation. It states:  
1. Use of RCMP issued Designated Travel Card (DTC). I  
understand that at present you do not have a DTC, but should  
one be issued to you in the future, you are to comply with  
Admin Manual VII.11, which deals with Travel Credit Cards  
and Accounts. That the DTC will only be used for “Authorized  
Business Travel”. That prior to your using a DTC, you will  
also read and sign the Agreement between you and the  
Government of Canada” card that comes with it. That you will  
pay the DTC account on time.  
2. That you will maintain an up-to-date police notebook while  
you are in Customs and Excise.  
3. That you will not use your personal motor vehicle for any  
RCMP business unless you have prior approval from your  
supervisor as per RCMP policy. That you will then forward an  
expense claim for mileage as per policy.  
4. That you will promptly forward any expense claims and/or  
over time. That as with all members of the GTA, C&E, you  
require prior approval from your supervisor for overtime. That  
without this prior approval you risk not being paid for it.  
Peter having had an opportunity to read one of your performance  
appraisals on another matter, I am sure you are an extremely  
capable member. Our section will only benefit from your transfer  
to it. I look forward to working with you in moving ahead from  
this point.  
A copy of this 1004 will be forwarded to CIIS to be placed on file  
so that it may be concluded.  
[466] Mr. Merrifield referred to the Financial Management Manual that sets out policy  
regarding travel credit cards and accounts. Section 5.1.1 under the heading “Misuse of  
Designated Travel Cards” states “If suspected misuse of the DTC [designated travel card]  
is identified, ask the employee to provide a written explanation for the transaction in  
question.”  
[467] Mr. Merrifield stated that he was never asked to provide a written explanation with  
respect to the transactions that formed the basis of the Part IV investigation ordered by  
Supt. Proulx. Mr. Merrifield said the action taken by Supt. Proulx was retaliatory. There  
was no reason for it. The cash withdrawals were legitimate and easily explained. The  
Page: 87  
Part IV investigation was ordered 14 hours after Mr. Merrifield had said that he would be  
seeking process for harassment.  
[468] Mr. Merrifield testified that the investigation took 11 months. The Performance Log was  
served on him. The outcome was that the allegations were unfounded.  
[469] After he finished his report dated September 15, 2006, Sgt. Dickinson sent an email on  
October 19, 2006 to Supt. Hebert. He was responsible for the CIIS units. Sgt. Dickinson  
could not explain why he was communicating with Supt. Hebert with respect to the  
investigation. It appeared that he had read the file and was asking some questions. The  
initial email refers to, “Our phone conversation from a couple of weeks ago…” Sgt.  
Dickinson stated that there was nothing in his notebook about this phone conversation. It  
was undocumented. He agreed that it would be out of the ordinary for him to be  
communicating with Supt. Hebert because Mr. Merrifield was not in his chain of  
command. Supt. Hebert would have been aware of the inquiry because Sgt. Dickinson  
had asked him questions about payments to human sources. Supt. Hebert was a senior  
officer to him.  
[470] Sgt. Dickinson’s email to Supt. Hebert dated October 19, 2006, reported on the outcome  
of the investigation. It states:  
1. All AMEX expenses and cash withdrawals of consequence were  
confirmed as being work and/or medical related. For some minor  
expenses ($20 – 25 range – meals, parking etc), there was no  
documentation or notes to support but the member did have a  
credible explanation.  
2. Cst. Merrifield said that he had always been advised by  
supervisors (and believed them) that any expense that could be  
claimed on a 1393 could be charged on the AMEX card.  
[471] Sgt. Dickinson stated that his final report was never produced to Mr. Merrifield until this  
action was commenced. In the ordinary course he would not have received it or seen it  
unless he accessed it through an Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) request.  
[472] In June 2006, in the middle of the investigation, Supt. Proulx was transferred to a  
different position at the police college in Aylmer.  
[473] C/Supt. Mazerolle stated that he was aware of the Amex issue in late fall of 2005 because  
Supt. Proulx had told him about his concerns. He would meet with someone from  
corporate finance every four to six weeks to discuss any issues as his budget was 93% of  
the entire division budget. John Steeves had brought the Amex issue to his attention.  
[474] C/Supt. Mazerolle stated that he did not take any action or provide any directions to Supt.  
Proulx, who he thought had things under control. He stated that Part IV investigations  
were not a regular occurrence. If any officer under his authority requested one, he would  
Page: 88  
usually be advised of it. He could not override it. He agreed that a Part IV investigation  
is a more formal step against a member. Ordinarily, he would learn of approximately  
two Part IV investigations per year.  
[475] C/Supt. Mazerolle stated that he believed that the allegations regarding the Part IV  
investigation relating to Mr. Merrifield’s use of the Amex card were substantiated but not  
the allegations that Mr. Merrifield had failed to follow the related policy. He did not  
receive a copy of Sgt. Dickinson’s concluding report regarding the investigation. He  
never spoke to Sgt. Dickinson. He was not aware of the outcome.  
The Administrative Review - Ottawa Citizen Article January 17, 2006  
[476] On January 17, 2006, one week before Sgt. Dickinson was assigned to the Part IV  
investigation, the Ottawa Citizen Newspaper published an article written by Gary  
Dimmock entitled, “RCMP Demotes Officer over Political Bid”. The article quoted from  
Mr. Merrifield’s performance evaluations. Mr. Merrifield stated that he did not know  
about the article before it was published.  
[477] On January 19, 2006, Mr. Merrifield’s lawyer at the time, Raj Anand of Weir Foulds,  
wrote a letter to Commissioner Zaccardelli stating that Mr. Merrifield had not provided  
any documents to the Ottawa Citizen. Mr. Anand also stated:  
…Constable Merrifield is very concerned about the reprisals and  
harassment that he has suffered and continues to experience as a  
result of exercising his employment, statutory and Charter rights to  
engage in political activity…  
[478] C.O. Seguin wrote a letter to Mr. Anand dated February 24, 2006, in response to his letter  
dated January 19, 2006. He stated:  
The RCMP is committed to providing a safe and respectful work  
environment, free of discrimination, offensive behaviour and  
harassment. In support of its commitment, it has several internal  
mechanisms that deal with any form of reprisals and harassment in  
the work place. These mechanisms are at Constable Merrifield’s  
disposal and they can be accessed by him or, if he requires advice,  
counseling or assistance, through his Staff Relations  
Representative.  
[479] C/Supt. Mazerolle stated that he was familiar with the Ottawa Citizen article. He received  
an email from Insp. Petit, of the National Security Branch in Ottawa, before 9:00 a.m. on  
January 17, 2006 regarding a media summary. C/Supt. Mazerolle explained that senior  
executives within the RCMP received one of these every Monday about anything of  
concern in the media. He stated that Insp. Petit asked him to prepare a briefing note to  
the Commissioner regarding some of the statements in the article. Chief Supt. Mazerolle  
stated that he asked Supt. Proulx and others to prepare the response for the  
Page: 89  
Commissioner. He received a draft and edited it. It is dated January 17, 2006. Among  
other things, it states:  
All reasonable steps were taken to ensure that Cst. Merrifield was  
allowed to participate in the political process. However, it is clear  
that the Member has placed himself in a position of at least a  
perceived conflict of interest which jeopardizes the effectiveness  
and reputation of both the RCMP and the Member. As a result,  
measured and reasonable steps have been taken to minimize that  
conflict and ensure the effectiveness of the RCMP.  
The media reports are fundamentally flawed in that they  
erroneously report that Cst. Merrifield has been demoted. In  
addition it must be noted that a Part IV investigation has recently  
been commenced and this may be a contributing factor.  
[480] C/Supt. Mazerolle stated that he spoke to District Commander Davis in the GTA district.  
Customs and Excise reported to him. C/Supt. Mazerolle stated that he sent him a copy of  
the article and discussed the requirement for an administrative review to determine how  
the information got the Ottawa Citizen.  
[481] Mr. Proulx stated that on January 17, 2006 C/Supt. Mazerolle called him. He wanted an  
explanation as to what had happened and where the information had come from.  
Paragraph two of the article stated, “Const. Peter Merrifield, who unsuccessfully sought  
the Conservative nomination in Barrie, Ont., in May 2005, was told months later that it  
would be in the best interests of the RCMP… if he was assigned to other duties not  
related to politics.”  
[482] Mr. Proulx stated that he was concerned that someone had released an email. The  
comment was almost the same as the comment he had made in the email to Insp. Brine.  
That was a protected document and should not have been disclosed. Mr. Proulx stated  
that on January 17, 2006, he wrote a briefing note to C/Supt. Mazerolle on the topic. By  
this time, he had already requested the Part IV investigation. He sent the first draft of the  
briefing note to C/Supt. Mazerolle. He and the C.O. made some changes to it.  
[483] C.O. Seguin stated that he had read the article in the paper. The statement that Mr.  
Merrifield was demoted was inaccurate. His rank was not lowered. Rather he received a  
lateral transfer. C.O. Seguin was aware that the transfer was going to happen.  
[484] C/Supt. Mazerolle stated that he signed off on the briefing note. He agreed that the  
policy that had been brought to Mr. Merrifield’s attention was a new policy in September  
of 2006. When he prepared the briefing note, he was aware that Supt. Proulx had ordered  
a Part IV investigation.  
[485] After the briefing note went out, C/Supt. Mazerolle’s next step was to discuss the matter  
with C.O. Seguin. He wanted to know how the information was leaked. C/Supt.  
Page: 90  
Mazerolle stated he contacted District Commissioner Davis. They concluded that in an  
administrative review would be appropriate to determine the details. This was  
communicated to Insp. Johnson.  
[486] On January 25, 2006, Insp. Johnson sent a memorandum to CIIS requesting the  
administrative review into the “unauthorized release of Protected and Classified  
Information and/or documents relating to Cst. Peter Merrifield” which were quoted in the  
Ottawa Citizen article.  
[487] Sgt. Dickinson was assigned to conduct the administrative review in addition to the Part  
IV investigation. He explained that an administrative review involves a wide range of  
people and is an investigation of a situation to obtain the facts whereas a Part IV  
investigation is an investigation of an allegation against a member. An administrative  
investigation is not a disciplinary process.  
[488] The administrative review consisted of interviewing eight witnesses including Mr.  
Merrifield. He advised Sgt. Dickinson that he had given certain documents to four or  
five lawyers that he had consulted with respect to a civil suit. Sgt. Dickinson stated that  
these types of documents cannot be disclosed without going through RCMP policies. Mr.  
Merrifield stated to him that he was not aware of the policy and felt he had the right to do  
what he wanted with any documents relating to him.  
[489] Mr. Merrifield testified that this comment was taken out of context. It was related to  
something that he had said to his lawyer.  
[490] Mr. Merrifield stated that the administrative review was concluded in October 2006. He  
received a document stamped “Received Oct 25, 2006” which stated, among other things,  
the following:  
A review of this investigation indicates that he [Sgt. Dickinson]  
was unable to determine who had released the information to Mr.  
DIMMOCK. However in your interview you indicate that you  
gave copies of documents, that the quotes in question come from,  
to several lawyers and/or law firms. That you also stated that you  
were unaware of the policy concerning the release of information.  
You went on to further state “but I believe as an employee of the  
RCMP I’m fully entitled to use reports of my performance  
however I see fit”.  
Documents that are protected and/or classified are property the  
RCMP and must be treated as such.  
You are to review Informatics Manual IV.1.C.8vi and A.T.I.P.  
procedures. In the future please comply with these regulations and  
procedures prior to releasing any Protected and/or Classified  
RCMP materials.  
Page: 91  
A copy of this 1004 will be forwarded to “O” Division CIIs to be  
placed on file so that it may be concluded.  
[491] Regarding the comments set out in the Performance Log, Mr. Merrifield stated that he did  
not have a DTC at the relevant time. Members in the Air Marshalls Unit had been  
instructed not to keep notes. They travelled with covert Amex cards. They were not to  
have anything that might identify them with the RCMP.  
[492] With regard to the direction that personal vehicles were not to be used for RCMP  
business, Mr. Merrifield recalled that while he was at INSET, TAG had contacted him  
regarding death threats that had been made against a notable Canadian. They were the  
same as threats that had been made against the citizens of the Netherlands. They came  
from a similar address and had similar language. A person had been murdered in the  
street by an Islamic terrorist. Mr. Merrifield stated that he believed this to be a “risk to  
persons”. He and his partner were armed. INSET had 15 police vehicles. He stated that  
he requested keys but none could be found. Neither Supt. Jagoe nor S/Sgt. King were in  
the office. Mr. Merrifield felt that the matter was urgent. He and his partner took his  
personal vehicle and drove to the residence of the person to conduct business.  
[493] C/Supt. Mazerolle stated that he recalled receiving Insp. Johnson’s report with the  
findings. No disciplinary step was taken against Mr. Merrifield but he thought that there  
was something about unlawfully disclosing documents to his lawyer that he did not have  
authority to do.  
[494] C/Supt. Mazerolle also thought the allegations in the Part IV investigation and in the  
administrative review had been substantiated. He did not recall who told him this but  
thought it was the C.O. He still believes this to be true. In other words, he still believes  
that Mr. Merrifield leaked confidential information to the media and committed fraud in  
dealing with his Amex account, activities that constituted disgraceful conduct that could  
bring discredit to the Force.  
[495] Sgt. Dickinson stated that at the end of the review, he could not substantiate who released  
the documents to the Ottawa Citizen.  
Mr. Merrifield’s work at Customs & Excise  
[496] In July 2006, Mr. Merrifield returned to work. At that time, there was one other officer  
in Customs & Excise, Cpl. McEachern. Subsequently, another officer, Cst.  
Schuliakewich joined the department. Mr. Merrifield stated that he and Cst.  
Schuliakewich wanted to do significant investigations. They started with responding to  
Crime Stoppers tips about variety stores selling tobacco. Subsequently, they investigated  
importing of counterfeit tobacco and illegal sales of native tobacco. This led them to the  
Outlaw motorcycle gang. They undertook a significant investigation regarding cross-  
border weapons smuggling including assault rifles with armour piercing ammunition and  
grenade launchers. Mr. Merrifield stated that he continued to recruit human sources.  
Page: 92  
[497] Cpl. McEachern prepared a performance evaluation for Mr. Merrifield that covered the  
period January 16, 2006 to August 17, 2007. The following are some excerpts from Cpl.  
McEachern’s comments:  
Cst. Merrifield brought with him a number of years’ experience  
within General Duty policing, Canadian Air Carrier Protection  
Section and intelligence work with INSET and CIS. He is also a  
trained Range Officer & Basic Firearms Instructor. The skills he  
brought to the Unit in the area of intelligence led policing, source  
handling, and tactical operation have proven to be a valuable  
asset…  
His strong work ethic was most evident in Project OSPENCELY,  
and ongoing weapons investigation where he is the lead  
investigator. In this matter there was little information, however he  
utilized several different sources of information and enlisted others  
to assist in the investigation has expanded into a major u/c  
operation…  
Constable Merrifield is capable of effectively adopting his  
behaviour to changing circumstances in order to reach a goal. He  
demonstrates perseverance and takes the initiative. He shows  
enthusiasm to doing an outstanding job and will adjust his work  
and personal schedule in order to achieve same…  
Cst. Merrifield since arriving in the Toronto North C & E Unit has  
displayed an eagerness to learn everything he can to allow him to  
properly fulfil his role within the C & E Unit… He is motivated to  
gain the expertise and has reached out to our partner agencies such  
as the CBSA, Department of Homeland Security to gain this  
knowledge. He is not hesitant to seek advice from any senior  
experienced members to assist him in his work…  
Cst. Merrifield initially found he had a sharp learning curve  
relating to many of the Operational, Administrative and Court  
documents used in the Federal Policing environment…His written  
work…can now be described as complete, concise and presented in  
a timely manner. This is very evident in the recent files where he  
has prepared numerous documents such as C – 237 Reports, Form  
2350 Operational Plans, Search Warrants, Production Orders and  
briefings for fellow members. These documents have been  
processed through the chain of command, courts and found to be  
clear, concise and easily understood.  
Cst. Merrifield has expertise in the area of Weapons & Gangs and  
developed a presentation in this regard to present to law  
Page: 93  
enforcement personnel. In this past year he has given the  
presentation at an Ontario National Gang Investigators Conference,  
a Gang & Weapons Conference for Municipal and Regional Police  
Forces in southwestern Ontario and also to a GTA Customs &  
Excise Workshop. Comments from officers attending have stated  
that the information provided was very timely, knowledgeable and  
appropriate for the personnel given to…  
Cst. Merrifield interacts with all individuals in a respectful manner.  
He gets along well with other members and is respectful of the  
chain of command. Since his arrival to the Unit he has undertaken  
to develop contacts within the regional police services, Toronto  
Police Service, CBSA, OPP National Firearms Centre, Chief  
Provincial Firearms Office and foreign agencies such as ATF and  
Department of Homeland Security. He has also been active in  
developing Human sources and this is a strong aspect of his  
abilities. He has worked with both as a Primary and Secondary  
handler of several Human sources.  
[498] Sgt. Pettipas, Mr. Merrifield’s intermediate supervisor, made the following comments on  
the performance evaluation:  
He has expertise in firearms that no one else possesses. He is  
enthusiastic in the performance of his duties and is extremely  
successful in recruiting human sources which is the backbone of  
police work. I consider Cst. Merrifield to be an asset to the unit. He  
is respected by his coworkers and readily assists whenever needed.  
[499] Insp. Johnson stated: “Cst. Merrifield has developed into a tremendous asset for this  
unit. Keep up the great work!”  
[500] Mr. Merrifield explained that subsequently, the RCMP changed its reporting period for  
performance reports to the fiscal year from the date that a member joined the Force.  
Another performance report was completed which covered the period April 28, 2007 to  
April 28, 2008. Sgt. Pettipas made the following comment:  
Cst. Merrifield has encountered numerous incidents involving the  
RCMP which would weigh heavily on anyone. In spite of this he  
approaches his job with honesty and integrity and a commitment to  
do the best job he is able. Constable Merrifield is well respected  
by his peers. They look to him for advice as well as observing how  
he handles challenging situations. They learned by his example and  
follow his lead.  
[501] Insp. Johnson stated:  
Page: 94  
Cst. Merrifield has been instrumental in national security/counter  
proliferation files. He is quickly establishing himself as an expert  
and is a critical resource for GTA CES. He is fully capable of  
assuming greater responsibility at the supervisory/mgmt level and  
expect him to be a strong candidate for the OCDP [officer  
candidate development program]. This mbr [member] is a truly  
exceptional performer!  
[502] Through the relationships he built with other agencies, Mr. Merrifield carried out an  
intelligence probe with respect to the procurement of dual use, controlled items regarding  
Iran’s advancement of its nuclear program. He described this as national security,  
counter-espionage work. Items were sought by enemy states for advancement of  
weapons of mass destruction including biological weapons. He stated that he learned  
from another enforcement agency that there was an opportunity to stop, in transit, items  
required for uranium enrichment that were going from the U.S. and Canada to Iran via  
the United Arab Emirates.  
[503] A subsequent performance report covering the period April 28, 2008 to April 28, 2009,  
notes that, “In Nov 08, Cst. Merrifield conducted a Powerpoint presentation on topics  
surrounding Counter Proliferation to the participants from across Canada. This was the  
first course on Counter Proliferation conducted in Canada.”  
Meeting with C.O. Seguin – October 3, 2006  
[504] On August 15 2006, Mr. Merrifield sent a two page email to C.O. Seguin, It states the  
following:  
Sir,  
I respectfully request your consideration in reviewing this  
message. I respect that it is perhaps unorthodox to make direct  
contact with the Division C.O. but I believe that the circumstances  
warrant a clear line of communication to avoid any  
misrepresentation of the information contained within.  
There is a misconception that I am “constantly” in the media.  
Nothing could be further from the truth. In the last 10 months I  
have been inundated with media requests and contacts. I have  
never once cooperated, gone on the record or willingly provided  
comment regarding my involvement in politics and possible  
sanctions by the RCMP or any issue that would reflect negatively  
upon the RCMP. Any involvement that I have had with the media  
has been in my capacity with the Mounted Police Association of  
Ontario. My involvement there was born out of the unfair  
treatment that I received for my political involvement by certain  
officers in this Division.  
Page: 95  
I have been a loyal and hard-working member since joining the  
RCMP and serving in “F” Div. in 1997. My service/personnel  
records clearly show a consistent pattern of hard work and of being  
a team player. Since transferring to “O” Div. my annual  
assessments continue to show that willingness to go the extra  
distance, attain results, and be a team player. While I appreciate  
that my decision to become involved in Politics makes certain  
individuals in the RCMP uncomfortable it is my right both legally  
and by RCMP policy. I have been cautious and prudent to never  
mix my career in the RCMP in my outside interest or activities in  
politics. This worked very successfully in 2004 when I participated  
in a number of nominations and the Federal election.  
In 2005 while working in a different section with different  
management I again exercised my rights in accordance to policy  
which I had received in writing. I was truthful and forthright in  
answering questions to managers regarding my intentions and  
involvement. While intrusive and none of their business I firmly  
went on the record with Cpl. Crane and Insp. Jagoe prior to the  
May 2005 nomination informing them both that I would not be  
participating in the election of 2005. My involvement in a  
nomination for personal reasons followed guidelines provided to  
me by NHQ. Insp. Jagoe’s response and subsequent repeated false  
allegations have far surpassed harassment guidelines and have  
effectively destroyed my reputation and career. Superintendent  
Proulx’s handling of the situation only served to mitigate the  
circumstances, was unprofessional and abusive. The actions of  
both officers broke constitutional rights and practices as well as the  
RCMP Act.  
When I attempted to bring these issues to the attention of the  
Commissioner, the CHRO and yourself you were the only one to  
respond. Unfortunately you only responded to the mention of  
harassment and did not reply to the constitutional violations. As a  
result I had legal representatives research and prepare an opinion  
based the materials and evidence I had gathered. Much of the  
statements and documents collected reflect poorly on certain  
officers involved in this situation. I am now in the possession of a  
legal opinion which recommends a course of action which would  
be favourable to me but perhaps reflect poorly on the reputation  
and image of the RCMP. To this point I am writing to you for  
intervention in resolving the situation in the best interest of all  
parties. In the legal opinion it is a recommended course of action to  
request a Ministerial Investigation of the circumstances by the  
Page: 96  
Office of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Planning  
followed by Constitutional challenges and Statements of claim.  
Beginning in the autumn of 2005 I have received repeated requests  
from a National Newspaper and a City newspaper regarding my  
situation and the possibility of Political interference by the RCMP.  
I have refused comment. This past Friday I received a phone call  
from a National television news magazine requesting my  
cooperation for a news story. They informed me of a second  
RCMP member suspended for political involvement as well as  
actions/statements by the former Commissioner of Public  
complaints for the RCMP and the British Columbia Civil Liberties  
Association. Mention was made last December by reporters who  
contacted me about my situation in reference to the McDonald  
Royal Commission of Inquiry into certain actions of the RCMP. At  
no time have I ever gone on the record or cooperated with the  
media in any capacity that would harm the reputation of the  
RCMP.  
At this point my level of frustration and the lack of forward  
momentum to resolve the situation leaves me in the position of  
acting in my own best interest as the RCMP seems uninterested in  
resolving the situation.  
I would request Sir that an attempt be made to clearly  
communicate with me to review and resolve the outstanding issues.  
I am and hope to continue to be a proud member of the RCMP  
however I hold my values and reputation highly. I am not one to  
shy away from a fight or accept undo discredit to my character and  
reputation. I am certain that if you were presented with all of the  
facts from day one you would form a much different opinion than  
you currently hold of the situation.  
I extend this offer against the advice of my lawyers in the hope of  
saving undue negative attention to the RCMP from Inquiries and  
lawsuits. It is my hope that common sense and a shared interest in  
the reputation of our organization will prevail over preconceived  
and incorrect opinions.  
Very Best regards  
Cst. Peter Merrifield  
[505] Mr. Seguin stated that he was brought in to the Commanding Officer position to bring  
RCMP values into O. Division which included maintaining a respectful workplace. Mr.  
Seguin wrote a “commanding officers communique” dated December 13, 2005 which  
Page: 97  
announced mandatory harassment course online which all RCMP employees were  
required to do. The third paragraph of the communique states:  
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is committed to a harassment  
free workplace for all employees. Within O. Division, we will be  
undertaking the initiatives over the next year to ensure all  
managers and supervisors have the training they need to be  
effective leaders. Managers and supervisors are expected to be  
respectful in their dealings with all employees and to provide  
appropriate and developmental directions and feedback. At the  
same time, employees are expected to accept direction that is  
provided in a respectful manner and to treat their  
managers/supervisors and co-workers with respect.  
[506] The email that C.O. Seguin received from Mr. Merrifield dated August 15, 2006, resulted  
in a meeting that took place on October 3, 2006. Mr. Seguin stated that Mr. Merrifield’s  
decision to become involved in politics did not make him uncomfortable at all. In his  
position as Ethics Advisor he had dealt with this previously. Mr. Seguin understood from  
the email that Mr. Merrifield was making it clear that he was going to be proceeding with  
legal action.  
[507] Mr. Seguin’s point in meeting with Mr. Merrifield was to listen to his concerns. Mr.  
Seguin stated that at the meeting, Mr. Merrifield took him through his experience at  
INSET, the 2004 election and talked about a second attempt for nomination in 2005. He  
spoke of the Barrie nomination meeting, Cpl. Frith’s attendance and the backlash that  
happened afterwards. He said that Insp. Jagoe knew Mr. Merrifield would be seeking a  
nomination ahead of time and said nothing. Now, Insp. Jagoe was raising an issue after  
the fact which constituted entrapment. Mr. Merrifield felt that if something was not right,  
it should have been raised earlier. He thought Cpl. Frith had been ordered by Insp. Jagoe  
to attend the meeting and that was not right. He then spoke about the Stronach  
investigation, his transfer from TAG to Customs and Excise and that he was upset that he  
had been taken off the Stronach investigation. He felt he could do the job effectively and  
did not feel there was a conflict. He stated that Supt. Proulx had spoken to him  
disrespectfully and in a harsh manner. He said he had statements from other members to  
this effect. Mr. Merrifield said that Supt. Proulx told him he would never work in  
Criminal Intelligence again. Mr. Merrifield provided to C.O. Seguin some emails he had  
received from Supt. Proulx.  
[508] Mr. Seguin read these emails. He did not find anything disrespectful in them. Supt.  
Proulx used a very businesslike tone. Mr. Merrifield reviewed the SOC incident and was  
upset that his participation had been denied. This was tied to TAG. Mr. Merrifield said  
he felt he had been singled out by an audit of his Amex card and the Part IV investigation  
which had been completed. Mr. Seguin told Mr. Merrifield that if Cpl. Frith had done  
something illegal, it would be looked into and dealt with. He made this commitment to  
Mr. Merrifield. Mr. Seguin stated that he was going to look into the issue of why Cpl.  
Frith had been at the nomination meeting. There was nothing more for him to do.  
Page: 98  
[509] According to Mr. Merrifield, C.O. Seguin said to him at the end of the meeting, “Based  
upon some of the things you’ve told me, I may be left with no choice but to call a code of  
conduct investigation [with respect to Insp. Jagoe and Supt. Proulx].”  
[510] A week after the meeting with Mr. Merrifield, on approximately October 10, 2006, C.O.  
Seguin met with C/Supt. Mazerolle. He asked C/Supt. Mazerolle to follow up on the Cpl.  
Frith issue and specifically whether he had been ordered to attend the nomination  
meeting. He wanted to get to the bottom of the matter. Supt. Panchuk was asked to do  
an administrative review to determine the facts behind the situation.  
[511] Mr. Seguin reviewed a memorandum dated January 17, 2007. Attached to it were  
statements provided by Sgt. Park and Cpl. Frith which Supt. Panchuk had obtained. In  
addition, there was a statement from Insp. Jagoe that had been provided on January 18,  
2007. In it, he stated:  
I drew the conclusion that when we spoke [at the dinner] he [Mr.  
Merrifield] would have known that he was running as a candidate  
and not just ‘considering running.’ I base this conclusion on the  
timing of the pamphlet and upon reflection when I read the  
pamphlet I recalled Constable Merrifield had told me it was  
expensive to run a campaign as it required a lot of money. I  
believed that he would not commit finances to the publishing of a  
pamphlet unless he was serious about running.  
[512] On October 25, 2006, Mr. Merrifield sent a follow up email to C.O. Seguin. He  
reiterated one of his concerns, that Cpl. Frith had attended a political nomination meeting  
to obtain campaign literature at the direction of Insp. Jagoe. He referred to a Ministerial  
Directive regarding sensitive sector operations, one of which is legitimate political  
functions. He stated, “please accept my deepest appreciation for your attention in these  
matters, it has been my hope to address these issues in a satisfactory manner resulting in  
the best possible outcome for both the RCMP and my own personal interests.”  
[513] During the October meeting, Mr. Merrifield showed C.O. Seguin two statements from  
regular members in which they said that Supt. Proulx had commented that Mr. Merrifield  
would never work in Criminal Intelligence again. Mr. Seguin stated that he did not  
assign anyone to investigate Mr. Merrifield’s allegations against Supt. Proulx. He said  
that when he met with Mr. Merrifield, he already had management’s perspective  
regarding everything that Mr. Merrifield told him. He did not perceive at that point that  
there was harassment. Mr. Merrifield was complaining about how management did their  
job and he presented emails in support of his complaints. Mr. Seguin said he read the  
emails and did not see anything confrontational in them. He agreed that Mr. Merrifield  
told him that the meeting with Supt. Proulx was confrontational and aggressive.  
Nevertheless, the emails were businesslike. He did not make any inquiries of third  
parties about the meeting. He did not read Cst. Brown and Sgt. Sim’s statements nor did  
he take their names or follow up on the statements, even though he agreed that the best  
people to ask about an issue would be third parties with no interest. Despite the  
Page: 99  
diametrically opposed views, he was satisfied that Mr. Merrifield had been treated fairly.  
Aside from looking into the Cpl. Frith issue, he did not request that anything else be  
investigated.  
[514] Mr. Seguin stated that he could not recall specific conversations about any further  
investigations or fact finding arising from the October 3, 2007 meeting but if complaints  
were made against officers, he would have “looked around and got a feel for it.” He  
probably would have had a conversation with C/Supt. Mazerolle as he was closer to  
operations. Mr. Seguin stated that he felt he had both sides of the story. He had Mr.  
Merrifield’s view and he also had the perspective from the chain of command. He had  
officers saying that a Member was not following policy and an officer saying that other  
officers were treating him badly. His expectation was that if Mr. Merrifield felt that he  
was being harassed, there was an appropriate mechanism within the organization to deal  
with it, being the internal grievance procedure. Mr. Merrifield could have made a  
harassment complaint. It would have been fully investigated and all of the facts would  
have been brought forward. If a complaint had been made, C.O. Seguin would have  
reviewed it and would have been the decision maker. He would not have been the  
investigator.  
[515] Mr. Seguin stated that he had received Supt. Proulx’s memo to Mr. Merrifield dated  
September 28, 2005. He had no concerns that Mr. Merrifield had not been  
inappropriately dealt with by his line officer. He could not recall why Mr. Merrifield had  
not been transferred to the investigative side of INSET.  
[516] Supt. Davis was working out of the Newmarket building and was responsible for a  
number of departments including Customs and Excise. Mr. Merrifield was under his  
command then.  
[517] He attended the meeting on October 3, 2006. He stated that he was not advised of the  
purpose of the meeting. The C.O. was simply looking for someone to be present.  
[518] It appears that Supt. Davis did have some involvement in the issue prior to the meeting.  
Initially, he stated that he said he had never previously seen an email from Ms. Robson to  
Supt. Hebert stating that she had received a call from Supt. Davis about a meeting to take  
place at 2:00 p.m. and that she had sent a two page letter to him. Supt. Davis asked her to  
fax the references in the letter, which she had done. Supt. Davis stated that he had no  
recollection of that transaction and felt that there was a chance that the C.O.’s secretary  
may have asked for something. He stated he had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the  
email and stated he must have made the call. He did not recall making the phone call or  
receiving any of the documents. He agreed that it did look like he had requested the  
material and received it.  
[519] Supt. Davis stated that prior to the meeting, he was aware that Mr. Merrifield was  
involved in politics. He did not have any of details. He would receive media summaries  
on his desk regularly and recalled that Mr. Merrifield had been interviewed by a variety  
Page: 100  
of media outlets. He stated that he did not know about any difficulties between Mr.  
Merrifield, Insp. Jagoe and Supt. Proulx.  
[520] Supt. Davis recalled that at the meeting Mr. Merrifield spoke first, initially about the  
reason for the meeting which was to explain the context of events that had occurred so  
that the C.O. would understand them. He referred to the frequency of media  
communications and the meeting after the nomination meeting. He spoke about Supt.  
Proulx and the response of the officers that he reported to regarding the events. Mr.  
Merrifield’s message was that he valued his role in the RCMP. He did not act outside of  
the scope of policy. He believed that the officers could have handled matters better. He  
stated Supt. Proulx’s reaction was unnecessarily harsh. Mr. Merrifield stated he did not  
intend to do anything outside of the organization’s expectations.  
[521] Supt. Davis recalled that C.O. Seguin asked Mr. Merrifield what he wanted done or  
solved. Mr. Merrifield said he wanted to inform Supt. Davis and the C.O. of the context  
around the nomination meeting so that the C.O. would have a favourable impression of  
him as a member.  
[522] Supt. Davis stated that this single meeting was his only involvement with Mr. Merrifield  
regarding the issues.  
[523] Mr. Ford retired from the RCMP as a Staff Sergeant. He first encountered Mr. Merrifield  
in the Air Marshalls Program where he was the watch commander. In February 2006, he  
was elected to be an SRR. In this position, he met with C.O. Seguin from time to time.  
[524] Mr. Ford stated that his initial contact with Mr. Merrifield was at the request of C/Supt.  
Mazerolle regarding the duplicate cheque issue. During their discussions, he and Mr.  
Merrifield discussed what was going on in his life, beginning with Cpl. Frith’s speaking  
to Supt. Jagoe about the Barrie nomination meeting pamphlet.  
Mr. Merrifield’s Email to C.O. Seguin – January 19, 2007  
[525] Mr. Ford stated that Mr. Merrifield sent him a lengthy email dated January 19, 2007, the  
subject of which was “Issues of Concern”. Mr. Ford could not recall whether Mr.  
Merrifield offered to write it or whether he asked Mr. Merrifield to send it so that he  
would have it as a reference in his next meeting with the C.O. The email stated:  
Hi Doug,  
The following is some information for your discussions regarding  
my concerns.  
Cpl. FRITH attended two political functions in 2005 at which I  
saw or spoke to him. The Barrie nomination in May 2005 where  
the campaign literature was present, and a barbecue in Barrie with  
Stephen HARPER in August 2005 were Frith introduced me to his  
neighbour.  
Page: 101  
If Sgt. PARK conducted the interview there may be a conflict as  
prior to the nomination I worked with Sgt. PARK extensively on  
Operation Bridge Out up to and including the days before the  
nomination. He was fully aware of my pending participation as  
were many members at INSET. No effort was made to conceal my  
involvement as I was led to believe that I was acting in accordance  
fully with policy as it had been articulated to me. Sgt. PARK is a  
close associate of Insp. JAGOE and they socialize outside of the  
workplace motorcycle riding. Following the scandal post  
nomination Sgt. PARK provided a very positive 1004 for  
outstanding efforts on my work during Operation Bridgeout. Sgt.  
PARK at no point leading up to the nomination expressed any  
concerns about my activity.  
During my discussions regarding the nomination with Cpl. FRITH  
he advised me that he “may have gotten me in trouble”. He stated  
that Isp. JAGOE and Cpl. CRANE had questioned him about  
campaign literature which he was in possession of. JAGOE  
demanded copies from FRITH and FRITH advised that he stated to  
JAGOE that those copies were his own private belongings. FRITH  
then advised [that] JAGOE requested campaign material from the  
nomination meeting which is an order from a superior officer to  
subordinate. This means that when FRITH attended the nomination  
he was for all intents and purposes on Duty acting on the Direction  
of the Inspector.  
FRITH provided a statement to me in which he states clearly that  
JAGOE stated to FRITH after the fact to “not worry, I will protect  
your identity”. This raises questions as [to] JAGOE’S belief  
regarding the legality of what he had ordered.  
JAGOE, CRANE and a number of “O” Div HQ personnel were all  
aware of my participation in the nomination on Friday, May 13.  
JAGOE and CRANE reported it to “O” HQ as a policy violation  
and RCMP Act offence. JAGOE reported several perceived  
offences but did not bother to check policy which clearly would  
have mitigated the perception of wrongdoing. At no time did any  
member of the RCMP attempt to contact me prior to my  
participation on Saturday May 14 to clarify the situation.  
On Friday, May 13 CRANE stated to Cst.s PAOR and OTT that  
“Peter is in a lot of trouble, he has overstepped his bounds and  
won’t be with us much longer”. This was one day prior to my  
nomination appearance.  
Page: 102  
On Monday, May 16 I was confronted by CRANE and asked to  
meet privately in a closed office. CRANE presented a number of  
allegations toward me for my participation most of which I  
dispelled by showing CRANE the appropriate RCMP policy.  
CRANE stated that allegations/concerns were presented to him by  
Insp. JAGOE.  
During the period May 19-25 Insp. JAGOE again contacted “O”  
HQ to provide false allegations against me for my activity in an  
investigation regarding death threats against member of Parliament  
Belinda STRONACH. JAGOE alleged that I had broken policy by  
having direct communications with the victim. I took extraordinary  
measures to avoid any conflict of interest in the file due to my  
personal relationship with the intended victim. This was twisted  
and presented to “O” HQ as some kind of policy breach. No  
section was ever quoted to me. Subsequently I was stripped of all  
investigation and Intelligence files and removed from INSET  
TAG.  
Following the May 16 meeting with CRANE I was summoned to  
“O” HQ for a meeting with Supt. PROULX. At this meeting  
PROULX indicated that I was a liar, that I was using the RCMP,  
that I must make a decision to have a career in Politics or the  
RCMP. He made inappropriate comments regarding material in the  
campaign literature, challenged the truthfulness of my personal  
resume which had been scrutinized during my application to the  
RCMP as part of my background investigation. This was a very  
unpleasant interaction with Supt. Marc PROULX and was  
witnessed by a number of members present in the room.  
In July 2005 while off-duty sick recovering from surgery I  
participated on a Radio Talk show providing historical information  
regarding Terrorism, Counterterrorism and National Security  
efforts globally during the past 60 years. JAGOE reported this  
activity to “O” HQ as having Disclosed Top Secret Information  
regarding INSET investigations. This was completely false.  
JAGOE never even heard the show and acted on information from  
a third party which he has protected the identity of. He alleged  
Official Secrets Act offences which carry a serious term of  
imprisonment. PROULX contacted me at home and advised that he  
would be proceeding with formal discipline and that he would  
obtain a copy of the Radio Show.  
MERRIFIELD makes Access to Information Request to begin  
legal proceedings against the RCMP for Constitutional Rights  
Page: 103  
Violations. JAGOE receives ATI request and contacts S/Sgt.  
BOHUS who is representing MERRIFIELD. JAGOE states to  
BOHUS “to tell MERRIFIELD not to burn any bridges”.  
Members BROWN and SIMM provided statements from a  
conversation they have with PROULX where PROULX clearly  
states that “someone has it for Peter” and that it is personal.  
From this point on Doug it is a steady pattern of harassment,  
threats, and at one point I am ordered not to report for duty during  
a National Security crisis. My reputation has been destroyed based  
on rumours, false allegations, personal vendettas, harassment,  
abuse of policy, and repeated transfers. I have missed two  
opportunities for promotion, expended considerable monies on  
legal work and suffered significant medical concerns. I have bent  
over backwards to resolve this without going to court and the  
media once it becomes public. There are a myriad of instances and  
actions taken against me during that period that will not stand the  
test of harassment suit. I appreciate that my activities caused  
discomfort among some Management personnel of the RCMP but I  
worked hand-in-hand with the Force in 2004 when I was a full-  
fledged Candidate in a Federal Election without this type of  
harassment. I always put the reputation of the force first in  
anything that I did and was careful to protect it at all cost. There  
are clear constitutional violations in current RCMP policy which I  
have offered to address in a constructive manner.  
If this was about one isolated incident or one single  
misunderstanding I would not be pursuing the issue with such  
vigour. However it was much greater than that and with severe  
consequences to my reputation and career path. My service file  
clearly indicates the type of member I have been and wish to  
continue to be.  
Of note is some information that was obtained via my Access to  
Information request which shows cautions were provided to Supt.  
PROULX from HQ not to cross constitutional lines and an email  
between JAGOE and PROULX which refer to “a source, a  
member” in cryptic fashion. Not much about this situation was  
above board or founded in fact. It is my strong belief that this was  
mishandled from the beginning and spun into a tall tale without  
any concern for the truth. If I was in the C.O.’s shoes and had been  
told tall tales about a member’s activity in the manner he was  
informed about me I would also have concerns. However because  
Page: 104  
he was not given the facts, improper opinions and actions may  
have been formed or taken.  
The concern I have is over the implications of the perception by  
the media, government and public of the RCMP in its handling of  
issues relating to Politics. I wish to correct the damage done over  
the past two years internally if possible. I have not ruled out legal  
action and still retain my law firm and original filings which were  
prepared.  
Hopefully we can get to the truth quickly and correct the situation  
in a satisfactory manner as quickly as possible.  
Thanks again for help Doug,  
Very Best regards,  
Pete  
[526] SRR Ford stated that the C.O. and others were basing their opinions on distorted facts.  
He asked Mr. Merrifield if he could share the email with the C.O. Mr. Merrifield agreed  
to that.  
[527] SRR Ford stated that he was concerned about the last five paragraphs regarding what Mr.  
Merrifield said had been done to him. He was not sure if any of this information was  
getting to the C.O. SRR Ford forwarded the email to the C.O. SRR Ford stated that he  
knew that Mr. Merrifield had met with C.O. Seguin earlier on. When Mr. Merrifield sent  
him the lengthy email, it was obvious that nothing had been resolved.  
[528] Mr. Merrifield also sent the January 19, 2007 email to Sgt. Nicota who was present at the  
meeting in London with Supt. Proulx. He asked Sgt. Nicota to provide comments  
regarding the meeting so that SRR Ford would have them when he was dealing with the  
situation.  
[529] On January 22, 2007, SRR Nicota sent the following email to S/Sgt. Ford:  
Hi Doug, as per Peter MERRIFIELD’S message please be advised  
of the following: in my 32 years as a member of the RCMP I have  
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. This unexpected behaviour by Mr.  
PROULX was only displayed after then SRR Rick BOHUS had to  
leave the meeting to deal with another matter. Mr. PROULX made  
it clear that this examination of MERRIFIELD was at the behest of  
the CROPS officer Mr. MAZEROLLE and the “C.O.”  
(Asst/Commissioner SEGUIN). Mr. PROULX’S manner of  
questioning was the epitome of harassment and could be used for  
Page: 105  
classic textbook lecture material example. Supt. PROULX’S  
questions ridiculed, demeaned and embarrassed MERRIFIELD.  
I was angered and dismayed by what I observed and allowed it to  
continue only because it strengthened MERRIFIELD’S case.  
MERRIFIELD repeatedly had to explain how a legitimate political  
nomination process worked and yet Mr. PROULX still failed to  
comprehend process. All of MERRIFIELD’S campaign material  
was examined and he was questioned in detail. Regardless of the  
answers provided to Mr. PROULX, he remained sarcastic,  
accusatory and made it very clear that MERRIFIELD had to  
choose between a “political career” or the Force. At no time was  
there acknowledgement of MERRIFIELD’S Charter rights to  
allow his name for nomination in the Political office. This meeting  
only served to exacerbate the problems and failed to resolve the  
issues under discussion. It was my conclusion there was no desire  
to resolve the issues but only to find an excuse to administratively  
exit MERRIFIELD out of the RCMP.  
[530] C.O. Seguin sent a short email to SRR Ford on January 23, 2007 referring only to the  
issues relating to Cpl. Frith. On February 15, 2007, SRR Ford asked C.O. Seguin  
whether the investigation covered the harassment issues raised by Mr. Merrifield relating  
to Supt. Proulx and Insp. Jagoe or whether it covered only the issue regarding Cpl. Frith.  
C.O. Seguin replied that it only applied to Cpl. Frith and that he was satisfied that Cpl.  
Frith had attended the meeting on his own.  
[531] Mr. Merrifield stated he did not receive any satisfaction from C.O. Seguin. There was no  
feedback, email or written decision. There was nothing.  
Mr. Merrifield’s Email to D/Commr. Bourduas – May 11, 2007  
[532] Mr. Merrifield decided to send an email dated May 11, 2007 to Pierre-Yves Bourduas,  
Deputy Commissioner for the Region, to request his assistance with the issues. The email  
stated:  
Sir,  
Please excuse me for writing to you directly, however I believe it  
is incumbent upon myself to share with you some concerns with  
very serious repercussions to “O” Division and the RCMP. The  
past several months have been difficult times for our organization.  
Criticism of certain actions of the RCMP and the actions of some  
of its personnel have been portrayed in a manner which disrespects  
the greater membership. I am trying to avoid any further  
embarrassment or tarnish to our organization but have been  
Page: 106  
presented with repeated obstacles in my efforts to resolve a serious  
situation at the lowest possible level.  
During the past two years I have utilized the DSRR program,  
personal involvement with several officers in “O” Division and a  
meeting with the Commanding Officer of “O” Division. All efforts  
have met with a lack of resolution or understanding of the gravity  
of the circumstances.  
This particular situation arose from my involvement as a candidate  
in a past Federal election of political involvement in 2004/2005  
which was conducted in accordance with the RCMP policy. The  
two years following that involvement have been filled with  
repeated and ongoing harassment, the abuse of authority by a  
number of commissioned officers in O division, abuse of process,  
constitutional violations by commissioned officers, constitutional  
conflicts and RCMP policy, conduct unbecoming an officer,  
possible violation of a ministerial directive in relation to National  
Security Operations in Sensitive Sectors, possible dereliction of  
duty. I have written to the former Commissioner, former Deputy  
Commissioner of Human Resources and current Commanding  
Officer of “O” Division to this capacity. I have offered evidence  
and the willingness to resolve this matter in a means agreeable to  
all concerned. These efforts have yielded no results and have left  
me with little options other than formal legal proceedings which  
would be public and perhaps embarrassing for our organization. I  
am hopeful that you can intervene in your capacity as Deputy  
Commissioner for Central Region. I have utilized a law firm to  
research and provide opinion on my behalf in these matters. It is  
their position supported by recent court decisions in Ontario and  
New Brunswick which state that the RCMP is ill equipped to  
resolve certain issues within its own internal processes. I on the  
other hand have faith that this can be resolved internally.  
All material in my possession in support of this circumstance are at  
your disposal. I would be willing to provide greater detail of the  
circumstances to you or your delegate at the Regional level as  
efforts at the highest level of Division to correct this have failed.  
Statements made by subject Officers during this ongoing conflict  
indicated that they were acting at the direction of the Commanding  
Officer of “O” Division. I questioned A/Commr. SEGUIN to this  
regard and he denied having provided the questionable direction. I  
have no cause to take challenge to the remarks of either Officer,  
however there exists a conflict in resolving this matter at the  
Page: 107  
Division level as the C.O. is named as a possible instigator of  
questionable actions.  
Due to the existence of possible conflict of interest at the Division  
level I am requesting your involvement from Region to facilitate  
review and possible resolution of the situation. Attached above you  
will find some previous correspondence relating to this matter.  
Please understand that I am not writing to you in order to “cover  
my bases” for future legal action. I am not going through processes  
for the sake of future claim or gain. I truly wish to resolve a  
situation that does not reflect the Values, Ethics or Integrity of our  
valued members. I believe in all of the good that that we do as an  
organization coast to coast and proud of my membership in the  
RCMP. I take great pride in my work and membership and conduct  
myself in accordance with Ethics and Integrity in all that I do  
inside and out of the RCMP.  
I wish to take this opportunity to thank you for your attention in  
this circumstance and express my appreciation for the demands  
that must be made upon your time as Deputy Commissioner of  
Central region. Please understand that I would not have burdened  
you with the situation if I did not believe that the best interest of  
the RCMP and the members involved could be served under your  
direction. I look forward to speaking with you or your delegate to  
reach resolution.  
[533] On May 28, 2007, Mr. Merrifield issued the Notice of Action in this matter. On June 27,  
2007, the Statement of Claim was issued to protect limitation period.  
[534] On June 29, 2007, D/Commr. Bourduas responded to Mr. Merrifield’s email and stated,  
“I have thoroughly reviewed the materials and concluded that your complaints and  
grievances have been handled appropriately by the C.O. “O” Division. As such it would  
not be appropriate for me to intervene at this time.”  
The RCMP’s Internal Grievance Procedure  
[535] In 2008, an issue arose as to whether Mr. Merrifield ought to have used the RCMP  
internal grievance procedure for adjudication of his claims. The Attorney General  
brought a motion to strike the claim which was dismissed. In Merrifield v. Canada  
(Attorney General), 2009 ONCA 127, the court agreed with the motion judge’s decision  
and stated in paras 9 and 10:  
Importantly, the motion judge correctly noted that the RCMP  
grievance procedure does not have the necessary means to make  
findings of credibility, as it does not provide for oral hearings, and  
Page: 108  
the factual findings of an investigator need not be followed by the  
adjudicator.  
Nor does the grievance procedure allow for  
independent third party adjudication.  
…the grievance procedure mechanism cannot provide the remedies  
requested, namely, declarations and damages.  
[536] Mr. Merrifield stated that his health was good until August 2008. He developed a heart  
problem, atrial fibrillation, and was off duty sick for a period of time. He had committed  
to the development of a training program for counter proliferation in Canada so while he  
was at home, he worked with other agencies to develop the program. In November  
2008, he returned to light duties at work and attended the implementation of the training  
program.  
[537] On March 30, 2009, Mr. Merrifield had heart surgery and recuperated at home for two  
weeks. In April, he returned to work to conduct a raid and arrest on a nuclear  
proliferation case. He obtained ten pressure transducers configured to be used in nuclear  
centrifuges for enrichment of uranium. This resulted in the first prosecution and  
conviction under the United Nations Act R.S.C., 1985, c. U-2 for proliferation to Iran.  
[538] A Performance Evaluation was prepared for Mr. Merrifield covering the period April 28,  
2008 to April 28 2009. It states:  
[Cst. Merrifield] has conducted demonstrations and presentations  
for agencies both within and outside of the RCMP. In autumn of  
08, Cst. Merrifield conducted a Powerpoint demonstration on  
Canadian legislation to the participants of the Strategic  
Investigation Training seminar in Georgia. In Nov 08, Cst.  
Merrifield conducted a Powerpoint presentation on topics  
surrounding Counter Proliferation to the participants from across  
Canada. This was the first course on Counter Proliferation  
conducted in Canada. For both presentations, Cst. Merrifield was  
well-organized and relayed the information in a level that was  
clearly understood by the audience. Cst. Merrifield is very  
comfortable in front of an audience and this easy manner comes  
across with humour and professionalism. Cst. Merrifield has also  
conducted a demonstration of tight placement, close quarters battle  
tactics for the Ontario Tactical Association. He has acted as BFI on  
several occasions. CST Merrifield has been requested by several  
agencies, both within and outside of the RCMP to provide  
presentations.  
[539] Insp. Johnson’s comment on the Performance Evaluation is, “Cst. Merrifield is an  
operational member thru and thru. He is knowledgeable, competent and a leader. An  
excellent assessment and well deserved.”  
Page: 109  
[540] In June 2009, Supt. Jagoe became concerned again about Mr. Merrifield’s public  
speaking. He had been the keynote speaker for the Ontario National Gang Investigators  
Association in 2006. He spoke as Vice President of the MPA. He did a TV appearance  
on a show called The Verdict. Supt. Jagoe was concerned about “national security public  
speaking”. This set off a chain of inquiries. He reported it to C/Supt. Mazerolle who  
spoke to Dist. Comm. Davis who spoke to Insp. Johnson, who then spoke to Mr.  
Merrifield. Mr. Merrifield obtained a document from the RCMP website which showed  
that National Security was within the mandate of Customs & Excise.  
[541] On June 30, 2009, Mr. Merrifield was promoted to the rank of Corporal.  
[542] In January 2010, Mr. Merrifield was the lead investigator on a project called Owatch  
regarding nuclear proliferation. It resulted in an arrest and a trial. Mr. Merrifield gave all  
of the evidence for prosecution. The accused was convicted.  
[543] Also, in January 2010, Mr. Merrifield was seconded to the G8 and G20 summits.  
Waterloo Police Speaking Event  
[544] Supt. Jagoe stated that at some point, he received an email from Sgt. Crol in Kitchener,  
for his information, to advise him of a presentation that was being hosted by the Waterloo  
Regional Police. Mr. Merrifield was identified as the key note speaker on terrorism.  
[545] Supt. Jagoe stated that he then spoke to Insp. Johnson and told him that he might want to  
look at the materials because the new RCMP policy required CROPS officer’s approval  
for presentations.  
[546] Section 12.5 of the Operations Manual Ex 223 is entitled Presentation, Conference. It  
shows a print date of 8/22/2008 and deals with presentations with respect to national  
security. Section 1.2 deals with the approval for presentations of an operational nature or  
intended for an international audience. Supt. Jagoe stated that he was involved in policy  
development in this area. He did not specifically refer to it when he spoke to Insp.  
Johnson about Mr. Merrifield’s being a key note speaker at the Waterloo Police event.  
Supt. Jagoe stated that he had the impression that Insp. Johnson was not familiar with it.  
This document was not produced in this action until May 2015; six months after the trial  
began. Supt. Jagoe had no explanation for this.  
[547] Mr. Merrifield stated that a culmination of events made him feel that he was not being  
treated fairly. Receiving inquiries stemming from Supt. Jagoe’s further concerns about  
his public speaking was like being “poked” again. He was frustrated, angry and  
depressed. From February to May 2010, he was off duty sick. He submitted monthly  
reports to the Health Services unit to support his status.  
[548] Mr. Merrifield returned to work in May 2010. In the following month, he did protective  
duties for the Queen’s visit.  
Page: 110  
[549] In the fall of 2010, Mr. Merrifield was assigned to project Overlord. This was the  
intelligence probe that he had started in 2009 regarding firearms smuggling. In 2011,  
there were a number of people working on Overlord. Between January and October  
2011, Mr. Merrifield travelled extensively and obtained confidential information. He  
obtained an AK 47 fully automated firearm, hundreds of which had been imported as BB  
guns. They could be converted in fifteen minutes to a fully functioning AK 47.  
Witness X  
[550] As noted above, one of Mr. Merrifield’s duties was to cultivate human sources. In his  
performance logs, his superiors noted that he was extremely good at this.  
[551] Mr. Merrifield was a primary handler for several confidential human sources, one of  
whom I will refer to as Witness X.  
[552] Witness X stated that s/he had been a social friend of Mr. Merrifield. S/he then became  
an informant for Mr. Merrifield in 2006/2007. S/he also worked with other RCMP  
officers. S/he had several conversations with these other officers in which they discussed  
Mr. Merrifield. One of them said that Mr. Merrifield was not a team player, he had  
issues and could not be trusted. This officer stated to Witness X that Witness X should  
not be working with Mr. Merrifield. The officer said that Mr. Merrifield was suing the  
RCMP. His career was not going anywhere. It was finished. Witness X stated that in  
2011, s/he told Mr. Merrifield that he did not have many friends in the RCMP and  
informed him of the other officers’ comments.  
[553] Mr. Merrifield said that there is a sacred trust between an informant and a handler.  
Telling an informant not to work with a police officer during the course of an  
investigation was completely inappropriate. It was not in the administration of justice.  
[554] A Performance Evaluation of Mr. Merrifield was carried out for the period September 9,  
2010 to March 31, 2011. It states:  
… Cpl. Merrifield worked alongside with the crown prosecutor  
during the trial phase of a national priority investigation that he  
(Cpl. MERRIFIELD) had been involved with. The crown  
prosecutor had commented on Cpl. Merrifield [sic] leadership and  
encyclopedic knowledge of the evidence. As well he was required  
to attend an International POWPOM on Counter Proliferation  
Investigations held in New Zealand, representing the RCMP on  
behalf of HQ C & E Branch…  
Cpl. Merrifield is considered a subject matter expert on counter  
proliferation (CP) investigations. As a result, he often lectures on  
CP investigations and training seminars held both within and  
outside Canada. During this reporting period he has lectured at  
training seminars in “D” Division as well as at the annual CP  
Page: 111  
training seminar held in Ottawa this year. In addition, he was  
required to travel to New Zealand where he presented a case study  
based on a successful CP investigation (Project OWATCH). That  
investigation had be conducted during the previous reporting  
period by this unit. He maintains recency in CP investigations by  
regularly conducting research on proliferation activities. These  
combined efforts speak to Cpl.’s MERRIFIELD [sic] ability to  
forge ahead with learning and development needs for himself and  
others. That said, Cpl. MERRIFIELD continues to show flexibility  
towards re-arranging his personal time with family to facilitate his  
commitment to CP investigations…  
[His immediate supervisor, S/Sgt. Wayne Pupik stated] Cpl.  
Merrifield has recently taken on the Role of Primary Investigator  
for Project Overlord. Through his presentation skills, his  
knowledge with CP investigation and desire to take this project to  
high levels, I see great things happening in his future.  
[Insp. Johnson stated that] Cpl. Merrifield is a high performing  
knowledgeable member who is more than capable of assuming  
career responsibility at the senior NCO level.  
[555] Mr. Merrifield stated that in the fall of 2011, Customs & Excise underwent a number of  
personnel changes. It became dysfunctional and was falling apart. Given what Witness X  
had told him, he felt that the damage to his reputation resulting from the harassment had  
spread significantly within the RCMP. He went off duty sick in November 2011.  
Mr. Merrifield’s Email to Senior Management  
[556] Mr. Merrifield stated that November 2011 to January 2012 was the worst part of his life.  
He disengaged from family, stayed on the couch, got bed sores and did not bathe. He  
started seeing another psychologist.  
[557] While he was at home and in the middle of a deep depression, Mr. Merrifield made  
another attempt to reach out to senior members of the RCMP. He sent a lengthy email  
dated January 5, 2012 to a number of people including Commr. Paulson, D/Commr.  
Graham, Asst/Commr. White, SRR Niebudek, SRR Reed and S/Sgt. Townsend who was  
on the National executive of the SRR program. The email stated:  
Sirs,  
I respectfully submit this message with the knowledge that it  
circumvents the usual chain of Command and for that I apologize.  
For nearly seven years I have been engaged in an effort to address  
unwanted harassment, bullying, abuse of authority and process.  
This began with the dislike of my standing as a candidate to  
Page: 112  
become a Member of Parliament. I have been [the] subject of false  
Criminal allegations, subject to punitive transfers, false code of  
conduct investigations and subjected to threats by Senior Officers  
of “O” Division. Throughout this period my health has suffered, I  
[have] been away from duty periodically to deal with serious  
depression issues as a result of the harassment, I also required  
surgery for a stress related heart ailment.  
I have exhausted every reasonable method to appeal to the  
common sense of the RCMP to review the evidence in the matter,  
but to date there has been no in depth review of the [sic] my claims  
or evidence. I believe that DOJ is not acting in a manner which has  
the best interest of the RCMP at heart.  
Throughout this same time period I have dismantled weapon  
smuggling rings along the Canadian/US border, identified and  
began recovery of more than 250 fully automatic AK 47 receivers  
improperly imported and distributed throughout Canada, and  
provided the first ever conviction in Counter Proliferation of the  
Canadian Nuclear Safety Act and the United Nations - Iran  
Regulations.  
My service file prior to the run in with the Officers named in my  
lawsuit was exemplary, my service record since the run in has also  
been exemplary.  
It baffles me that when I send C237’s about Iranian Procurement  
and Espionage I am believable. I have been asked in the middle of  
the night to help prepare a Prime Minister’s briefing note on  
Iranian Nuclear Proliferation investigation and was believable. I  
was asked to address the World Nuclear Suppliers Group  
conference in New Zealand in 2010 and brief the combined  
Enforcement and Diplomatic core on Counter Proliferation  
Investigations and strategies and was believable. The courts accept  
my warrants, production orders and one party consents as credible.  
Why is it that when I claim that certain Officers bullied me,  
harassed me and lied I am no longer believable?  
I joined the RCMP to catch criminals and work in National  
Security. I have spent 30 years of my life studying Global Security  
Issues, International Affairs and Terrorism. I left a comfortable  
Senior corporate career at age 30 to join the RCMP. I have done  
everything the RCMP has ever asked of me. I have made my  
sacrifices in service and posting without question. I have  
Page: 113  
investigated, arrested and prosecuted murderers, rapists, arsonists  
and just about every other type of criminal you wish to name. I  
have been assaulted, shot at, stabbed at, and subject of death  
threats in the performance of my duties. Throughout all of that I  
believe that the RCMP had by [sic] back, I trusted that we were an  
organization of truth and values.  
As my lawyers are about to file all of our documents with the court  
and set the matter down for trial the issue will become public.  
Knowing this and having repeatedly attempted to negotiate  
settlement in the matter I want to put a couple of things on the  
table that have been danced around but never dealt with directly  
because of process.  
I name Supt. Marc PROULX (ret) as the primary abuser/bully, my  
investigation into his history and background require that I ask the  
following questions:  
1. Supt. PROULX was named in retaliation complaint related to  
sexual harassment in C Division. The matter was settled out of  
court just short of appearing before the Canadian Human Rights  
Tribunal. Supt. PROULX was promoted and transferred to “O”  
Division as DIO to which he joked with us in the program that he  
knew nothing about. Was he ever disciplined inside the RCMP for  
this harassment/retaliation incident in “C” Division?  
2. In 2006 I advised Supt. PROULX in writing that I intended to  
file a formal complaint about his harassment and bullying of me,  
his response within hours was to lodge a false Code of Conduct  
Investigation against me alleging Criminal Code Offences. When  
these claims were later proved without merit, was Supt. PROULX  
investigated or disciplined for abusing process?  
3. I have received allegations that during this time period in 2006  
when PROULX was abusing me he may have been arrested by  
London Police Service attempting to procure a prostitute which  
was an undercover police officer in a “John Sting” operation.  
There is no criminal conviction of PROULX, he did not attend the  
diversion program (John School) in London and the RCMP has no  
record in the adjudication branch of PROULX being dealt with. He  
was transferred that year to Canadian Police College after serving  
only a short period here in “O” Division as DIO. Was PROULX  
arrested, was he disciplined internally? Lacking criminal  
conviction if he was arrested then he was the only person of the 59  
“johns” arrested in that sting that was not prosecuted.  
Page: 114  
4. PROULX’S line officers would have been C/Supt Mazerolle and  
A/Commr Seguin, if PROULX did act in a manner which  
warranted proper discipline and did not receive it, would the line  
officers responsible be subject of a Code of Conduct Investigation?  
It should be noted that DOJ formally requested SEGUIN and  
MAZEROLLE be removed by name from my Statement of Claim.  
A few weeks after that request they were nominated as Officer and  
Member respectively of the Police Order of Merit. Did they  
request DOJ to make this removal request in order to receive an  
award? If they did cover up for PROULX in 2006, should they  
have received an Order of Merit in 2007?  
5. In reviewing the CACP rules for nomination it refers to “subject  
of formal discipline” as grounds to withhold the nomination. Supt.  
JAGOE was nominated and received the OOM in 2011 while still  
named formally in my Statement of Claim for his actions as an  
officer of the RCMP. Should his nomination have been approved  
at that time? Who approved it?  
I wish to apologize again, I hope this is not perceived as  
confrontational, it is not meant to be. I am frustrated, I have loved  
my career in the RCMP, there is nothing else as rewarding. I enjoy  
a 100% conviction rate, I pride myself in being thorough, fair and  
detailed in my investigations. I try to act in a manner which affords  
respect to everyone, and I am well aware that I am not perfect.  
When I find myself off track, I will make the necessary corrections  
and when required include admitting that I made [a] mistake and  
apologizing. I have not been afforded the same courtesy, and  
forcing the truth to be recognized it has affected my health, it has  
affected my family, it has affected my faith in the RCMP …  
I believe that in my case one officer made errors of judgment in  
making allegations to his higher-ups before checking policy.  
Instead of backing up he pushed forward with more false  
allegations in an attempt to discredit me. My line officer took those  
fabricated concerns and as a bully he pushed the issue in the only  
way he knew how, and for which he has a bad track record. Their  
offences then went ignored or covered up. Which is worse? The  
crime or the cover up?  
I do not expect a response from any of you, as it has been practice  
to ignore me and cite the “legal process” as grounds. I just wanted  
you to know the character of those you are standing behind in this  
matter.  
Page: 115  
Seven years is a long time, and I am sure for you and your careers  
and rank many wonderful things have happened. I have worked as  
hard as possible to be the best member that I can in accordance  
with our core values. I just can’t do it anymore. These seven years  
have taken a toll on [me]. I am not the same member I use [sic] to  
be. Anything that I do now is in the best interest of my family and  
myself. I can no longer worry about the reputation of the RCMP or  
individuals involved.  
If I had my choice I would be back at work leading Project  
Overlord, a large proliferation investigation with direct links to  
foreign governments. I would pursue the source I began to recruit  
who is linked to the Egyptian protest movements and travels  
between Canada and Egypt. I would like to do these things because  
they are police work, because they have value.  
I did not join to fight liars and bullies inside the RCMP, I hope the  
RCMP weathers this current trial in the public eye, but from where  
I sit we have a long way to go to fix it.  
I wish you the best in your efforts to lead and correct the RCMP, I  
know that none of you were personally responsible in my  
circumstance. Please do not perceive this message in any other  
way than respectful. I am demoralized, I believe this has dragged  
out due to “process paralysis” and a lack of ownership of the issue  
internally.  
Very Best Regards  
Cpl. Peter Merrifield  
[558] S/Sgt. Reed stated that he became a full time SRR in 2008. He represented members on  
typical labour relations issues including conflict management, harassment grievances,  
complaints and behaviour issues. Regarding harassment issues, he endeavoured to help  
members find resources and tools to build better relationships between themselves or in a  
unit. Harassment included demeaning behaviour toward lower ranking members. Some  
examples included situations where members were spoken down to or disrespected. The  
effects of harassment included isolation of members from the rest of their group, not  
being selected for courses and not being selected for overtime work. Sometimes  
members faced disciplinary proceedings. SRR Reed’s goal was always to resolve issues  
at the lowest possible level to keep officers operating in a friendly, positive environment.  
He carried out a significant amount of mediation and conflict resolution.  
[559] Mr. Merrifield approached SRR Reed in 2010 and requested assistance. He set up a  
meeting between Mr. Merrifield and Employee Management Relations Officer, Supt.  
Boulet to discuss Mr. Merrifield’s issues. He recalled that they met and spoke for some  
Page: 116  
time. His impression was that Supt. Boulet had a general concern for Mr. Merrifield’s  
well-being.  
[560] SRR Reed stated that he wanted to meet with Asst/Commr. White. He believed that  
Asst/Commr. White was an honest, progressive man who was interested in the betterment  
of people in the RCMP. He requested that Asst/Commr. White meet with him and Mr.  
Merrifield to try to fix Mr. Merrifield’s problems and get him back into the workplace.  
Asst/Commr. White was somewhat receptive but the meeting never happened.  
[561] SRR Reed recalled receiving Mr. Merrifield’s email dated January 5, 2012, which was  
sent to him and the Commissioner among others. He stated that Mr. Merrifield wrote it  
because he was frustrated that he was not being dealt with. It was written from an  
emotional perspective. It was valuable, strong and clearly written. SRR Reed waited to  
see what the outcome of the email would be.  
[562] On March 13, 2012, SRR Reed wrote a lengthy email to Commr. Paulson, D/Commr.  
Graham and Asst/Commr. White. SRR Reed stated that his email to the Commissioner  
showed his level of frustration. SRR Reed had been dealing with the case for over two  
years and was very frustrated that Mr. Merrifield was being left in limbo all this time  
without a clear direction. In his email, SRR Reed stated:  
Peter is a very intelligent, productive member who from most  
people’s perspective has potential to be a good leader,  
commissioned officer and very productive and innovative member  
of the organization. He leads the way here in “O” Division and  
perhaps even in the country in the Counter Proliferation world  
having conducted investigations and been sought and relied upon  
by US agencies to provide expert evidence and numerous  
presentations to the US Homeland Security group. They have  
specifically requested him on numerous occasions.  
[563] SRR Reed stated that the issues that had been brought forward had not been resolved.  
His purpose was to stimulate interaction between the Force and the member to find a  
reasonable solution. There had been no response to Mr. Merrifield’s email dated January  
5, 2012. SRR Reed stated that when he made inquiries, he received only vague answers  
such as, “We’re working on it.” The matter had sat in the laps of the Commanding  
Officer and the Commissioner for two years. In his view, the Force had to either lay a  
charge, do an investigation and impose sanctions if necessary or put it behind them and  
move on. Ongoing conflict was not healthy for anyone. If the Force believed that Mr.  
Merrifield had done something wrong, they should have charged him. Mr. Merrifield  
was not formally disciplined for participating in the Barrie nomination meeting, for  
appearing on the Pritchard show or for his political involvement. SRR Reed said that  
there were “other types” of discipline and that dealing with them was a major aspect of  
his job as a SRR. He believed that a series of events had occurred that were moving  
against Mr. Merrifield and upsetting his ability to come to work and perform his job.  
SRR Reed wanted to put those to rest and move forward.  
Page: 117  
Follow Up Regarding Mr. Merrifield’s Email  
[564] Asst/Commr. Stephen is currently the commander of O Division and has been since  
2011. He oversees all RCMP activities in Ontario including civil lawsuits.  
[565] He received the email from Mr. Merrifield dated January 5, 2012. In paragraph three of  
his email, Mr. Merrifield stated:  
I have received allegations that during this time period in 2006  
when PROULX was abusing me, he may have been arrested by  
London Police Service attempting to procure a prostitute which  
was an undercover police officer in a “John Sting” operation…  
[566] Asst/Commr. White stated that he asked C/Supt. Mazerolle to follow up on this. C/Supt.  
Mazerolle returned with a document and they had a brief discussion. No action was  
taken on the issue because Supt. Proulx had retired by then. The RCMP had no  
jurisdiction to carry out a Code of Conduct investigation.  
[567] C/Supt. Mazerolle saw Mr. Merrifield’s email dated January 5, 2012. He knew that Mr.  
Merrifield’s allegations with respect to Supt. Proulx were substantiated because he  
received a related document. C/Supt. Mazerolle stated that he was not aware that anyone  
had looked into the various issues and reconsidered what happened to Mr. Merrifield. He  
turned the document over to Asst/Commr. White and did not know what happened after  
that. He was training to leave for Afghanistan.  
[568] Commr. Paulson became aware of Mr. Merrifield within the RCMP when he received  
Mr. Merrifield’s email dated January 5, 2012. Commr. Paulson found the depth and  
breadth of the information in the email unusual and concerning. He was concerned about  
it. He recalled that he forwarded it to Asst/Commr. White and a Human Resources  
officer. He expected that the issues would be addressed. He did not recall receiving any  
response and/or follow up.  
[569] Commr. Paulson stated that occasionally SRRs would communicate with him but it was  
not a regular occurrence. In SRR Reed’s email, he asked that Mr. Merrifield’s case be  
made a priority. Commr. Paulson believed he had a conversation with Asst/Commr.  
White in which they discussed following up. He stated that he was concerned about the  
matter but that he was reassured that Asst/Commr. White was on top of it.  
[570] In his email dated January 5, 2012, Mr. Merrifield made an allegation that Supt. Proulx  
had attempted to procure a prostitute. Commr. Paulson stated that he did not know  
whether an investigation had been conducted with respect to this allegation. He had not  
seen a police document. No one had ever discussed the contents of such a document with  
him. No one suggested to him that those allegations may have had some foundation.  
Serious and Organized Crime  
Page: 118  
[571] In September 2012, Mr. Merrifield told SRR Reed that he wanted to return to work. He  
had been off for 16 months. He stated that he had suffered severely. He had post-  
traumatic stress disorder as a result of past events.  
[572] Mr. Merrifield said that he had an opportunity to go to the Source Development Unit.  
After he obtained medical permission, he applied and passed the first level of screening.  
He was interviewed for the second level but was subsequently notified that his  
application was unsuccessful. Mr. Merrifield stated that people with lower marks were  
selected. Later, he understood that he was not selected because he was engaged in  
litigation with the RCMP.  
[573] The RCMP took eight months to facilitate Mr. Merrifield’s return to work. He was told  
that his security clearance level had expired after the usual five year period. If he had  
applied to renew it before the expiry, the approval would have been a routine matter. Mr.  
Merrifield had to make a fresh application which took considerable time to process, even  
though he held the top level of security clearance before he went on sick leave.  
[574] While he was on sick leave, Mr. Merrifield was required to submit certain forms. When  
he came into the office to do this, he attempted to speak with his former co-workers. Mr.  
Merrifield believed that they had been instructed to not speak to him.  
[575] On April 1, 2013, the RCMP underwent a substantial re-organization. Customs & Excise  
was combined with several other units. It became Serious and Organized Crime, under  
Insp. A. White. The objective of the new combined unit was to investigate the highest  
priorities regardless of the commodity, such as Customs & Excise. Asst/Commr. S.  
White stated that counter proliferation could have been a priority. It would depend on the  
group involved.  
[576] Insp. Johnson, Mr. Merrifield’s former superior, wanted Mr. Merrifield to return to  
counter proliferation investigation because he had previously led the force in that new  
area.  
[577] SRR Reed had a role in Mr. Merrifield’s return to work. He wanted to return to counter  
proliferation work in a leadership role. SRR Reed made efforts with Insp. A. White as he  
was the OIC of the new unit. SRR Reed understood Insp. A. White’s position to be that  
Mr. Merrifield would not be returning to counter proliferation work and that “he was not  
the expert he thought he was”. Although the decision regarding the type of work that Mr.  
Merrifield would do in the new unit was up to Insp. A. White, SRR Reed disagreed with  
his decision and told him so. He did not know why Insp. A. White refused to have Mr.  
Merrifield return to counter proliferation work. He challenged the decision because he  
felt it was punitive. Mr. Merrifield’s expertise was in counter proliferation. SRR Reed  
stated that a member would not be removed from a spot when he was the lone expert on  
the subject unless there was another reason.  
[578] In May 2013, Mr. Merrifield returned to work. He believed that Insp. A. White did not  
want someone returning from sick leave to take on a role in counter proliferation work.  
Page: 119  
Mr. Merrifield was assigned to be the file manager for a drug investigation. He worked  
in this role for three months, from May to July, 2013. He never returned to counter  
proliferation work.  
[579] Insp. A. White stated that after the units were re-organized, he inherited Project Overlord,  
which had been handled by staff under Insp. Johnson’s command. Mr. Merrifield had  
worked on this project before he was off duty sick.  
[580] While Mr. Merrifield was on sick leave, a decision had been made in Project Overlord to  
focus on supporting the prosecution of charges in the U.S. Insp. Johnson knew that Mr.  
Merrifield had ideas for charges that could be laid in Canada. He sent Insp. A. White an  
email asking him to hear out Mr. Merrifield on this issue. Mr. Merrifield was also eager  
to discuss another project proposal.  
[581] Insp. A. White stated that while Project Overlord was not closed, there was minimal  
activity on it. The resources of the department were focused on two significant drug  
trafficking investigations. Project Overlord had the staffing that it required so there was  
no counter proliferation file to which Mr. Merrifield could be assigned. This was the  
reason why he did not go back into counter proliferation work. Insp. A. White denied  
stating that he did not want someone returning from sick leave to take a major role in an  
investigation. The project that Mr. Merrifield had proposed did not go anywhere.  
[582] Insp. A. White stated that he had concerns that Mr. Merrifield was not a competent  
investigator. A 43 page directed review was done with respect to Project Overlord. There  
were many concerns about him. A lot of things were found wanting on the investigation.  
Insp. A. White had concerns about the direction of the file. He believed that statements  
made by Mr. Merrifield to Insp. Johnson and him were misleading. Project Overlord was  
the last counter proliferation file that came across his desk. The peer review was done at  
the end of July 2013. The final report was received in January 2014.  
[583] Insp. A. White stated that there had been conflict in the unit and this was the reason for  
the directed review. Mr. Merrifield was not subject to any discipline although others  
were. There were no notes from Mr. Merrifield on the Project Overlord file although he  
had been the primary investigator for two years. Some interviews had been conducted  
but they had not been recorded. Some documents had been seized that were not reported  
to the Justice Department. They were not tracked. There was a continuity problem.  
Many emails had been received from U.S. authorities. These showed that the  
investigation was an intelligence probe. No evidence had been obtained. No Mutual  
Legal Assistance Treaty had been sent so that the American emails could be used.  
Financial material had been gathered but no accurate analysis of it was done by Proceeds  
of Crime. They had determined that there was no action to take.  
[584] Insp. A. White met with Mr. Merrifield only three or four times and in total spent just a  
few hours with him. Mr. Merrifield worked in Serious and Organized Crime for only a  
few months because he was then elected as a SRR and left Insp. A. White’s command on  
July 7, 20013. Insp. A. White received the report on Project Overlord in 2014. He never  
Page: 120  
gave a copy of it to Mr. Merrifield. He never sat down with him to discuss the contents.  
The reason for this was that Mr. Merrifield left his command before the report was  
received. Nevertheless, Insp. A. White believed that a collective meeting was held, that  
Mr. Merrifield attended, and that the issues were discussed. Insp. A. White did not attend  
the meeting.  
[585] Insp. A. White stated that Mr. Merrifield was not disciplined or performance managed as  
a result of the review. Insp. A. White never actually assessed Mr. Merrifield.  
[586] Cpl. Low-Fowler was the file manager for Project Overlord from August 2009 to May  
2013 when Mr. Merrifield was the lead investigator. She worked in Serious and  
Organized Crime after the units were reorganized, under Insp. A. White.  
[587] Cpl. Low-Fowler stated that she was part of the peer review for the project in August  
2013. She was asked to sit with key players in a private meeting room for one day. They  
were reviewing the file to identify successes, short comings and areas for improvement.  
No individual’s shortcomings were discussed at the meeting. She was not aware that a  
report was generated but assumed that there would be one. She was never briefed on the  
outcome of the peer review process and was not aware if others were briefed.  
[588] Cpl. Low-Fowler stated that she did not receive notes from Mr. Merrifield for Project  
Overlord and was concerned about that. She knew that he had a lot of emails that were  
logged. She did not see any audio/video for witness interviews. Witness will-say  
statements had been obtained.  
[589] Cpl. Low-Fowler stated that the speed, flow and direction of the file were good when Mr.  
Merrifield was the lead investigator. There were regular meetings, people knew what  
needed to be done and there was follow up. The direction and goal was clear. After Mr.  
Merrifield left, this was not the case. Things were not being assigned or done.  
Senate Standing Committee - May 27, 2013  
[590] As noted above, Mr. Merrifield joined the MPA shortly after he was hired. He was  
elected to be Vice-President and subsequently President in 2011.  
[591] In 2013, the Senate Standing Committee of Defence and National Security were  
conducting hearings to explore harassment in the RCMP. Commr. Paulson appeared  
before the Committee and provided testimony.  
[592] As President of the Mounted Police Association, Mr. Merrifield was invited to appear. In  
his testimony, he used his own situation as an example of harassment.  
[593] Afterwards, he had lunch with Evan Solomon, the host of a TV show called Power and  
Politics. He agreed to participate on the show that same day and be interviewed as the  
President of the MPA. In the interview, Mr. Merrifield spoke about the fact that other  
officers had told a human source (Witness X) that s/he should not work with Mr.  
Merrifield.  
Page: 121  
[594] Asst/Commr. White learned of Mr. Merrifield’s interview on the Solomon show the day  
after it happened. He sent an email to Commr. Paulson dated May 28 2013, and then had  
a telephone conversation with him about it. Commr. Paulson wanted to know why Mr.  
Merrifield had appeared on the Solomon show and made the various statements.  
Asst/Commr. White testified that he might have told Commr. Paulson that Mr. Merrifield  
was bitter and frustrated with the organization. He might have told him that the managers  
were trying to deal with the issue as best as they could. Asst/Commr. White stated that he  
mentioned C/Supt. Mazerolle’s investigation into Supt. Proulx.  
He said the  
Commissioner knew that inquiries had been made. He did not know that Mr. Merrifield’s  
statement about Supt. Proulx’s involvement with prostitutes had been substantiated to  
some degree.  
[595] Commr. Paulson recalled the conversation with Asst/Commr. White about the interview.  
Asst/Commr. White told him that Mr. Merrifield was a very smart, accomplished officer,  
“who had become solidly and almost irretrievably embittered with the organization…and  
we were just going to have to let…[the proceedings] play out.” Commr. Paulson stated  
that Asst/Commr. White is a very patient and personable man. He believed that  
Asst/Commr. White had made every effort to resolve the matter. His assessment was that  
Mr. Merrifield’s performance on the Solomon show was an example of what could be  
expected until the claim was resolved. There was not much that could be done about it.  
Commr. Paulson said Asst/Commr. White told him that Mr. Merrifield was locked into a  
view that the officers he had referred to had harassed him. He was not going to back  
away from that position. Mr. Merrifield was very determined to have that validated.  
Commr. Paulson understood that those officers had been trying to respond to Mr.  
Merrifield but he was recalcitrant and was unresponsive to any direction. Asst/Commr.  
White told him that that those officers had tried to respond to the circumstances as best  
they could in the moment and that there was no malfeasance in bringing the Part IV  
investigation. Commr. Paulson believed that Mr. Merrifield’s statement that “Supt.  
Proulx [was]…attempting to procure a prostitute” was unsubstantiated and unestablished.  
[596] Regarding the actions of the officers toward Mr. Merrifield, Commr. Paulson stated,  
“their efforts at discipline, failed though they were, were in essence blameless in terms of  
having to do the right thing to get Mr. Merrifield to … stay the course as it were.” He  
understood that Asst/Commr. White had tried to speak to Mr. Merrifield but he was not  
interested.  
[597] Commr. Paulson read the transcript of Mr. Merrifield’s TV interview shortly after it  
occurred. After he read the transcript, he became concerned about whether he was  
receiving sufficient information about harassment from the officers who were informing  
him about the case. Commr. Paulson said that he was very concerned after he read the  
section where Mr. Merrifield spoke of the disparaging comments that had been made to a  
confidential informant. He said that if the allegation was true, interfering with the  
handling of an informant is a very serious matter. Commr. Paulson stated that he did not  
know whether there was any investigation into this issue. He did not order one.  
Page: 122  
[598] SRR Reed stated that after Mr. Merrifield’s attendance before the Senate Committee, Sgt.  
Dickinson asked Mr. Merrifield to come in for an interview. This concerned him because  
Sgt. Dickinson led the Part IV investigation. In SRR Reed’s view, it was very unusual  
for the Professional Standards Unit (formerly the CIIS) to investigate a member without  
the SRR’s involvement. Any officer could have followed up on the matter. Clearly the  
C.O. asked Sgt. Dickinson to carry out the interview.  
[599] Asst/Commr. White requested Mr. Merrifield’s files from the PSU because Mr.  
Merrifield had raised some issues and no follow up had been done. One issue related to  
what he described as false Code of Conduct allegations.  
[600] S/Sgt. Dickinson interviewed Mr. Merrifield about the statements he made to the Senate  
Committee and the press. He said he did not have a mandate to take a statement. He was  
just asked to take a witness statement and obtain the names of the members that Mr.  
Merrifield had referred to and the related alleged activity. He was then to check the  
RCMP records to determine what the RCMP knew. In the meeting for the statement, Mr.  
Merrifield provided names regarding the allegations as well as additional details. S/Sgt.  
Dickinson stated that he asked his office administrator to review the records and also to  
look for criminal records. He did not do any follow up.  
[601] S/Sgt. Dickinson was also asked to provide information with respect to the PSU  
allegations which Mr. Merrifield raised when he had appeared before the Senate  
Committee. In an email from S/Sgt. Dickinson to Supt. MacDonald dated May 28, 2013,  
he stated that he found four PSU files and that Mr. Merrifield had not received any  
discipline. The second one was the Part IV investigation ordered by Supt. Proulx. The  
third one was the administrative review. S/Sgt. Dickinson described the fourth one “as an  
assistance provided to the London Police handled by myself.” He described the first one  
as file 2005-117 (the Secret file). In the email, he stated, “Does not appear to be a PSU  
handled file.” Dickinson stated that although a PSU scoring for a Part IV investigation,  
XX82, was used on this file, it had not been handled by the PSU. Sgt. Dickinson stated  
that the XX82 code has been used by others but he believed it should only be used by the  
PSU for a mandated Code investigation. Once it is used, a member is to be notified  
unless there is a concern that a member might destroy evidence.  
[602] After Mr. Merrifield’s interview with Sgt. Dickinson, Asst/Commr. White received a  
memo setting out a summary of it. Of the five issues listed, one related to a sexual  
assault matter involving A/Sgt. Crane and another related to Supt. Proulx. The purpose  
of the interview had been to identify outstanding issues regarding Mr. Merrifield. He  
received a document from Sgt. Dickinson, indicating that the PSU located four files. All  
of them were closed without any discipline. Supt. Proulx had retired.  
[603] A/Sgt. Crane was acquitted of the sexual assault charge. Asst/Comm. White was satisfied  
that everything had been followed up.  
[604] Commr. Paulson was not aware that Mr. Merrifield had been interviewed. He knew that  
all of the PSU files involving Mr. Merrifield resulted in no discipline. The only  
Page: 123  
information that he received in response to his request that the matter be looked into was  
from Asst/Commr. White, on whom he relied entirely.  
RCMP Media Release - May 28, 2013  
[605] Commr. Paulson explained that at RCMP headquarters, there is a parliamentary affairs  
office that co-ordinates appearances at the Senate Committees and House Committees.  
People from that office sit in on hearings which are relevant to the RCMP and produce  
documents such as the RCMP Parliamentary Business Bulletin. The Bulletin is not  
classified and has an unrestricted circulation.  
[606] The Bulletin for the period June 3 to 7, 2013, states, “Amongst other things, Commr.  
Paulson alluded to disagreements that the Force has had with Cpl. Merrifield in the past,  
including what Commr. Paulson characterized as him having commented out of turn on  
national security matters.”  
[607] Commr. Paulson stated that the information he received relating to Mr. Merrifield’s  
having commented out of turn on national security matters came from Asst/Commr.  
White.  
[608] The Parliamentary Business Bulletin goes on to state:  
In July 2005, while Merrifield was off duty recovering from  
surgery, he was asked to speak to Talk 640 Radio about the history  
of terrorism. During the interview, he did not identify himself as a  
member of the RCMP or purport to be interviewed as a member of  
the RCMP. Following the radio program Jagoe alleged that  
Merrifield had disclosed top secret information regarding RCMP  
investigations contrary to the Official Secrets Act. Jagoe prompted  
Proulx to take action against Merrifield. Two days after the radio  
interview, Proulx contacted Merrifield at his home and accused  
him of violating RCMP policy. He also advised that formal  
disciplinary proceedings would follow.  
[609] Commr. Paulson stated he would conclude from this portion of the Bulletin that Supt.  
Proulx had accused Mr. Merrifield of having done this radio talk show without authority  
and Mr. Merrifield would have been subject to an investigation. The Parliamentary  
Business Bulletin did not give the impression that the matter was concluded with no  
discipline.  
[610] In June 2013, Mr. Merrifield stood for election as an SRR and was successful. He served  
a term which expired in June 2015. At that time he was re-elected.  
[611] On March 6, 2014, Mr. Merrifield was promoted to Sergeant.  
Page: 124  
Harassment Complaint - July 7, 2015  
[612] On June 24, 2015, Mr. Merrifield attended a mandatory course entitled “Insider Threat  
and Security Risk Manager”. Cst. Ktabi, one of Mr. Merrifield’s junior officers, also  
attended the course. Mr. Merrifield had previously dealt with him regarding a  
performance issue. Part of the discussion in the course was about psychopaths. The  
instructor asked if anyone could identify psychopaths. Several people stated names. Mr.  
Merrifield, who is apparently known for his wry sense of humour, stated, “The  
Commissioner. Just joking. Just a joke.” Cst. Ktabi took offence to this, completed a  
form known as an A5 on July 7, 2015, and sent it to Insp. Crouch, OIC of INSET. He  
stated in the form that he considered Mr. Merrifield’s comment to be a form of  
harassment. The complaint went to the Office for Co-ordination of Harassment  
Complaints. (OCHC).  
[613] Section 2.8 of the RCMP’s harassment policy defines harassment as follows:  
2.8 Harassment means any improper conduct by an individual that  
is directed at, and is offensive to, another individual in the  
workplace, including at any event or any location related to work,  
and that the individual knew, or ought reasonably to have known,  
would cause offence or harm. It comprises an objectionable act,  
comment, or display that demeans, belittles, or causes personal  
humiliation or embarrassment, and any act of intimidation or  
threat. It also includes harassment within the meaning of the  
Canadian Human Rights Act, i.e. based on race, national or ethnic  
origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status,  
family status, disability, and pardon conviction.  
2.8.1 Harassment is normally a series of incidents but can be one  
severe incident which has a lasting impact on the individual.  
[614] The information on the A5 did not meet the requirements of a harassment complaint.  
There is no provision in the policy for a third party complaint. The person alleging that he  
has been harassed must make the complaint. He can authorize another person to do so on  
his behalf if he is unable to make the complaint himself due to medical reasons and if he  
provides written authorization to the other person.  
[615] Despite the fact that the requirements for a harassment complaint had not been met, staff  
at OCHC treated the A5 as a harassment complaint.  
[616] Harassment reviewer civilian Ms.O’Neil, of the OCHC, opened ACMT File  
#2015336749 on July 27, 2015. Mr. Merrifield was the only subject listed on the file and  
was identified as the “Respondent”.  
[617] Ms. O’Neil carried out a review and prepared a “report”, OCHC Review – Case  
#2015336749, in which she set out a synopsis of the allegation.  
Page: 125  
[618] S/Sgt. Floyd, an SRR who had extensive involvement in the development of the  
harassment policy, explained that the complaints policy regarding harassment was  
modified and came into force on November 28, 2014.  
[619] S/Sgt. Floyd described the process. He explained that a written complaint would usually  
be prepared on form 3919. A complaint can be written on another document as long as it  
contains the necessary criteria. It would be submitted to the OCHC intake office where it  
is reviewed. Within seven days, the complainant will receive an acknowledgment that the  
complaint has been received. After that, the complaint is processed and forwarded to the  
Division where the complaint was received. At the OCHC, the complaint goes to a  
harassment advisor who works with a decision-maker. The decision-maker is usually the  
C.O. of the Division. In this instance, Cst. Brunet was the advisor, civilian Ms. Paquet  
was her assistant and Asst/Commr. White was the C.O.  
[620] S/Sgt. Floyd explained a respondent is not notified until the complaint comes to the  
Division. Typically, the decision-maker notifies the respondent within 14 days. Upon  
receipt of the complaint, the decision-maker reviews it to ensure compliance with  
submission deadlines and policy criteria for harassment.  
[621] In this matter, the complaint was made in mid-July. Mr. Merrifield was not notified of it  
until October. S/Sgt. Floyd stated that this is not his understanding of how the policy is  
supposed to work. He stated that in his view, the A5 document does not commence a  
harassment complaint. A third party complainant cannot make a complaint that someone  
else has been harassed. The essence of the allegation in the A5 was that Mr. Merrifield  
may have acted inappropriately at a training event. S/Sgt. Floyd stated that this  
complaint went to the Inspector. There is a process for a supervisor to follow when a  
matter is not a formal harassment complaint. If steps need to be taken, the subject of the  
complaint could be considered a performance issue or a Part IV investigation could be  
initiated.  
[622] S/Sgt. Floyd stated that if a complaint is going to proceed, it is imperative that the  
respondent knows what the allegations are so that s/he can respond. The respondent is to  
receive the 3919 form as well as the allegations. This is mandated under the policy. The  
respondent typically receives the documents after the decision-maker reviews it and  
considers it to be a formal harassment complaint.  
[623] In s. 5.2.3, the Policy states that if the complaint is determined to not be a harassment  
complaint but rather a work performance issue, the supervisor or manager must take  
appropriate steps to determine if a response, consistent with the workplace relations  
services, would be appropriate. S/Sgt. Floyd stated that on Friday, November 13, 2015,  
two days before they were to testify, he and C/Supt. O’Reilly, who was the highest  
ranking officer responsible for the OCHC, had a conversation. They agreed that this was  
the process that should have been followed regarding Cst. Ktabi’s A5. They agreed that  
the matter had been handled inappropriately.  
Page: 126  
[624] In 2015, C/Supt. O’Reilly was the director general of the Workplace Responsibility  
branch. He was also directly involved in the development of the new policy for  
harassment complaints and is now responsible as an overseer and policy expert regarding  
harassment, among other issues, within the RCMP. He is ultimately responsible for the  
OCHC. He manages and oversees the superintendent who is responsible for conduct  
and employee relations who in turn oversees the Staff Sergeant for the OCHC. C/Supt.  
O’Reilly explained the OCHC is responsible for several things including operating the  
policy centre for oversight of the harassment policy, carrying out investigations and  
managing the resolution process. It is the central intake for complaints.  
[625] C/Supt. O’Reilly testified that he first became aware of the complaint involving Mr.  
Merrifield on July 23, 2015. It came up during a morning briefing that takes place every  
day which is held by the Professional Responsibility officer, Asst/Commr. McMillan and  
attended by three director generals including himself. Asst/Commr. McMillan told him  
that Asst/Commr. White was looking for advice with respect to the report that he had  
received. C/Supt. O’Reilly stated that the next day he contacted Asst/Commr. White and  
told him to forward the A5. C/Supt. O’Reilly received it on July 24, 2015. His next step  
was to contact the Professional Responsibility officer and provide some  
recommendations. He stated that Asst/Commr. White did not have a role at that point  
because the A5 did not initiate a harassment complaint.  
[626] On July 27, 2015, C/Supt O’Reilly reported to the Professional Responsibility officer that  
he had received the A5 and that his recommendation was that it should be treated as a  
“third party non-complainant process”. On July 27, 2015, he sent an email to Supt.  
MacDonald and Ms. O’Neil which stated that “a third party harassment complaint” was  
attached. C/Supt. O’Reilly stated that it was very unfortunate that he used this term as a  
“third party harassment complaint” does not exist in the new policy. In the next  
paragraph of his email, he directed Ms. O’Neil to open a file and to proceed with “the  
third party non-complainant process”. This was the correct process that should have been  
initiated. C/Supt. O’Reilly then sent an email to Asst/Commr. White on July 27, 2015 to  
advise that a file had been opened and that the matter would be addressed through a third  
party non-complainant process.  
[627] C/Supt. O’Reilly stated that he had quite a few concerns with respect to how the OCHC  
case review was prepared by Ms. O’Neil. It purported to make Cst. Ktabi’s document  
into a harassment complaint. It stated that a complaint had been received and that it  
would proceed in accordance with the harassment policy process. C/Supt. O’Reilly  
stated that this occurred because he had referred to the complaint as a “third party  
harassment complaint” in his email dated July 27, 2015 to Supt. MacDonald and Ms.  
O’Neil. He stated that he had misrepresented Cst. Ktabi’s document when he called it a  
third party harassment complaint and this led to the analysis of it as a harassment  
complaint. He stated that the A5 document did not constitute a formal harassment  
complaint because, pursuant to the policy, Cst. Ktabi did not have the ability to initiate  
such a complaint on someone else’s behalf.  
Page: 127  
[628] He said he believed that the OCHC had reverted to their standard operating procedure  
when they contacted the SRR. Rather than treating the complaint as an informal  
resolution outside of the harassment complaint process, they treated it as a harassment  
complaint and informal resolution within that process. C/Supt. O’Reilly thought that Mr.  
Merrifield was not informed that there was an error in the interpretation of the policy and  
that the matter should not have been characterized as a harassment complaint. He said  
that he did not advise Mr. Merrifield of this and he thought that “O” Division also had not  
advised him. The first cause of the delay in notifying Mr. Merrifield was that the  
Commissioner was away on holidays until the end of August and was not available to  
advise as to how he wanted to be engaged. During September, the matter was overlooked.  
It was not a priority for case reviewers until it was raised by the Professional  
Responsibility officer.  
[629] Even though the A5 was dated July 7, 2015, Mr. Merrifield was not served with it until  
October 22, 2015. He was asked if he wished to engage in informal resolution. He  
agreed. When the Commissioner returned from holidays, his stance was that he required  
a written apology. A copy of it was to be sent to all the other officers who attended the  
course.  
[630] As a result of all of this, Mr. Merrifield’s name was entered into the OCHC’s database  
which exists to keep track of harassers and identify patterns. Entries into the database are  
not removed. They can only be revised to show that a matter has been resolved.  
[631] On November 23, 2015, C/Supt. O’Reilly directed Ms. O’Neil to change the  
identification in the Administrative Case Management Tool (AMCT) for Mr. Merrifield  
from “Respondent” to “Subject of Consultation.”  
[632] Since November 23, 2015, access to ACMT File #2015336749 has been restricted to  
C/Supt. O’Reilly, Supt. MacDonald and Ms. O’Neil.  
[633] With respect to the status of the matter, as of November 18, 2015, C/Supt. O’Reilly stated  
that despite the miscommunication, the matter was still in the “third party complaint  
process and informal resolution”. He confirmed that there is no harassment complaint at  
this time.  
[634] As a result of the A5 filed by Cst. Ktabi and its mishandling by the RCMP, Mr.  
Merrifield did not know that a complaint had been made against him until October 22,  
2015 when he was served with the A5. He first learned that the RCMP conceded that the  
matter was handled inappropriately during the testimony of S/Sgt. Floyd and C/Supt.  
O’Reilly on Tuesday, November 17 and Wednesday, November 18, 2015. In the  
interval, Mr. Merrifield lived under the shadow of a harassment complaint involving  
himself and the Commissioner.  
[635] No explanation was provided as to why Mr. Merrifield was not advised of this between  
Friday, November 13, 2015 and the dates of the testimony.  
[636] I will now turn to the motion brought by the plaintiff.  
Page: 128  
Should the statement of defence be struck for late disclosure?  
[637] During the trial, plaintiff’s counsel stated their intention to bring this motion. I  
determined that I could not decide the motion until the end of trial when all of the  
evidence had been called. Accordingly, this motion was heard on June 2, 2016.  
[638] Most of the examinations for discovery in this action were conducted in 2010. This trial  
proceeded over three trial sittings in November 2015, May 2016 and November 2016.  
The defendants provided additional documents on 13 different dates during the trial, 9 of  
which were after the plaintiff testified. Some of the documents provided evidence of the  
decisions and actions of certain witnesses after they had already testified. The plaintiff  
conducted examinations for discovery relating to some of the late produced documents on  
May 28, 2015, during the trial. Several significant documents came into the plaintiff’s  
possession only because he made an Access to Information request. The plaintiff states  
that he was substantially prejudiced by the late production of documents. This prejudice  
cannot be overcome by an adjournment or costs. Accordingly, the plaintiff requests an  
order striking the defence.  
[639] The defendants state that the remedy requested by the plaintiff is the most extreme and  
punitive relief available. The plaintiff has not demonstrated any actual prejudice arising  
from the late disclosure. Even if there was prejudice, the relief sought is vastly  
disproportionate to the prejudice.  
The Test  
[640] The Rules of Civil Procedure: R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, set out requirements for  
production of documents. A party to litigation is required to provide every document  
relevant to the issues in the action that is in its possession. This is an ongoing obligation  
throughout the course of the action. According to Rule 53.08, when the issue of late  
disclosure or production arises at trial, if the evidence is admissible only with leave, leave  
shall be granted on such terms as are just and with an adjournment if necessary, unless to  
do so will cause prejudice to the opposite party or will cause undue delay to the conduct  
of the trial.  
[641] Rule 2 addresses the consequences for non-compliance. Ordinarily, non-compliance is an  
irregularity which does not render a proceeding a nullity. The court may set aside the  
proceeding in whole only where necessary and when it is in the interests of justice.  
[642] The plaintiff acknowledges that he seeks a rare and drastic order to strike the defendants’  
pleading based on non-compliance with their obligation to disclose and produce. The  
plaintiff relies on Iannarella v. Corbett, 2015 ONCA 110, 124 O.R. (3d) 523,  
Blatherwick v. Blatherwick, 2015 ONSC 2606, 8 E.T.R. (4th) 30, Bishop-Gittens v. Lim  
2015 ONSC 3553, 127 O.R. (3d) 74, Newlove v. Moderco Inc., 2002 34748 (ON  
SC), McAvan Holdings v. BDO Dunwoody Ltd., (2003), 65 O.R. (3d) 247 (Sup. Ct.),  
and Leone’s Music World v. Jam Industries, 2008 87580 (ON SC).  
Page: 129  
[643] In Iannarella, surveillance evidence was disclosed and produced for the first time during  
the cross-examination of the plaintiff at trial. The respondents did not serve an affidavit  
of documents and did not provide particulars of the surveillance either before or after the  
appellants set the matter down for trial. The court quoted Howden J. from Beland v. Hill,  
2012 ONSC 4855, at para. 50, in which he stated, “the discovery rules are to be read in a  
manner to discourage tactics and encourage full and timely disclosure in order to  
encourage early settlement and reduce court costs.” The court stated in para. 46 of  
Iannarella that “given the interests of fairness and the objectives of efficiency and  
settlement, the court expects the parties to comply fully and rigorously with the  
disclosure and production obligations under the Rules.” The Court of Appeal stated that  
because the respondent failed to serve an affidavit of documents, the trial judge ought to  
have considered how the case would have developed if the respondents had complied  
with the Rules: Iannarella, at paras 66 – 67. The court found at para. 33 that the prejudice  
was “baked in” when the trial was underway. The court ordered a new trial for a variety  
of reasons including the fact that the surveillance had not been disclosed.  
[644] Bishop-Gittens v. Lim also concerned the defendant’s failure to notify the plaintiff that it  
had conducted surveillance. The court held that the defendant could rely on the  
surveillance evidence for purposes of impeachment and that any potential prejudice to the  
plaintiff could be addressed through the imposition of appropriate terms. The prejudicial  
effect of the surveillance did not outweigh its probative value. The main difference  
between this case and Iannarella is that the trial was not yet underway when the  
surveillance issue arose. The court stated at para. 17 that, “neither party has taken any  
steps at trial which could result in prejudice by not knowing that this evidence might be  
referred to at trial.”  
[645] Blatherwick is a family law matter. The husband produced documents during trial that  
would have affected the valuations of certain assets. The court found that the late  
disclosure resulted in prejudice. It excluded relevant evidence on the basis that there  
would be no time to investigate, prepare or respond to new documents that were  
produced not on the eve of trial but at trial. An adjournment would have been prejudicial  
to the wife. The court held that the documents that the husband produced during trial  
were not admissible.  
[646] In Newlove, a plaintiff failed to produce financial information and then sought to have it  
admitted at trial to bolster his claim for damages. The trial judge heard a motion before  
trial brought by the defendant to dismiss the action or for an order preventing the plaintiff  
from introducing the evidence. The court held that the proper approach was to proceed  
with the trial without the previous undisclosed documents. The trial judge quoted from  
Bascur v. Fernandino, [1997] O.J. No. 1136 and stated, “the extreme remedy of dismissal  
of the action with respect to damages may be granted, in a case where no acceptable  
excuse for the failure to comply is offered, and the documents cannot be produced in time  
for proper trial preparation.”  
[647] McAvan concerned a company’s failure to obtain files from Canada Customs and  
Revenue Agency (CRA) in an action where it alleged professional negligence against its  
Page: 130  
accountants. The defendant accountants brought a motion to compel production of  
documents. Master Albert directed the plaintiff’s to obtain their files from CCRA and  
deliver a further affidavit of documents, failing which the defendant could bring a motion  
to stay or dismiss the claim.  
[648] In Leone’s Music World, the court considered a motion prior to trial to dismiss the  
plaintiff’s claim for failure to comply with two interlocutory court orders that set out  
documents that the plaintiff was required to produce. Master Pope determined that the  
defendant would be severely prejudiced if it was required to go to trial and defend a claim  
for economic loss without complete documentation to test what the plaintiff’s purchases,  
sales, inventory, revenue and profits were during the relevant periods. There had been  
extensive delays in the proceeding of nine years. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s  
action.  
[649] In the above-noted cases, with the exception of Leone’s Music World, the court has dealt  
with failure to produce documents or producing documents at the last minute by either  
ordering a new trial or finding that the documents were not admissible at trial.  
[650] The defendants rely on Glass v. 618717 Ontario Inc., 2011 ONSC 2810 and Eloro  
Resources Ltd. v. Sovereign Capital Group (Ont.) Ltd., 2004 14047 (ON SC).  
They also rely on Newlove set out above.  
[651] In Glass, the plaintiffs brought a motion during trial to strike the defendants’ pleadings.  
They alleged that the defendants failed to produce material documents in a timely  
fashion. Production of documents was the subject of an earlier motion in which the court  
ordered the defendants to request certain files from a law firm and provide the plaintiffs  
with copies of their contents. The defendants reviewed those documents at the law firm  
and then invited the plaintiffs to review them, which they did. They obtained copies of  
certain documents from the files. On the motion to strike, the plaintiffs took the position  
that the defendants had not actually produced the files from the law firm. The court  
stated that the seriousness of any breach and the related prejudice to the innocent party’s  
right to a fair hearing had to be considered. At para. 36 of Glass, the court considered the  
principles set out in Newlove and Breslin v. Breslin, 2006 CarswellOnt 6372 at para. 9  
where the court stated that the “interlocutory dismissal of an action is a remedy of last  
resort, to be invoked when the litigant has shown a cavalier disregard of his obligations.”  
The defendants had not failed to produce the documents ordered by the Master.  
Furthermore, the plaintiffs had not demonstrated any prejudice resulting from their late  
inspection of the law firm’s files. The court did not accept the plaintiff’s argument that  
the failure to produce the files deprived them of the opportunity to obtain favourable  
evidence or admissions on examinations for discovery. The plaintiffs decided not to  
proceed with the continued examination of the defendant.  
[652] In Eloro, the defendant had not provided an affidavit of documents and had failed to  
attend at examinations for discovery, despite the fact that a timetable order had been  
made. The motion was adjourned several times because the defendant’s solicitor of  
record had been removed and the principal of the corporation was out of the country. The  
Page: 131  
court stated at para. 6 that “… striking a defence is an extreme remedy and a last resort. It  
should only be ordered when the defence of the action is no longer viable and appropriate  
because the defendant has by its failure or refusal to be bound by the rules and orders of  
the court effectively abandoned its right to participate in the court process or when the  
breaches have become contumelious such as to demonstrate an utter disregard by the  
defaulting party for the court’s orders or when the moving party can demonstrate  
prejudice.” The court found that the breaches occurred during a brief period when the  
defendant was without counsel. Therefore, the plaintiff’s motion was denied.  
[653] The cases relied upon by the parties fall into three broad categories:  
(a)  
requests by a party to admit evidence at trial that is helpful to that party  
(Blatherwick and Newlove);  
(b)  
(c)  
motions brought prior to trial (Bishop-Gittens, McAvan and Eloro); and  
failure to comply with production orders (Leone’s Music World).  
[654] All of these cases can be distinguished on their facts. Here, the plaintiff requests an order  
to strike the defence because the defendants failed to locate documents prior to trial and  
instead produced them during trial. These documents might have been helpful to the  
plaintiff.  
[655] The principles that emerge from these cases indicate that on this motion to strike, the  
court must consider the seriousness of the failure to produce documents and whether this  
resulted in prejudice to the plaintiff’s right to a fair hearing. Striking a statement of  
defence is a remedy of last resort to be used when the defendant has shown a cavalier  
disregard of its production obligations.  
The Plaintiff’s Position  
[656] The plaintiff provided two helpful charts. The first one sets out the dates when the  
defendant provided certain documents and a description of those documents. It also  
includes the date when the trial began, the two dates when it reconvened and the date  
when the parties conducted a mid-trial examination for discovery on some of the new  
productions. In addition, the plaintiff provided a second chart showing the dates when  
various witnesses testified. Both charts are reproduced below.  
REFERENCE  
NUMBER  
WHAT  
WHEN  
PROVIDED  
April 9/10  
June 16/10  
WHAT DOCS  
Tabs 1-302  
Original list of  
documents  
First supplementary  
list of documents  
Tabs 303-311  
Second supplementary Feb. 24/14  
list of documents  
Tabs 312-331 –  
Boos, Van Doren  
Page: 132  
and Frank Smith  
Notes  
1
Request for file and  
reply re file jacket  
20015-1117  
June 24/14  
July 16/14  
Enclosing file  
jacket and list of  
file contents  
Third supplementary  
list of documents  
Sept. 30/14  
Tabs 332-334  
enclosing 2005-  
1117  
Occurrence Report  
and file jacket (file  
jacket previously  
supplied via email  
July 16/14)  
Fourth supplementary Oct. 31/14  
list of documents  
Tabs 335-341  
(Promotion Exam  
2006 registration  
documents)  
Discovery of Peter  
Merrifield  
Nov. 10/14  
TRIAL  
NOV. 17, 2014  
Nov. 21/14  
COMMENCEMENT  
Elections Canada  
Results  
2
Nomination results  
presented during  
cross-examination  
(Exhibits  
62,64,66,68  
3
4
Van Doren Note  
2005-1117 file  
documents  
Nov. 28/14  
Nov. 30/14  
1 page  
6 documents  
5
6
7
Boos notes  
Nov. 30/14  
May 13/15  
16 pages (mostly  
redacted)  
14 pages  
Continuation reports  
and Andy White notes  
Crane note and policy May 14/15  
1 page Crane note  
with printout of  
policy and  
regulation  
8
Continuation report re May 15/15  
BB gun case  
4 pages  
9
10  
OP manual page  
Seguin Notes  
May 18/15  
May 25/15  
1 page  
2 pgs. re October  
2006  
11  
Proulx Notes  
May 25/15  
5 new pages plus  
redacted parts of  
existing notes –  
Page: 133  
new note for Jan.  
6/05 with Trueman  
reference  
12  
McCann Notes  
Nov. 6/15  
6 pages notes  
redacted (appears  
to show discussion  
with J. Jagoe)  
TRIAL  
Nov. 16/15  
RECONVENES  
13  
14  
Personnel report with Nov. 18/15  
Proulx comments  
Proulx comments  
added to end of  
report, handwritten  
date on front  
2 pages (entries for  
May 13/05 and  
June 2/05  
Mazerolle Notes  
Nov. 18/15  
referencing Jagoe)  
DATE(S)  
November 17 to November 21, 2014 Peter Merrifield  
WITNESS  
November 24, 2014  
November 25, 2014  
November 26, 2014  
November 27 & 28, 2014  
December 1, 2014  
December 2, 2014  
December 3, 2014  
May 19, 2015  
Peter Merrifield, Michael Nicota  
Peter Merrifield  
Peter Merrifield, Stephen Raine  
Peter Merrifield  
Peter Merrifield, Jim Brown, Greg Sims  
Stephen Frith, Mark DuPuy, Tim Petit, Doug Ford  
Joseph Robert Paulson, Ian Wallach  
Sealed testimony – Stephen White  
Brian John Reed  
May 20 & 21, 2015  
May 22, 2015  
Frank Phillip Smith, Wendy Verecchia  
Joseph Donat, Michel Seguin  
Joseph Donat, Michel Seguin John Steeves  
May 26, 2015  
May 27, 2015  
Page: 134  
John Roy Steeves, Stephen Boos  
May 29, 2015  
June 1, 2015  
Stephen Boos, Don Crane, Jamie Raymond Jagoe  
Jamie Jagoe  
June 2, 2015  
June 3, 2015  
Jamie Jagoe, Marc Proulx  
Marc Proulx  
June 4 & 5, 2015  
November 16, 2015  
November 17, 2015  
November 18, 2015  
November 19, 2015  
November 20, 2015  
Marc Proulx  
Kim Floyd, Michael O’Reilly  
Michael O’Reilly  
Martien Van Doren, Rod McCann  
Rod McCann, Norman Mazerolle  
[657] The plaintiff states that he has suffered irremediable prejudice in the trial of this action.  
He takes issue with the production of all of the documents during trial; however, four  
items are particularly concerning.  
[658] Number one on the first chart, being the file jacket and list of file contents for 2005-117,  
(which has been referred to as the Secret file) were provided on June 24, 2014 and July  
16, 2014, four months before the trial began. The plaintiff states that he received these  
documents pursuant to an ATIP request that he made. They show that the file was coded  
as an internal investigation with restricted access. Had these documents been provided  
prior to examinations in 2010, the defendants could have been questioned about them.  
[659] Number 11 on the first chart, being five new pages as well as un-redacted parts of Supt.  
Proulx’s notes produced on May 25, 2015 contain a new note dated January 6, 2005 with  
a reference to Supt. Trueman. This note states as follows:  
Tom Trueman  
- when misuse of credit card -  
code of conduct?  
what policy?  
which offence  
Fact finding in order to [illegible word] the appropriate action  
based on the actions of Cst. M.  
Page: 135  
[660] The plaintiff states that this note refers to the Amex inquiry. Mr. Proulx testified after  
these notes were produced; however, as part of the examination for discovery in 2010,  
inquiries were made of Supt. Trueman regarding his recollection of events. An inquiry  
was not made on this specific point because the plaintiff was not aware of it until the  
notes were produced five years after examinations. An inquiry was made in 2015 after  
the notes were produced; however, Supt. Trueman had no recollection of a conversation  
with or contact from Supt. Proulx on January 6, 2006. The plaintiff states that had this  
note been produced prior to examinations, an inquiry of Supt. Trueman could have been  
made through examinations, four years after the note was made. Supt. Trueman may well  
have had a recollection in 2010 of Supt. Proulx’s contacting him in 2006 but he had no  
recollection of it in 2015, nine years later. If Supt. Trueman had told Supt. Proulx that a  
Part IV investigation was not warranted, this evidence would have been helpful to the  
plaintiff.  
[661] Number 12 on the first chart, being six pages of redacted notes of Supt. McCann,  
produced November 6, 2015, appear to show a discussion with Insp. Jagoe on November  
23, 2005. A significant portion of the notes is redacted. The part that is not redacted  
states:  
very familiar with Merrifield member situation.  
- work hard  
- good work ethic  
- stay under the radar  
-similar advice from NCO’s  
- media interview day after 717  
- ATIP request on all correspondence Proulx, CROPS  
office, Jamie  
- media interview (not good)  
[662] Supt. Jagoe testified that he never had a discussion with Supt. McCann regarding the  
possibility of Mr. Merrifield’s returning to work on the investigative side of INSET.  
Supt. McCann’s notes were disclosed after Supt. Jagoe gave evidence in June 2015. The  
plaintiff states that had these notes been disclosed prior to examinations, Supt. Jagoe  
could have been questioned on this issue. Had these notes been disclosed prior to trial,  
Supt. Jagoe could have been cross-examined on the point.  
[663] Number 14 on the first chart, being C/Supt. Mazerolle’s notes with entries for May 13,  
2005 and June 2, 2005, which refer to Insp. Jagoe, were produced on November 18,  
2015. A portion of the notes state, “Jamie called to advise of the Peter Merrifield. Try to  
advise that he would try to accommodate him in Inset. He stated he was concerned about  
the review from a policy perspective and that he hoped the C.O. & CROPS knew what  
they were doing.”  
[664] The plaintiff states that these notes were produced five months after Supt. Jagoe had  
already testified. His evidence was that he would not have Mr. Merrifield at INSET  
because he lacked judgment.  
Page: 136  
[665] The plaintiff states that had these notes been produced prior to examinations, Supt. Jagoe  
could have been questioned about this conversation. Had the notes been produced prior to  
trial or even prior to Supt. Jagoe’s testimony, he could have been cross-examined on this  
point.  
[666] In addition to the above, the plaintiff states that had there been proper and timely  
disclosure, he would have given his evidence at trial informed by an appropriate and  
complete universe of relevant documents, rather than having documents that included  
references to him and other incidents unknown to him at the time of his trial testimony  
being introduced into the trial through later witnesses. The plaintiff states that had there  
been proper and timely disclosure, both parties would have had informed settlement  
negotiations based on a fully informed understanding of the case. This would have  
included an assessment of the problems associated with Supt. Proulx’s decision to order a  
Part IV investigation against the plaintiff in January 2006, which would have been  
informed by the timely recollections of Supt. Trueman. Further, the parties would have  
been able to make a fully informed assessment of the risks associated with the existence  
of a formal investigative file, 2005-1117, notice of which was not given to the plaintiff at  
the time. The parties also would have been able to make a fully informed assessment of  
the implications of the reference to the June 2, 2005 communication between Insp. Jagoe,  
C.O. Seguin and C/Supt. Mazerolle.  
[667] The plaintiff argues that Iannarella sets out the court’s expectations concerning  
disclosure and the critical role of discovery. It avoids trial by ambush, encourages early  
settlement and enhances trial efficiency.  
[668] The plaintiff states that the prejudice arising from the late disclosure cannot be overcome  
by an adjournment or costs. Given that the evidence in the trial proceeded intermittently  
from November 17, 2014 until December 4, 2015, multiple adjournments to investigate,  
prepare or respond to new documents that were produced in November 2014, May 2015  
and November 2015 would not have been feasible. The trial was already lengthy. The  
plaintiff is an individual bringing an action against well-resourced defendants. No order  
that could be made now to put the plaintiff back in a position that would approximate  
how this litigation and trial should have proceeded if the defendants had complied with  
their disclosure obligations. As a result, the only appropriate remedy is to strike the  
defendants’ pleading.  
The Defendants’ Position  
[669] Regarding the Secret file 2005 - 1117, the defendants state that the file was the subject of  
a Privacy Act R.S.C. 1985 c. P-21 request made by the plaintiff in 2005. As a result,  
many of the documents contained in the file were disclosed to the plaintiff in the  
defendants’ initial production of documents in 2010. File 2005 – 1117 is referred to in  
several other documents in the productions of both parties including Supt. Proulx’s email  
to Supt. Trueman dated July 27, 2005. At discoveries, the plaintiff questioned Supt.  
Proulx about his memo to Supt. Trueman. Four years later, the plaintiff requested  
production of file 2005 – 1117. The defendants replied that all of the documents in that  
Page: 137  
file had already been disclosed except for three. Two of them were national security  
policy documents that could not be disclosed. The third one was an excerpt from the  
RCMP career management manual relating to the position of Investigator for National  
Security investigations. The defendants state that a description of this position as well as  
a copy of the file cover, were provided to the plaintiff four months in advance of trial.  
[670] The defendants state that during the trial, their counsel learned that there was an internal  
folder/wallet with sixteen additional documents. The defendants had produced ten of  
them in 2010. Three of them, although not disclosed by the defendants, were listed in the  
plaintiff’s affidavit of documents. The remaining three documents were provided on  
November 30, 2014, two weeks after the trial began.  
[671] The wallet is listed on a transmittal acknowledgement dated January 17, 2006, attached to  
Exhibit Q of the affidavit of Diane Dyke, sworn March 7, 2016 and filed by the  
defendants on this motion.  
Analysis  
[672] The case law provided by the parties is helpful only with respect to statements of legal  
principles. None of the cases concerned a situation where the defendant failed to make  
timely production of documents that might have been helpful to the plaintiff’s case.  
[673] The reason why the plaintiff’s counsel requested production of file 2005 – 1117 is  
because the plaintiff received the file jacket in 2014 pursuant to an ATIP request. The  
defendants have no basis for saying that because the file was referred to in documents  
that the plaintiff had in 2010, the plaintiff should have made a specific inquiry for the file  
jacket and the contents and this somehow lessens the seriousness of the defendants’  
failure to produce the documents. These documents were relevant to the action.  
[674] Regarding the defendants’ obligation to produce documents, the onus is not on the  
plaintiff to analyse the defendants’ productions, look for references to other documents  
which may not have been produced and then request that they be produced. A plaintiff  
has no knowledge of the undisclosed documents in a defendant’s possession. The  
defendants should have disclosed all of the documents from the folder/wallet in a timely  
fashion, not after the trial began.  
[675] Regarding the additional notes of various officers in items three, five, six, seven, ten,  
eleven, thirteen and fourteen on the first chart, the explanations provided for their late  
production were dubious. Some of them were produced late because they were misfiled.  
Some of them were in boxes and envelopes with other unrelated documents at the  
officers’ homes. These officers happened to be looking in those boxes and envelopes  
during trial and found the notes.  
[676] Police officers take notes on a daily basis. These notes are sometimes used to refresh their  
memories when they are testifying. Through their training, police officers have a  
heightened appreciation of the importance of accurate note taking and retention. The  
authors of most of these notes were Commissioned Officers. The fact that these notes  
Page: 138  
could not be located earlier shows a surprising failure on the part of these officers and/or  
the RCMP to ensure that the notes were properly filed and retained, and to conduct a  
thorough search for relevant documents. The court does not condone these failings.  
[677] The plaintiff conducted a mid-trial examination for discovery of Mr. Proulx and Mr.  
Smith on May 28, 2015. Regarding the late disclosed notes of Supt. McCann and C/Supt.  
Mazerolle, the plaintiff was put in a difficult position. They were disclosed after the mid-  
trial examination. The plaintiff could have requested that Supt. Jagoe be recalled for  
cross-examination on the references to him in these notes; however, a party takes a  
significant risk in cross-examining on a point when the witness’ answer is uncertain.  
Another mid-trial examination would have been required. The defendants suggest that  
the solution to any prejudice caused by the late production of notes was to hold further  
examinations. This is not the way that a trial ought to proceed. A plaintiff should not  
have to scramble mid-trial to conduct multiple examinations. A plaintiff should not have  
to forego trial days in order to fit in examinations.  
[678] The reference in Supt. McCann’s notes to a conversation with Insp. Jagoe, which Insp.  
Jagoe said did not occur, calls into question Insp. Jagoe’s credibility. While the late  
disclosure of these notes was proved inconvenient to the plaintiff and this court, I find  
that the information contained in them is not of sufficient importance that their late  
production resulted in irremediable prejudice to the plaintiff’s right to a fair trial.  
[679] The late production of Supt. Proulx’s note dated January 6, 2006, which refers to Supt.  
Trueman, is a larger issue. Supt. Proulx consulted with Supt. Trueman regarding his  
concerns that Mr. Merrifield had a conflict of interest and should not continue to work in  
TAG. The note dated January 6, 2006 appears to show that he consulted Supt. Trueman  
again before he ordered the Part IV investigation. The only evidence of that contact is  
Supt. Proulx’s note. We will never have Supt. Trueman’s evidence regarding that  
conversation and any recommendations that he made because, due to the late production  
of the note, Supt. Trueman was unable to recall the event, 10 years after it occurred. Had  
the note been produced and included in the defendants’ productions in 2010, it is  
reasonable to assume that four years after the event, Supt. Trueman might have been able  
to recall the conversation. If Supt. Trueman had not concurred with Supt. Proulx’s plan to  
order a Part IV investigation, this evidence would have been quite helpful to the plaintiff;  
however, Supt. Trueman’s advice might have been that investigation was warranted,  
which would have been helpful to the defendants. We can only speculate.  
[680] It is difficult to conclude that the unavailability of this evidence resulted in irremediable  
prejudice to the plaintiff’s right to a fair trial. The evidence showed that the allegations  
that formed the basis for the Part IV investigation were unsubstantiated. No wrongdoing  
was discovered regarding Mr. Merrifield’s use of his Amex card. In the plaintiff’s best  
case, if Supt. Trueman’s advice to Supt. Proulx was that investigation was not warranted,  
this would have been one more fact to consider on this issue in assessing Supt. Proulx’s  
actions.  
Page: 139  
[681] The defendants’ failure to locate and produce earlier the documents that were produced  
during the trial falls below what is expected of a party to an action, especially considering  
that the defendants employed a file manager, Frank Smith, whose job was to look for  
relevant documents and provide them to counsel for production. Despite this, I cannot  
conclude that the seriousness of the failure to produce these documents in a timely  
fashion detracted significantly from informed settlement negotiations, meaningfully  
impaired the plaintiff’s proper trial preparation or prejudiced a full adjudication of the  
merits of the action.  
Conclusion  
[682] The plaintiff notes that striking a statement of defence is a remedy reserved for rare cases  
where material prejudice is established. Based on the record before me, I conclude that  
this is not one of those rare cases. The plaintiff has not established material prejudice  
sufficient to warrant an order striking the statement of defence.  
[683] The parties may make submissions regarding the costs of this motion in their trial costs  
submissions.  
Mr. Merrifield’s Credibility and the Reliability of his Evidence  
[684] The defendants state that Mr. Merrifield is not a credible or reliable witness. His evidence  
should be approached with caution and given a reduced weight, particularly where there  
are conflicts with basic facts and/or the testimony of other witnesses.  
[685] They say that one of the central issues in this case, which is relevant to both Mr.  
Merrifield’s credibility and to his claims that he was not required to be on LWOP when  
he “ran for political office in May 2005” (the Barrie nomination meeting on Saturday,  
May 14, 2005) is whether Mr. Merrifield actually intended not to win the nomination  
when he stood as candidate. His evidence was that he did not want to win and ran only to  
have an opportunity to speak to members of the local riding association about his  
concerns regarding another candidate.  
[686] The defendants state that this is inconsistent with the steps of an active campaign that he  
took or others took on his behalf to ensure that he would win the nomination. For  
example, he retained a campaign manager, obtained a list of local party members, made  
audio recorded telephone calls, created a website, campaign cards and pamphlets for  
distribution, none of which stated that he was not interested in winning the nomination.  
At the event, he directed party members to place his name first on the preferential ballot.  
Cpl. Frith testified that he voted for Mr. Merrifield so that he would be the party’s  
candidate.  
[687] The defendants state that Mr. Merrifield ran at the nomination event with the intention of  
being elected to be the party’s candidate. His subsequent statements that he did not intend  
to win the nomination are disingenuous. This shows that Mr. Merrifield’s evidence is  
Page: 140  
unreliable. It also undermines Mr. Merrifield’s testimony that he believed that he did not  
require LWOP for the nomination meeting because he did not intend to win.  
[688] I do not accept the defendants’ position on this issue. Mr. Merrifield testified that he sold  
no Conservative Party memberships in contrast to the other two candidates. He testified  
that selling memberships was critical to success at a nomination meeting. During the time  
leading up to the nomination meeting, Mr. Merrifield was away, organizing and  
participating in operation Bridgeout. He was not soliciting votes. He explained that any  
votes that he obtained would result in support for Mr. Broley, Mr. Merrifield candidate of  
choice, once Mr. Merrifield was eliminated. They would not go to Mr. Brown who was  
the subject of Mr. Merrifield’s concerns. Furthermore, Mr. Merrifield stated that he was  
offered an opportunity to run in the Richmond Hill riding in 2005 and could have run in  
the federal election for that riding if he wished. If he had wanted to be elected, this would  
have been an easier path than opposing Mr. Brown, in the Barrie nomination meeting,  
who had sold a lot of memberships.  
[689] The defendants state that Mr. Merrifield gave inconsistent evidence at trial in contrast to  
examinations for discovery. At examinations, he stated that he put his name forth as a  
candidate in just two ridings prior to the 2004 federal election, being York-Simcoe and  
Richmond Hill. On cross-examination, he conceded that he put his name forth in five  
ridings including Mississauga-Brampton South. He attended that nomination meeting  
and gave a speech. Despite this, Mr. Merrifield still denies that he ran for this  
nomination.  
[690] The various nomination meetings which Mr. Merrifield attended prior to the Barrie  
nomination meeting in May 14, 2005, are relatively insignificant details, given the  
lengthy factual matrix of events between 2005 and 2016. It is incorrect to say that “Mr.  
Merrifield still denies that he ran for this [Brampton-Mississauga South] nomination. In  
cross-examination, he was asked:  
Q: “so in fact the next writing for which you presented yourself as  
a candidate for nomination was not Richmond Hill, Ontario. It was  
this Mississauga Brampton riding.”  
A: “Correct.”  
[691] The defendants state that Mr. Merrifield testified on discovery that he was ineligible to  
participate in the 2006 promotional process due to the codes of conduct and  
administrative reviews that had been called against him. He also stated that as a result, he  
did not submit a written expression of intention to write the February 2006 RCMP  
promotional exam. At trial, he stated that he did register to write the 2006 promotional  
exam but has no recollection of it, despite the fact that this alleged ineligibility to write  
this exam is the central part of his claim for loss of promotional opportunity.  
[692] Mr. Merrifield’s evidence is inconsistent with his evidence at examinations on this point;  
however, a significant part of his testimony regarding this issue is the fact that he was  
Page: 141  
off-duty sick on the examination date, which he stated in his testimony. He believed that  
he was not eligible to write the exam and participate in the promotional process in 2006  
for a number of reasons including the Part IV investigation and the administrative review.  
Mr. Merrifield may be mistaken in believing that he was not eligible, however; I accept  
his testimony that he was ill at the time and was unable to write the exam. He was off-  
duty sick. This was medically supported.  
[693] Neither of the two examples offered by the defendants regarding Mr. Merrifield’s  
inconsistent testimony cause me any concern with respect to Mr. Merrifield’s credibility.  
His performance review for the period September 9, 2010 to March 31, 2011 stated that  
Mr. Merrifield had worked with a Crown prosecutor during a trial and that the prosecutor  
had commented on Mr. Merrifield’s “encyclopedic knowledge of the evidence”. I find  
that this comment is equally applicable to Mr. Merrifield’s evidence at trial. He testified  
for three weeks, which included two weeks of cross-examination. He had a remarkable  
recall of events that happened between 2004 and 2016, the dates of documents and their  
contents. He testified in an earnest manner. He was quick to point out where he had made  
errors in the past and stated that he “owned them.” I find that Mr. Merrifield was a  
credible witness.  
Failure to Call a Material Witness  
[694] The defendants state that Mr. Merrifield refused to call a material witness to corroborate  
his testimony that he did not intend to win the Barrie nomination event. He stated that he  
told only one person within the local riding association, Lois Brown, that he did not  
intend to win. The defendants’ state that this court should draw an adverse inference that  
Ms. Brown would be unsupportive of Mr. Merrifield’s case because he did not call her as  
a witness.  
[695] As noted above, the issue of whether Mr. Merrifield intended to win the nomination  
meeting or whether he was simply there to address the party members is not a significant  
issue. The fact that he did not have LWOP when he attended the Barrie nomination event  
and whether he reasonably believed that he did not require LWOP is the main issue.  
Failure to Call Medical Evidence  
[696] The defendants state that Mr. Merrifield testified that he received treatment from various  
medical professionals; however, he declined to call any of his treating physicians to  
corroborate his claims that he either suffered from the alleged psychiatric and/or physical  
harms or to testify that the harms are medically and causally linked to the alleged  
instances of harassment that comprise his claim.  
[697] The test for harassment, as set out below, requires the plaintiff to prove that he suffered  
severe or emotional distress. A plaintiff is not required to provide medical evidence. Mr.  
Merrifield was off work for significant periods of time in which he suffered from  
depression among other things. His “off-duty status” was supported by his family  
physician. The RCMP health services never challenged this.  
Page: 142  
Unreasonable Perceptions of Harassment  
[698] The defendants state that Mr. Merrifield has made sweeping allegations of harassment  
involving nearly every officer within his chain of command. He even attributes his  
alleged harassment to people that he never met including Insp. Van Doran. He has  
unreasonable perceptions of harassment where none exists.  
[699] While Mr. Merrifield’s emails to various people in positions of authority do state that a  
number of people have harassed him, in this action, the RCMP, Insp. Jagoe and Supt.  
Proulx are defendants. One of the tasks of this court is to determine whether Insp. Jagoe  
and Supt. Proulx harassed plaintiff. The other officers are not defendants in this action.  
In Ontario, is harassment recognized as a tort upon which a civil cause of action may be  
based?  
The Plaintiff’s Position  
[700] The plaintiff and the defendant disagree regarding whether the tort of harassment has  
been recognized as a cause of action. The plaintiff submits that the tort of harassment  
does exist and is recognized as a cause of action. The plaintiff relies on several cases to  
support his position.  
[701] Mainland Sawmills Ltd. v. IWA-Canada, Local 1-3567 Society, 2006 BCSC 1195, 41  
C.C.L.T. (3d) 52, concerned a trespass to property. A number of union members came to  
the plaintiff’s property and forcibly shut down the sawmill operations. Property damage  
resulted and some employees were assaulted. The plaintiffs made a claim for  
harassment. The court began its analysis by assuming that the tort of harassment does  
exist or should exist in Canada. It stated at para. 17 that the elements of the tort of  
harassment are:  
(a) Outrageous conduct by the defendant;  
(b) Intention on the part of the defendant to cause emotional distress or the  
defendant’s reckless disregard for causing emotional distress;  
(c) The plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and,  
(d) The defendant’s outrageous conduct to be the actual and proximate cause of the  
emotional distress.  
[702] Regarding the claim, the court found that the plaintiffs had not proved the third element  
of the tort.  
[703] Savino v. Shelestowsky, 2013 ONSC 4394, 4 C.C.L.T. (4th) 94, involved neighbours who  
had been feuding for years. The plaintiffs brought a claim for damages for harassment  
and malicious prosecution. The defendants brought a motion to strike the claim. The  
court noted at para. 15 that the debate as to whether the tort of harassment existed as a  
Page: 143  
civil cause of action and stated, “While it is not largely accepted, the door does not  
appear to be entirely closed on the possibility of this tort’s existence.” The court refused  
to strike the claim.  
[704] McHale v. Ontario, 2014 ONSC 5179, concerned a counter-protest of residents against a  
native protest in Caledonia. The plaintiff brought a motion to amend his claim. The  
defendant brought a motion to strike portions of the claim. The plaintiff attended court as  
a Crown witness in criminal proceedings. In his civil claim, he alleged that members of  
the native community had harassed him and his wife both before and after the  
appearance. He alleged that the police took no steps to prevent this. In para 44, the court  
adopted the elements that must be established in an action for harassment as set out in  
Mainland Sawmills. Ultimately, the court struck the plaintiff’s claim for harassment  
because the plaintiff had not “set out with sufficient particularity the elements of the  
tort.” (para 49)  
[705] McIntomney v. Evangelista Estate 2015 ONSC 1419 is a trial decision. The case  
involved a woman who did bookkeeping and prepared taxes. She assisted her 80 year old  
neighbour with his tax returns. She alleged that the neighbour had sexually assaulted her  
when she went to his house to assist him. He then came to her house, banged on doors  
and looked in windows. At para. 35, the court set out the elements of harassment, as  
listed in Mainland Sawmills, and described harassment as a “still-developing tort”. It  
found that the neighbour’s subsequent actions constituted harassment and awarded the  
plaintiff damages for harassment.  
The Defendants’ Position  
[706] The defendants state that there is no free-standing tort of harassment. They rely on  
Desjardins v. Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada et al. 2012 ONSC  
7294; in which the court stated at para. 47:  
[The plaintiff pleaded that] Lalonde engaged in sexual harassment  
in the workplace contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code.  
Section 46.1(2) states that the Code “does not permit a person to  
commence an action based solely on an infringement of a right  
under Part 1.” …there is no freestanding tort of harassment. Even  
accepting that the conduct alleged in the Statement of Claim is  
true, that does not give rise to a claim against Lalonde based in  
harassment.  
[707] The defendants state that this court should decline to recognize a new tort of civil  
harassment. The proposed elements of this putative tort conflict with clear and  
established authority on the scope of compensable tort damages. In particular, because  
the third element of the putative tort of harassment requires only proof of emotional  
distress, such a tort would permit recovery for emotional upset, including that which is  
neither objectively visible nor provable. There is thus a clear and material distinction  
Page: 144  
between the putative tort of harassment and intentional infliction of mental suffering with  
regard to the degree and subjectivity of compensable injury.  
[708] The expansion of compensable injury into the realm of subjectively assessed emotional  
upset runs contrary to authority. In Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., 2008 SCC 27 at  
para 9, the Supreme Court of Canada held that, “[t]he law does not recognize upset,  
disgust, anxiety or agitation or other mental states that fall short of injury.” In Healey v.  
Lakeridge Health Corp., 2011 ONCA 55 at para 65, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled  
that because of the multifactorial and highly subjective nature of emotional distress,  
“[t]he law quite properly insists upon an objective threshold to screen such claims and to  
refuse compensation unless the injury is serious and prolonged.”  
[709] Because the putative tort of harassment does not insist upon an objective threshold for  
limiting compensable injury, its existence is at odds with this clear line of authority.  
Moreover, pinning tort compensation to a subjective experience of injury that is not  
objectively verifiable create serious evidentiary issues that could expose defendants to  
unforeseen liability. The better view is to link tort liability to objective determinations of  
injury including that which is verified by the testimony of medical professionals.  
[710] The defendants acknowledge that in John v. Cusak, 2015 ONSC 5004 at para 38, the  
court characterized the existence of the tort as a “live legal issue”.  
Analysis  
[711] In Desjardins, the plaintiff pleaded four different torts, being intentionally interfering  
with contractual relations, inducing breach of contract, engaging in sexual harassment in  
the workplace and deceit. The court considered the motion to strike the claim based on  
the defendant’s position that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action. Regarding the  
claims for deceit, intentionally interfering with contractual relations and inducing breach  
of contract, the court found, among other things, that the statement of claim was not  
sufficiently pleaded to address the required elements of each tort. This left the tort of  
sexual harassment to be considered on its own.  
[712] The plaintiff’s pleading regarding sexual harassment appears to have been based  
specifically on a contravention of the Ontario Human Rights Code, R.S.O. c. H.19. Part  
1 deals with harassment in employment. The court noted that s. 46.1(2) of the Code did  
not permit the plaintiff to bring an action based solely on an infringement of Part 1.  
Because of its rulings on the other three torts, it held that the plaintiff could not assert a  
claim of sexual harassment.  
[713] This case can be distinguished from the case at hand because Mr. Merrifield does not  
allege a violation of the Human Rights Code. He does not claim that he was harassed in  
employment on any of the grounds set out in s.5(2) of the Code (race, ancestry, place of  
origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender  
expression, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability).  
Accordingly, Desjardins does not assist the defendants.  
Page: 145  
[714] In Mustapha, the plaintiff brought an action for psychiatric injury sustained when he saw  
dead flies in a Culligan bottle of water. The court stated in para 1 that, “he became  
obsessed with this and the implications for the health of his family which had been  
consuming water supplied by Culligan for the previous 15 years. The plaintiff developed  
a major depressive order with associated phobia and anxiety.” The court went on to say  
in para 9 that for an injury to be compensable, “it must be serious and prolonged and rise  
above the ordinary annoyances, anxieties and fears that people living in society routinely  
if sometimes reluctantly accept.” The court further stated in para 10 that, “On the findings  
of the trial judge, supported by medical evidence, Mr. Mustapha developed a major  
depressive disorder associated with phobia and anxiety. This psychiatric illness was  
debilitating and had a significant impact on his life; it qualifies as a personal injury at  
law. It follows that Mr. Mustapha has established that he sustained damage.”  
[715] Mustapha may be distinguished from the present case. The court dismissed Mr.  
Mustapha’s appeal because he had not shown that it was foreseeable that a person of  
ordinary fortitude would suffer serious injury from seeing flies in the bottle of water that  
he was about to install. Medical experts described his reactions as “highly unusual” and  
“very individual”. The corollary of this is that if a plaintiff suffers from a serious and  
prolonged injury which rises above the ordinary annoyances, anxieties and fears that  
people living in society routinely if sometimes reluctantly accept, it may qualify as a  
personal injury at law for which compensation might be awarded. The question of  
whether medical evidence is required to support Mr. Merrifield’s claim will be discussed  
below.  
[716] The four cases relied upon by the plaintiff show that the tort of harassment was  
considered as early as 2006 (Mainland Sawmills) in which the British Columbia Superior  
Court defined the elements of the tort. Subsequently, in 2013 (Savino), the Ontario  
Superior Court of Justice allowed for the possibility that the tort did exist. In both 2014  
(McHale) and 2015 (McIntomney) the Ontario Superior Court of Justice adopted the  
elements of harassment as set out in Sawmills. In McIntomney, the plaintiff was awarded  
damages for harassment.  
[717] Mustapha (2008) and Healey (2011), relied upon by the defendants, were decided after  
Sawmills (2006) and before Savino (2013). The law has evolved since 2011 as shown in  
McHale (2014), McIntomney (2015) and John v. Cusack (2015).  
[718] Based on the jurisprudence before me, I am satisfied that the tort of harassment does  
exist, that it has been recognized as a cause of action in Ontario and that its elements are  
those set out in McHale and McIntomney.  
Test for Harassment  
[719] The test for harassment is set out in McHale and McIntomney above. In this case, there  
are four questions to be answered.  
(a) Was the conduct of the defendants toward Mr. Merrifield outrageous?  
Page: 146  
(b) Did the defendants intend to cause emotional stress or did they have a reckless  
disregard for causing Mr. Merrifield to suffer from emotional stress?  
(c) Did Mr. Merrifield suffer from severe or extreme emotional distress?  
(d) Was the outrageous conduct of the defendants the actual and proximate cause of  
the emotional distress?  
What constitutes outrageous behaviour in the context of harassment?  
[720] The Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines outrageous as follows: 1. Deeply shocking and  
unacceptable; 2. grossly cruel; 3. immoral, offensive; and 4. highly unusual or  
unconventional.vii  
[721] Of the four harassment cases set out above, McIntomney is the only trial decision. The  
court held that the defendant’s conduct constituted sexual battery and found that the  
plaintiff had proved all the elements of the tort, including outrageous behaviour. The  
plaintiff was awarded damages.  
[722] The tort of intentional infliction of mental suffering has some overlap with the tort of  
harassment. It requires that a plaintiff prove that the defendant’s conduct was outrageous  
and also flagrant. In Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp., 2014 ONCA 419, 120 O.R.  
(3d) 431, para 50, the court found that the plaintiff’s supervisor, “… belittled, humiliated  
and demeaned [Boucher] the plaintiff continuously and unrelentingly, often in front of  
co-workers, for nearly six months.” This constituted flagrant and outrageous conduct.  
[723] The defendants state that the plaintiff has to meet a high threshold to prove outrageous  
conduct. An objective assessment is required. The term outrageous indicates that the  
conduct must be grossly offensive.  
[724] In Prinzo v. Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care, (2002), 60 O.R. (3d) 474 (C.A.), Ms.  
Prinzo worked for the defendant for 17 years and was the manager of the beauty shop.  
Her management duties occupied approximately 40 percent of her time. The other 60  
percent involved hairstyling. Ms. Prinzo was a model employee until a new person,  
Gates, became her immediate supervisor. In the next year, Ms. Prinzo fell and hurt herself  
in Baycrest’ s parking lot. She suffered musculoskeletal injuries and was unable to use  
her right arm. She was off work and receiving physiotherapy treatment. Her treating  
physician stated that she was medically unfit for any form of work. Subsequently, Frost,  
an occupational nurse began calling Ms. Prinzo and asking about her return to work.  
Gates also called her. The trial judge found that the calls were harassing and suggested  
that she was malingering. Frost told the treating physician that it was necessary for Ms.  
Prinzo to return to work so that she could be let go.  
[725] Ms. Prinzo received a letter from Gates which implied that Ms. Prinzo’s own physician  
had agreed that she could return to work. This was false. Ms. Prinzo confirmed that her  
treating physician had indicated that she was totally disabled. Although Ms. Prinzo’s  
counsel had written a letter to Baycrest requesting that all communication be directed to  
Page: 147  
him, the calls to her continued. Ms. Prinzo later agreed to return to work; however, she  
was requested to and did attend a meeting in which Baycrest stated that it wanted to talk  
about her termination. She stated that she was not in a condition to do so. Baycrest said it  
was concerned that her conduct not cause harm to the residents. The statement was very  
hurtful and upsetting to her. She subsequently received a letter from Baycrest setting out  
her last day of employment.  
[726] The trial judge held that the “acts of harassment by the employees of the defendant  
[Baycrest] were so extreme and insensitive that they constituted a reckless and wanton  
disregard for the health of the plaintiff”. The court commented in para. 60 that the  
conduct. “may fairly be described as flagrant and outrageous, meeting the first element  
of the tort.”  
[727] These cases inform my interpretation of outrageous conduct.  
What constitutes causing emotional stress or having a reckless disregard for causing a plaintiff to  
suffer from emotional stress?  
[728] In Prinzo, the court stated at para. 61 that, “for the conduct to be calculated to produce  
harm either the actor must desire to produce the consequences that follow, or the  
consequences must be known by the actor to be substantially certain to follow.” The  
court stated that Baycrest employees “were well aware of the physical and emotional  
health of the plaintiff and would realize the detrimental effect their harassment would  
have had on the plaintiff and yet they persisted [in] such harassment with almost sadistic  
resolve.”  
[729] The plaintiff relies on Piresferreira v. Ayotte, (2008), 72 C.C.E.L. (3d) 23. Ms.  
Piresferreira’s supervisor assaulted her. Then, he issued a performance improvement plan  
(PIP) for the plaintiff. She reported him to the human resources department after which  
he received a minor disciplinary reproach. The supervisor and the employer immediately  
attempted to impose the performance improvement plan on the plaintiff which included  
an onerous schedule of frequent meetings with the supervisor. The plaintiff went on sick  
leave and then long-term disability due to the depression and anxiety that she  
subsequently experienced. She did not return to work. The court found in para. 170 that,  
“Ayotte’s threat of placing Piresferreira on probation or on a PIP immediately after he  
had assaulted her and then delivering the plan to her the first time she returned to the  
office – without first having assumed responsibility for his abusive behaviour – was  
flagrant and outrageous.” The court went on to state that, “conduct will be considered  
“calculated to produce harm” where the actor desires to produce the consequences that  
follow from the act or the consequences are known to be substantially certain to follow. It  
is also been held to include conduct amounting to reckless disregard as to whether or not  
shock would ensue as a result of the conduct.” The court further stated:  
I am satisfied that Ayotte showed reckless disregard for  
Piresferreira’s emotional well-being when he yelled and swore at  
her, assaulted her, immediately threatened probation or a PIP,  
Page: 148  
refused to apologize for his conduct, delivered the PIP to her at the  
first opportunity misled Sylvestre and Shiu [his superiors] as to his  
conduct on May 12 and attempted to bias them against  
Piresferreira in advance of her filing a complaint against him. I am  
satisfied that, in this sense, Ayotte’s conduct was “calculated to  
produce harm” even though he did not actually intend for her to  
suffer the injury that she did.  
[730] The court stated in para. 177 that, “it was reasonably foreseeable to Ayotte that every  
aspect of this behaviour was likely to cause Piresferreira anxiety, stress and emotional  
upset.  
[731] The plaintiff did not alert me to the fact that Piresferriera was overturned in 2010viii;  
however, I will briefly discuss points that I consider important to my analysis of the  
issues at hand. The Court of Appeal set aside the trial judge’s ruling that the tort of  
intentional infliction of mental suffering was established because she erroneously  
concluded that the impact of Ayotte’s behaviour on Ms. Piresferreira was reasonably  
foreseeable. The court describes recklessness at stated at para. 75 as “proceeding in the  
face of subjective awareness that harm of the kind that resulted was substantially certain  
to follow…[the] consequences must be known by the actor to be substantially certain to  
follow”. At para. 79, the court stated, “foreseeability, which indicates only that a result  
may follow, is much less than knowledge that a result is substantially certain to follow”.  
These definitions affirm that intention does not necessarily stem from or follow  
foreseeability. Further, the court relied on Kedia International Inc. v. Royal Bank of  
Canada, 2008 BCSC 122 at para. 196 to reiterate the high threshold for constructive  
intention.  
What constitutes severe or extreme emotional distress?  
[732] In Sawmills, the court stated that although the tort of harassment does not require proof of  
a visible and provable illness, it does require proof of “severe or extreme emotional  
distress”. The court quoted from Graves, “[s]evere emotional distress means…emotional  
distress of such substantial quantity or enduring quality that no reasonable person in a  
civilized society should be expected to endure it”. At para. 20, the court stated:  
The requirement of extreme or severe emotional distress is in  
keeping with the objective of this tort. That is, it is intended to  
provide a remedy to a plaintiff who is intentionally subjected to  
outrageous conduct by a defendant. Presumably that a plaintiff  
prove that he/she has suffered severe or extreme emotional distress  
as a result of the conduct of a defendant (albeit not to the extent of  
physical harm or psychiatric illness) is required because it  
demonstrates a defendant’s conduct as being sufficiently  
outrageous as to found a cause of action.  
Page: 149  
[733] In McIntomney, the plaintiff experienced anxiety, suffered from nightmares, and had  
trouble sleeping. She became nauseous when she saw the defendant in the  
neighbourhood. She had previously coached a team but had to stop doing that. After the  
defendant sexually assaulted her, she was unable to work. She did not sleep well and  
therefore could not concentrate on her work.  
[734] In Prinzo, the plaintiff suffered from stress and anxiety, increased blood pressure,  
significant weight gain and increased diabetic symptoms.  
[735] In Piresferreira, the plaintiff suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder and a major  
depressive order with symptoms of anxiety.  
Do the defendants’ actions toward the plaintiff constitute harassment?  
Leave Without Pay  
[736] Mr. Merrifield ran in a federal election for political office in the Richmond Hill riding.  
He was the first RCMP officer to do this. Even though the RCMP Regulations provide  
that a member must obtain LWOP for this purpose, there was significant confusion  
among various officers regarding the process and the correct type of LWOP to be  
applied.  
[737] Three of Mr. Merrifield’s superiors made errors when they gave him advice and or  
completed the related forms. Sgt. Verecchia determined that Mr. Merrifield required  
regular LWOP. This was incorrect because regular LWOP did not exist. It was not one  
of the six categories. Cpl. DuPuy signed the transfer forms in place of Insp. Josey. This  
was incorrect because LWOP had to be approved by the C.O.  
[738] Sgt. Boos was responsible for administering LWOP. He had the best knowledge of it.  
He interviewed Mr. Merrifield and recommended personal needs LWOP, even though a  
member could take only two personal needs LWOPs in his career. Mr. Merrifield  
required LWOP for three different events. Sgt Boos tried to fit three events into two  
personal needs LWOPS. He decided to include the nomination meetings for York-  
Simcoe and Richmond Hill as one LWOP period, even though the dates were not  
continuous. He decided that the Richmond Hill election would be the second LWOP  
period. The transfer forms were submitted requesting two personal needs LWOPs for the  
three dates and were approved by the C.O.  
[739] Subsequently, Sgt. Boos learned that his approach was not accepted by the compensation  
department because there were three different event dates but the system allowed for only  
two. After Mr. Merrifield had finished his political activities in 2004, the personal needs  
LWOPs were re-coded to special LWOPs which were not limited in number.  
[740] Sgt. Boos stated that he told Mr. Merrifield about the re-coding and the fact that his two  
personal needs LWOPs were still available to him. Mr. Merrifield stated that Sgt. Boos  
told him that LWOP was being used for only the election and not the nomination  
meetings. There was obviously confusion and a misunderstanding. Three of Mr.  
Page: 150  
Merrifield’s superiors reached incorrect conclusions about the process. Mr. Merrifield  
did not receive the document that set out the specifics of the re-coding when it occurred.  
His understanding was based on a conversation. Given the general level of  
misunderstanding about the matter among his superiors, it is not surprising that Mr.  
Merrifield also reached an incorrect conclusion after he received information from Sgt.  
Boos.  
[741] Mr. Merrifield was unsuccessful in the federal election and subsequently returned to  
work as an Air Marshall. Nobody was concerned about his campaign materials, public  
perception about an RCMP officer’s running in an election or that his activities affected  
his ability to do his job.  
[742] Mr. Merrifield was transferred to INSET in October, 2004. This was a realization of his  
goal to work in National Security. Four months later, in February 2005, he was  
permanently posted to TAG. He had top secret security clearance. He travelled with  
Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin’s protective detail when he made visits to various  
places. Nobody was concerned about the fact that Mr. Merrifield had run in a federal  
election in the previous year as a Conservative candidate. Nobody raised any issue that if  
something went wrong, there might be a perceived conflict of interest because a former  
Conservative candidate was providing protection to a Liberal Prime Minister.  
[743] Sgt. Verecchia stated that this would not be a concern because Mr. Merrifield’s LWOP  
status separated him from the RCMP. Accordingly, there would be no real or perceived  
conflict of interest. Mr. Merrifield investigated death threats against the Prime Minister  
and U.S. President George W. Bush which resulted in a conviction. He carried out  
international internet tracing to locate a person who had penetrated the Oval Office  
internet. This also resulted in a conviction. He demonstrated that his political views did  
not influence his work. He was bound by his oath that he would, “faithfully, diligently  
and impartially execute and perform the duties required of [him]”.  
The Barrie Nomination Meeting  
[744] A/Sgt. Crane said he had an excellent working relationship with Mr. Merrifield. In fact,  
three months after Mr. Merrifield had been transferred to TAG, A/Sgt. Crane asked him  
to mentor another member.  
[745] During the dinner at the end of Operation Bridgeout, A/Sgt. Crane asked Mr. Merrifield  
if he had any ambition to run in another federal election. He was curious. According to  
A/Sgt. Crane, Mr. Merrifield said, “none whatsoever. It was too expensive.”  
[746] Mr. Merrifield participated in the Barrie nomination meeting. A nomination meeting is a  
private event, open only to members of the related political party. Prior to the meeting,  
Mr. Merrifield did send out some of the campaign flyers similar to those from his federal  
election campaign with necessary revisions; however, they were sent only to party  
members who could vote at the meeting. There was no wide-spread public knowledge of  
Mr. Merrifield’s participation at the meeting.  
Page: 151  
[747] Mr. Merrifield stated that winning the nomination would have been a mathematical  
impossibility. He had not sold many memberships and therefore did not have the  
required support. He participated only as a form of protest against the incumbent. He did  
not obtain LWOP for the nomination meeting because he thought he did not need it based  
on his conversation with Sgt. Boos and his understanding of how the earlier LWOPs were  
re-categorized.  
[748] On Friday May 13, 2005, A/Sgt. Crane knew about the nomination meeting to be held the  
next day and the fact that Mr. Merrifield would be participating. Mr. Merrifield was off  
work on Friday. A/Sgt. Crane made no effort to contact Mr. Merrifield to express any  
concerns. He knew that Mr. Merrifield had not applied for LWOP. He had Mr.  
Merrifield’s home phone number.  
[749] When Mr. Merrifield returned to work the following Monday, A/Sgt. Crane and Insp.  
Jagoe were highly offended. They thought Mr. Merrifield had lied to them. They had an  
emotional reaction to the situation. A logical explanation of the difference between a  
nomination meeting an election fell on deaf ears. Surely, these two higher ranking  
officers who had management responsibilities were capable of understanding the  
difference. I find that they chose not to understand it. They adopted a rigid view. In  
their minds, Mr. Merrifield was dishonest and was not to be trusted. Insp. Jagoe believed  
that Mr. Merrifield could not continue to work in national security for that reason.  
[750] Mr. Merrifield was taken off the Stronach death threat investigation. Since Ms. Stronach  
had crossed the floor to become a Liberal, they determined that Mr. Merrifield, a  
Conservative, should not carry out the investigation. There was a conflict of interest.  
What if he missed something and there was a negative result? Their view was that it  
would reflect badly on the RCMP. Mr. Merrifield was also removed from other VIP  
assignments such as a Royal Family visit. This made no sense whatsoever.  
[751] The stated concern about a perceived conflict was completely at odds with the fact that  
there was no concern about it after Mr. Merrifield ran in various nomination meetings  
and had not obtained LWOP for some of them. Granted, he was not doing the type of  
national security work then as he was doing in TAG. He was an Air Marshall but the  
nature of his work involved investigating and diffusing potential acts of terrorism. This  
was covert work done to protect national security.  
[752] Insp. Jagoe took his concerns to Supt. Proulx, who by his own admission, did not follow  
politics and did not know the difference between a nomination meeting and an election.  
To him it was all the same thing. In the meeting on May 27, 2005, he was not receptive  
to Mr. Merrifield’s explanation. I find that Supt. Proulx aggressively challenged Mr.  
Merrifield on his political platform and his campaign materials, which was completely  
inappropriate. Mr. Merrifield’s political views were irrelevant. Mr. Seguin testified that  
the only question he should have asked was whether Mr. Merrifield obtained LWOP for  
the Barrie nomination meeting and if not, why not. I accept the evidence of Sgt. Nicota  
regarding Supt. Proulx’s conduct at the May 27, 2005 meeting. Mr. Smith, who was a  
Staff Sergeant at the time, confirmed that there was an argumentative tone and the  
Page: 152  
discussion became heated. Supt. Davis stated that Supt. Proulx was unduly harsh. A  
commissioned officer should have sufficient management skills to avoid having a heated,  
argumentative encounter with a Constable. I find that Supt. Proulx’s conduct went  
beyond all standards of what is right and decent. It was outrageous.  
[753] Within a few weeks, in June 2005, Supt. Proulx temporarily transferred Mr. Merrifield  
into another unit, Criminal Investigations, while he did some investigating into the  
alleged conflict issue and whether he had the authority to transfer Mr. Merrifield out of  
TAG. This took six months. He consulted Sgt. Verecchia who believed that there could  
be problem with perceived conflict. He consulted the Policy Branch. It took a long time  
to respond and when it did, the reply was not responsive to the issue. I find that if there  
was a significant concern that Mr. Merrifield’s attendance at the Barrie nomination  
meeting had compromised his ability to work in national security, the Policy Branch  
would have provided Supt. Proulx with direction in a timely manner.  
[754] I find that the potential for a perceived conflict of interest was remote at best; however,  
Insp. Jagoe and A/Sgt. Crane had decided that they would not work with Mr. Merrifield  
anymore. They did not want him in TAG. Insp. Jagoe did not want Mr. Merrifield in  
INSET. Supt. Proulx adopted a view that supported their position. The possibility of a  
perceived conflict was not a bona fide reason to transfer Mr. Merrifield out of TAG. It  
was the excuse for it.  
[755] When Mr. Merrifield was transferred out of TAG, there were vacancies on the  
investigative side of INSET. Mr. Merrifield’s skills and knowledge would have been an  
asset in that area. Investigating terrorists did not involve VIPs with political affiliations.  
Even if a perceived conflict was a real concern, it would not have precluded Mr.  
Merrifield from working in this side of INSET. He had been doing community outreach  
and had recruited sources. He had worked a lot of voluntary overtime. He was dedicated  
to his job.  
[756] Supt. Jagoe agreed that Mr. Merrifield would not have been in a conflict doing this type  
of work. Supt. McCann stated that his notes reflected that he made an inquiry of Supt.  
Jagoe on November 23, 2005, two weeks after he had conducted Mr. Merrifield’s staffing  
interview for future placement. Insp. Jagoe did not waiver in his position that he would  
not have Mr. Merrifield working in national security. He believed that Mr. Merrifield  
was untrustworthy. I find that this is the real reason why Mr. Merrifield was transferred  
to Customs & Excise. A/Sgt. Crane said he had “nothing to do with the transfer.” This  
was disingenuous. While he may not have had a role in determining where Mr.  
Merrifield would be posted, his refusal to have Mr. Merrifield work in TAG had  
everything to do with the reason why Mr. Merrifield was transferred.  
[757] Even though Insp. Jagoe thought Mr. Merrifield was untrustworthy and lacked judgment,  
he took no steps to inform the supervisory officers of Criminal Investigations or Customs  
& Excise of his concerns. Both of those units carried out national security work. Insp.  
Jagoe’s concerns were not noted on Mr. Merrifield’s performance evaluations. He said  
that while Mr. Merrifield was unsuited to do national security work, he could have been  
Page: 153  
well suited to work in another unit. I find that this is incredulous. Being trustworthy is a  
core requirement for an RCMP officer to do his job. The fact that Insp. Jagoe did not  
alert his colleagues in other units shows that his decision that Mr. Merrifield could not  
continue to do national security work was based on his personal view that Mr. Merrifield  
had lied to him rather than a genuine concern about a political conflict or Mr. Merrifield’s  
ability to do his job.  
[758] Supt. Proulx’s stated reason for transferring Mr. Merrifield was because he had a political  
conflict. Supt. Proulx carried out his own investigation while telling Mr. Merrifield that  
he was not under investigation. He delved into Mr. Merrifield’s activities when he was at  
INSET, which was not under his command. If there were any issues with these activities,  
they should have been addressed at the time. Mr. Proulx testified that, initially, he  
thought that retroactive approval of LWOP would be satisfactory. It was not until he  
started his investigation into the earlier activities that he concluded that Mr. Merrifield  
had a conflict.  
[759] In Mr. Merrifield’s performance evaluation, which included his work in TAG, both Supt.  
Proulx and Insp. Jagoe wrote very positive remarks. This was hypocritical, especially on  
the part of Insp. Jagoe who thought that Mr. Merrifield was a liar and lacked judgment.  
[760] Supt. Proulx knew that other officers would think that Mr. Merrifield was transferred out  
of TAG because he had done something wrong. Accordingly, Supt. Proulx met with the  
TAG group, which consisted of approximately ten people, to explain that Mr. Merrifield  
had not done anything wrong. This was woefully inadequate to address the situation.  
TAG was imbedded in INSET. A large number of people worked there.  
[761] Sgt. Reed stated that there were “other types” of discipline in the RCMP aside from  
formal discipline. A major aspect of his job as a SRR was to deal with the “other types”  
of discipline.  
[762] I find that Supt. Proulx’s decision to transfer Mr. Merrifield out of TAG constituted an  
“other type” of discipline. It was unjustified and punitive. It resulted in a permanent stain  
on Mr. Merrifield’s reputation and career. The stain did not fade with time. Rather, it  
spread. Because of the transfer, other officers took a predictably negative view of Mr.  
Merrifield based on incorrect assumptions. The repercussions of this transfer followed  
Mr. Merrifield for years to come.  
[763] I find that this unjustified and punitive transfer would not have occurred if Mr.  
Merrifield’s failure to obtain LWOP for the Barrie nomination meeting had been  
considered rationally. C.O. Seguin, who had an objective view of the situation, knew that  
no action was taken was against Mr. Merrifield for his failure to obtain LWOP. He stated  
that it was not a big deal. It was just an administrative issue.  
Special Operations Center  
[764] After Mr. Merrifield was temporarily assigned to Criminal Intelligence, word got out that  
he was considered unsuitable to do national security work. When the SOC was stood up  
Page: 154  
in response to a significant terrorist threat against Toronto, Mr. Merrifield was told, en  
route, to turn around and go home, even though all available personnel were required. I  
accept his evidence that he was the only member in the Division who was ordered not to  
attend.  
[765] Sgt. Sim was in charge of the investigators at the SOC. He knew that Mr. Merrifield had  
been stood down. He believed that this occurred because of perceived conflicts with  
politics. The commissioned officers’ actions showed that Mr. Merrifield was a “black  
sheep.” The fact that Mr. Merrifield was stood down showed that that he had been  
blackballed. He believed that Mr. Merrifield’s career opportunities would be limited as a  
result of this.  
[766] Insp. Van Doren was the incident commander at the SOC. He was aware that Mr.  
Merrifield had been removed from TAG. He could not recall how he learned this. He  
thought that probably Supt. Proulx or Insp. Jagoe had told him.  
[767] It is curious that Mr. Merrifield’s employment status would be at the forefront of Insp.  
Van Doren’s mind in the middle of a national emergency. Sgt. McIntyre had contacted  
Insp. Van Doren about relief for an overnight shift. Sgt. Penny, Mr. Merrifield’s  
supervisor, had recommended him. Insp. Van Doren requested someone else because he  
thought that since Mr. Merrifield had been removed from TAG, he was not the  
“appropriate resource” to have at the SOC. Insp. Van Doren believed that there was an  
issue as to whether Mr. Merrifield was suitable for national security work. Insp. Van  
Doren stated that he did not know the reason for Mr. Merrifield’s removal from TAG. I  
find that in order for Insp. Van Doren to have come to his conclusion, he likely assumed  
that Mr. Merrifield had been removed from TAG as a result of some wrong-doing. If he  
had made a different assumption, for example that Mr. Merrifield had been removed for  
an administrative reason, then he would have had no reason to conclude that Mr.  
Merrifield was not the appropriate resource for the SOC. Mr. Merrifield’s performance  
reviews noted that he had considerable knowledge and expertise regarding terrorism.  
The SOC was stood up to respond to a terrorist threat.  
[768] I do not accept Insp. Van Doren’s explanation that “it was not fair to Mr. Merrifield or  
the organization” that he work at the SOC. I find that Insp. Van Doren stood down Mr.  
Merrifield because he believed that Mr. Merrifield had an unresolved issue that resulted  
in his removal from TAG. As a result, his trustworthiness was questionable. Insp. Van  
Doren agreed that standing down Mr. Merrifield was a significant action to take in the  
context of a terrorist threat.  
[769] What Insp. Van Doren did not know was that all of the issues had already been addressed  
by the memorandum dated September 28, 2005 from Supt. Proulx to Mr. Merrifield, a  
month before the SOC was stood up. There was no wrong-doing. There was no formal  
discipline. Supt. Proulx had a conversation later with Insp. Van Doren about his decision  
to stand down Mr. Merrifield. Insp. Van Doren told Supt. Proulx that he was aware that  
Mr. Merrifield had been removed from TAG and wanted to wait until that issue was  
resolved. Supt. Proulx did not tell Insp. Van Doren that the issue had already been  
Page: 155  
resolved prior to standing up the SOC. He had an opportunity to set the record straight  
about Mr. Merrifield but he did not do it. Mr. Proulx stated that his reason was because  
there was still a Human Resources question regarding where Mr. Merrifield would be  
posted. I do not accept Mr. Proulx’s evidence on this point. It was not a legitimate  
reason. It was illogical. I find that it was an excuse. The issue of where Mr. Merrifield  
would be posted had nothing to do with Insp. Van Doren’s belief that Mr. Merrifield was  
not the appropriate resource for a very important emergency situation.  
[770] This scenario was repeated when Insp. Van Doren briefed C/Supt. Mazerolle about his  
decision to stand down Mr. Merrifield from the SOC. C/Supt. Mazerolle recalled that  
Insp. Van Doren had said something about a conflict of interest. C/Supt. Mazerolle had  
already read the September 28, 2005 memo from Supt. Proulx to Mr. Merrifield that had  
concluded all of the issues. Like Supt. Proulx, C/Supt. Mazerolle also had an opportunity  
to set the record straight. He did not tell Insp. Van Doren that Mr. Merrifield had been  
cleared. He did not ask why Insp. Van Doren thought there was a conflict or what he  
thought it was. He did not want to know why Mr. Merrifield had been stood down from  
the SOC. As far as he was concerned, Insp. Van Doren had made a decision within his  
authority and that was the end of it.  
[771] Being stood down from the SOC was devastating to Mr. Merrifield. This was evident  
when he testified about the matter in 2014, nine years later. It showed that the stain on  
his reputation had spread. It showed that a commissioned officer who had no  
management responsibility for INSET/TAG knew that he had been removed from  
national security work. Not surprisingly, this officer assumed the worst of him. As a  
result of the removal and its negative implication, Mr. Merrifield was not trusted to work  
in a high-stakes emergency situation.  
[772] The effect that this had on Mr. Merrifield was extreme. He was on sick leave for six  
months from January to July 2006, which was supported by his family doctor. He was  
under the care of a psychologist. I accept his evidence regarding his medical condition.  
He was depressed. He suffered from stress, dizziness and nausea. He was scared that he  
would lose his job. He took out his emotions on his family. He turned in his service  
pistol. This period was a very dark period in his life. The RCMP Health Services did not  
challenge his need for sick leave. I find that Mr. Merrifield was unable to write the  
Corporal JSE examination. He was suffering from severe or extreme emotional distress.  
[773] I find that the failure of Supt. Proulx and C/Supt. Mazerolle to set the record straight  
when they had the opportunity to do so, with minimal effort, shows a disregard for the  
detrimental impact of decisions, based on misinformation and the spread of negative  
impressions and assumptions, on Mr. Merrifield’s career. They were recklessly  
indifferent to the effect of the kind of harm that Mr. Merrifield suffered, which they knew  
was substantially certain to follow.  
The Part IV Investigation  
Page: 156  
[774] Mr. Merrifield had been back to work for only a few months when he received an email  
from John Steeves dated October 4, 2005 regarding the outstanding amount on his Amex.  
Supt. Proulx appears to have become involved on October 24, 2005. Mr. Merrifield sent  
several lengthy emails to Supt. Proulx to explain the situation.  
[775] Supt. Proulx sent an email to Mr. Merrifield in which he stated that he was going to ask  
for a review of Mr. Merrifield’s statements for the past two years. A later email from Mr.  
Steeves suggested that a review had been done before November 8, 2005 which disclosed  
the duplicate payment.  
[776] Mr. Steeves sent an email to Supt. Proulx on November 28, 2005, advising him that  
everything was fine. Mr. Steeves sent an email to Mr. Merrifield on January 5, 2006  
stating that Supt. Proulx had already been advised of the review and commenting that if  
Mr. Merrifield had “not heard any different then things were fine.” Mr. Steeves stated  
that he would not have told Mr. Merrifield that things were fine if he had thought that  
there was a problem. Nevertheless, Mr. Proulx stated that Mr. Steeves personally  
approached him and told him that there were some issues that he did not want to put in  
writing. There was evidence that Mr. Merrifield had taken back to back cash advances  
on his Amex card.  
[777] Mr. Proulx’s evidence of the conversation that he had with Mr. Steeves about the cash  
advances is not credible. The memorandum ordering the Part IV investigation is dated  
January 6, 2005. In it, Supt. Proulx states that he was informed on that same day about  
the cash advances. If there were any issues with cash advances, Mr. Steeves would have  
known about them before January 6, 2006. He had already completed his review before  
then. Mr. Steeves had no reason to withhold this type of information from Mr.  
Merrifield. He had no reason to not want to put something in writing for Supt. Proulx  
regarding the Amex account. Mr. Steeves stated that he would not have told Mr.  
Merrifield that everything was fine on January 5, 2006 if he had known that there was a  
problem. He said that he first learned of the Part IV investigation when S/Sgt. Babinko  
contacted him on January 19, 2006.  
[778] Mr. Steeves could not recall why he contacted Cpl. DuPuy on January 9, 2006, saying it  
was an urgent matter. Mr. Proulx said that he signed the memorandum on January 13,  
2006. He had no explanation for the delay between January 6, 2006, the date of the  
memorandum, and the date that he signed it, seven days later. The only explanation for  
these events is that Supt. Proulx needed more information to substantiate the  
memorandum, he asked Mr. Steeves to get it and he received it between January 6 and  
13, 2006.  
[779] Supt. Proulx’s note dated January 6, 2006 was produced during the trial, on May 25,  
2015, before Mr. Proulx testified. It is curious that this note has the same date as the date  
on the memorandum ordering the Part IV investigation; yet, none of the dates for the cash  
withdrawals are back to back. If Mr. Steeves did in fact tell Supt. Proulx that they were  
back to back cash withdrawals, the note dated January 6, 2006 is inconsistent with this  
information.  
Page: 157  
[780] Supt. Proulx’s memorandum ordering the Part IV investigation sets out an issue that had  
already been addressed. Supt. Proulx raised the issue of the double payment and the fact  
that an account receivable to recuperate the double payment was still outstanding. When  
he wrote this memorandum, Supt. Proulx knew that this issue had been resolved. Mr.  
Steeves stated that he had allowed Mr. Merrifield some additional time to repay the  
amount. Therefore, the only remaining issue was that Mr. Merrifield’s Amex statements  
showed several cash advances which Supt. Proulx stated were suspected to have been for  
personal reasons. The memorandum did not provide any information as to when these  
cash advances might have been taken or which particular advances were in issue, despite  
the fact that Supt. Proulx’s note dated January 6, 2006 sets out some dates.  
[781] Supt. Proulx did not ask Mr. Merrifield to explain the cash advances. In fact, the evidence  
shows that Mr. Merrifield made a specific inquiry as to whether there was anything to  
suggest that his Amex card had been used for reasons other than RCMP business. Rather  
than responding to this, Supt. Proulx proceeded in a clandestine manner and ordered the  
Part IV investigation. In his testimony, he stated specifically that he did not tell Mr.  
Merrifield about any concerns regarding these cash advances. Rather, he was “hinting”  
about them.  
[782] The cash advances were easily explained. Supporting documentation was available. The  
entire Part IV investigation and its effect on Mr. Merrifield could have been avoided had  
Supt. Proulx simply asked Mr. Merrifield about the advances. He ought to have done this.  
By September 2005, Supt. Proulx was aware that when Mr. Merrifield was temporarily  
transferred to Criminal Investigations pending the outcome of the conflict issue, he was  
living “under the gun or a very dark cloud,” knowing that his conduct was being  
“subjected to very senior levels of the RCMP for scrutiny and possible disciplinary  
action.” SRR Nicota informed Supt. Proulx of this in his email dated September 27, 2005.  
[783] Mr. Merrifield received the memo from Supt. Proulx on October 4, 2005, clearing him of  
all of the earlier issues. Nevertheless, Mr. Merrifield was deemed to be unsuitable for  
national security work. Some of his colleagues took a dim view of him. Within three  
months, he was off work suffering from severe emotional distress. He had only been back  
to work for approximately six months before Supt. Proulx ordered the Part IV  
investigation, alleging that Mr. Merrifield “may have engaged in disgraceful conduct that  
could bring discredit to the Force.” Making an allegation that Mr. Merrifield was  
essentially taking RCMP funds for his personal use was equivalent to accusing Mr.  
Merrifield of theft and kiting, criminal offenses. The implications were dire. Mr.  
Merrifield lived under these allegations for eleven months until he learned the outcome of  
Sgt. Dickinson’s investigation. In the end, there was no evidence that Mr. Merrifield had  
taken RCMP money for his personal use or that he was kiting payments. Despite this,  
C/Supt. Mazerolle still believes that the allegations in the Part IV investigation were  
substantiated and that Mr. Merrifield committed fraud in dealing with his Amex account.  
[784] I find that the actions of Supt. Proulx were the actual and proximate cause of Mr.  
Merrifield’s severe emotional distress.  
Page: 158  
[785] I find that when Supt. Proulx ordered the Part IV investigation, he had a reckless  
disregard of causing Mr. Merrifield emotional distress. He knew that Mr. Merrifield’s  
being subjected to these very serious allegations would cause him significant further  
emotional distress. Supt. Proulx knew that the kind of harm that Mr. Merrifield suffered  
was substantially certain to follow. In fact it did. Mr. Merrifield was off work again for  
11 months until he was ready to return.  
[786] I find that Supt. Proulx’s concern that Mr. Merrifield had engaged in disgraceful conduct  
was disingenuous because he admitted that at approximately the same time that he  
ordered the Part IV investigation, he himself was engaging in disgraceful conduct that  
could bring discredit to the Force.  
The Ottawa Citizen Article  
[787] Sgt. Dickinson was ordered to carry out an administrative review into the “unauthorized  
release of protected and classified information and/or documents relating to Cst. Peter  
Merrifield.” Mr. Merrifield stated that this was an appropriate step to take in the  
circumstances. At the end of the review, Sgt. Dickinson could not substantiate who  
released the documents to the Ottawa Citizen. Despite this, C\Supt. Mazerolle still  
believes that Mr. Merrifield leaked confidential information to the media.  
Mr. Merrifield’s Communication with C.O. Seguin and D/Commr. Bourduas  
[788] On August 15, 2006, while the Part IV investigation was still underway, Mr. Merrifield  
sent a lengthy email to C.O. Seguin setting out what had previously happened to him and  
politely requesting communication to resolve outstanding issues. C.O. Seguin met with  
Mr. Merrifield on October 3, 2006; however, C.O. Seguin had already obtained  
management’s perspective. Although Mr. Merrifield provided two witness statements to  
C.O. Seguin to substantiate his views, C.O. Seguin did not find anything disrespectful in  
the various emails between Supt. Proulx and Mr. Merrifield. He chose not to follow up  
with the officers who provided the statements and instead preferred the information that  
he had received from management. In his view, the only issue that required any action  
was the allegation that Cpl. Frith had been ordered to attend the Barrie nomination  
meeting. C.O. Seguin had an opportunity to look into the matter further. If he had spoken  
to the two officers who provided the statements, he might have concluded that Mr.  
Merrifield’s complaints were substantiated to some degree.  
[789] Seven months later, Mr. Merrifield sent a lengthy email to D/Commr. Bourduas, who was  
responsible for the region. This email was similar to the one that Mr. Merrifield had sent  
to C.O. Seguin. He asked to speak to D/Commr. Bourduas because he “truly wish[ed] to  
resolve the situation…” Unfortunately, on June 29, 2007, D/Commr. Bourduas declined  
to become involved because he believed that the issues had been handled appropriately  
by C.O. Seguin.  
[790] Mr. Merrifield’s depression returned. In February 2010, he was off duty sick again for  
approximately eight months. When he returned to work, in the fall of 2010, Mr.  
Page: 159  
Merrifield was assigned to project Overlord. He worked on Overlord for most of 2011.  
In 2011, Witness X told Mr. Merrifield that two other officers had said to him that Mr.  
Merrifield could not be trusted and that Witness X should not be working with Mr.  
Merrifield. Because he was pursuing a civil action against the RCMP, there was a  
perception that he could not be trusted. Nevertheless, Mr. Merrifield’s performance  
evaluations continued to be extremely positive.  
[791] Based on the information that Witness X had provided, I find that Mr. Merrifield  
justifiably believed that the stain on his reputation resulting from the harassment had  
spread significantly within the RCMP. His depression returned and he went off duty sick  
in November 2011.  
[792] At that time, which he described as the worst part of his life, Mr. Merrifield sent out a  
third lengthy email to the highest level of command. He stated, “I am trying to avoid any  
further embarrassment or tarnish to our organization but have been presented with  
repeated obstacles in my efforts to resolve a serious situation at the lowest possible  
level.” This email goes on to show the depths of Mr. Merrifield’s pain and frustration  
regarding the fact that nobody in management was prepared to look objectively at the  
events beginning in 2005 and the impact of decisions that had been made regarding Mr.  
Merrifield. C.O. Seguin had brushed off his concerns, preferring management’s view of  
the events when he could have followed up on two statements that Mr. Merrifield  
provided to him. D/Commr. Bourduas concluded that C.O. Seguin had handled the  
matter appropriately.  
[793] I find that in his emails to C.O. Seguin, D/Commr. Bourduas and Commr. Paulson, as  
well as others, Mr. Merrifield was taking extraordinary steps to contact upper  
management with the hope of resolving his concerns. He was clear about the fact that  
throughout the period, his health had suffered and that he had been away from duty  
periodically, “to deal with serious depression issues as a result of the harassment…”  
Commr. Paulson stated that after he received the email, he referred it to Asst/Commr.  
White who in addition to being the commanding officer of O division (C.O. Seguin had  
retired) was also in charge of Human Resources. He expected that the issues would be  
addressed. He was assured that Asst/Commr. White “was on top of it.”  
[794] Mr. Merrifield received no response to this email. His depression continued. He stated  
that he suffered severely and had post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from the events  
that had transpired. Even though Asst/Commr. White and C/Supt. Mazerolle knew that  
Mr. Merrifield’s statement about Supt. Proulx was substantiated, they took no steps to  
respond to this email nor did they delegate this task to anyone else. I find that the  
RCMP’s conduct in ignoring this email went beyond all standards of what is right or  
decent. I find that it was one of the actual and proximate causes of Mr. Merrifield’s  
severe emotional distress.  
[795] Ten months later, Mr. Merrifield told SRR Reed that he wanted to return to work. The  
RCMP took a further eight months to facilitate this. His security clearance level had  
Page: 160  
expired. Even though he held the top level of security clearance before he went on sick  
leave, there was a significant delay in processing his application.  
Serious and Organized Crime  
[796] As a result of a structural reorganization within the RCMP, when Mr. Merrifield returned  
to work, he was placed in Serious and Organized Crime. Although he was a national  
expert on counter proliferation, he was not assigned to do this type of work. Insp. White  
testified that there was minimal activity on project Overlord. The staffing was adequate.  
The unit was focused on two significant drug trafficking investigations. Mr. Merrifield  
was assigned to work on one of them.  
[797] Insp. White had some harsh words regarding Mr. Merrifield’s performance. He testified  
that he was concerned that Mr. Merrifield was not a competent investigator. He believed  
that Mr. Merrifield had made misleading statements to him and Insp. Johnson.  
Nevertheless, Insp. White stated that in total he spent just a few hours with Mr. Merrifield  
when he worked in the unit. Insp. White never assessed Mr. Merrifield’s performance. He  
was certain that Mr. Merrifield attended a meeting in which issues in project Overlord  
were reviewed, even though Insp. White himself did not attend that meeting. The issues  
resulted in a report which Insp. White never provided to Mr. Merrifield. He never  
discussed the contents of it with Mr. Merrifield because Mr. Merrifield left the unit  
before Insp. White received the report.  
[798] Cpl. Low-Fowler was the file manager for project Overlord when Mr. Merrifield was the  
lead investigator. She stated that Mr. Merrifield did not provide her with his notes or  
other documentation for the project. It appears that he was not good with paperwork.  
Nevertheless, her evidence contradicted that of Insp. White. She stated that within the  
project, there were regular meetings, people knew what needed to be done and it was  
followed-up. The direction and the goal were clear.  
[799] Insp. White spent only a few hours with Mr. Merrifield during his time at Serious and  
Organized Crime. I accept Cpl. Lowe-Fowler’s evidence where it conflicts with that of  
Insp. White regarding Mr. Merrifield’s work performance. Cpl. Low-Fowler worked  
directly with Mr. Merrifield, day-to-day, on project Overlord.  
Senate Committee  
[800] Commr. Paulson testified that after Mr. Merrifield’s appearance before the Senate  
committee, Asst/Commr. White told him that Mr. Merrifield had become “solidly and  
almost irretrievably embittered with the organization.” He was “recalcitrant and not  
responsive to any direction.” I find that Mr. Merrifield’s actions show that he was the  
exact opposite of this. He contacted a number of commissioned officers to try resolve the  
issues. In his email to D/Commr. Bourduas, he stated, “I have offered evidence and the  
willingness to resolve this matter in a means agreeable to all concerned these efforts have  
yielded no results …” The various SRRs wrote emails on his behalf requesting that the  
issues be addressed.  
Page: 161  
[801] Commr. Paulson stated that Asst/Commr. White told him that Mr. Merrifield had  
commented out of turn on national security matters. The June 2013 Parliamentary  
Business Bulletin, written after Mr. Merrifield’s attendance before the Senate committee,  
referred to Mr. Merrifield’s participation in the Pritchard show in July 2005. It stated that  
Insp. Jagoe alleged that Mr. Merrifield had disclosed top-secret information and that  
subsequently Supt. Proulx contacted Mr. Merrifield and accused him of violating RCMP  
policy. The Bulletin went on to state that Supt. Proulx advised Mr. Merrifield that formal  
disciplinary proceedings would follow. I find that the information in this Bulletin was  
seriously misleading. The question of whether Mr. Merrifield had disclosed top-secret  
information when he participated in the Pritchard show was resolved in 2005 with a  
conclusion that he had not done so. Commr. Paulson stated that this portion of the  
Bulletin suggests that that Mr. Merrifield would have been subject to an investigation. It  
did not indicate that the matter had been resolved.  
[802] No explanation was provided for the fact that the 2013 Parliamentary Business Bulletin  
set out misleading information about Mr. Merrifield relating to an incident that had taken  
place eight years earlier. The Bulletin was unclassified and had an unrestricted  
circulation. It perpetuated Mr. Merrifield’s tarnished reputation.  
[803] It is clear that the information provided to Commr. Paulson by his subordinates about Mr.  
Merrifield was wrong and deficient. Commr. Paulson rightly relied on them. He  
understood that Asst/Commr. White had tried to speak to Mr. Merrifield but he was not  
interested in having a discussion. All of this resulted in Commr. Paulson’s having a  
negative view of Mr. Merrifield. He understood that Mr. Merrifield was not interested in  
discussing his issues but rather was focused on proceeding with this action. Commr.  
Paulson stated that he was never advised that Mr. Merrifield’s statement in paragraph  
number three of his email (that Supt. Proulx had attempted to procure a prostitute at  
approximately the same time that he had ordered the Part IV investigation) may have had  
some foundation. Asst/Commr. White confirmed that Commr. Paulson was never advised  
of this. Both C/Supt. Mazerolle and Asst/Commr. White knew that Mr. Merrifield’s  
statement about Supt. Proulx had been substantiated. C/Supt. Mazerolle stated that he  
received a related document. Although Mr. Merrifield and the defendants disagree on the  
date when the defendants knew about this (both dates are after Supt. Proulx retired), the  
fact that there was an allegation, which on a first reading seems preposterous but was  
later substantiated, ought to have alerted management to the possibility that the other  
statements made in the rest of Mr. Merrifield’s email might have been credible.  
[804] In considering the actions that officers had taken regarding Mr. Merrifield, Commr.  
Paulson stated that they had made efforts to discipline him. Commr. Paulson believed  
that these efforts were blameless because the officers were trying to get Mr. Merrifield to  
do the right thing.  
Ktabi Harassment Complaint  
[805] The RCMP’s handling of Cst. Ktabi’s harassment complaint can best be described as an  
administrative bungle. The complaint was made in July 2015, eight months after a new  
Page: 162  
policy was implemented, but Mr. Merrifield was not notified of it until October 2015.  
Under the previous policy, a third party could make a harassment complaint on behalf of  
the person who was the subject of the alleged harassment. This was not retained in the  
new policy. Under the new policy, Cst. Ktabi’s complaint should not have proceeded;  
however, C\Supt. O’Reilly made the mistake of recommending that the complaint be  
treated as a “third-party non-complainant process”. Mr. Merrifield’s name was entered  
into the database which exists to keep track of harassers and to identify patterns. C\Supt.  
O’Reilly’s mistake set in motion a series of events that should not have occurred. I find  
that this was an innocent mistake on the part of C\Supt. O’Reilly. It does not meet the  
test for harassment as set out above. Nevertheless, I find that the RCMP handled this  
matter poorly. The complaint was dated July 7, 2015. Mr. Merrifield was not notified of  
it until October 22, 2015. The delay until the end of August can be explained because  
Commr. Paulson was away on holidays. After that, the matter was overlooked.  
[806] S/Sgt. Floyd and C/Supt. O’Reilly had a discussion on Friday, November 13, 2015, two  
business days before they were to testify. They agreed that the matter had been handled  
inappropriately and that it was not actually a harassment complaint. At this point, the  
matter had been hanging over Mr. Merrifield’s head for almost a month. Quite  
surprisingly, Mr. Merrifield did not learn of the mistake and that management had  
determined that it was not a harassment complaint until Tuesday November 17, 2015  
during S/Sgt. Floyd and C/Supt. O’Reilly’s testimony. No explanation was offered as to  
why Mr. Merrifield was not notified of this earlier.  
Conclusion  
[807] For the reasons set out above, I find that the defendants’ conduct toward the plaintiff was  
outrageous. The defendants had a reckless disregard of causing the plaintiff to suffer  
emotional distress. His emotional distress was severe. The defendants’ outrageous  
conduct was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s emotional distress. The  
plaintiff has proven the tort of harassment.  
Do the actions of the RCMP constitute a breach of Mr. Merrifield’s Charter rights?  
The Plaintiff’s Position  
[808] The plaintiff does not take the position that s. 58.4(1) of the RCMP Regulation requiring  
a member to be on LWOP if s/he wished to participate in the political process is invalid.  
No decision was made to deny the plaintiff LWOP for this purpose. Instead, the plaintiff  
states that the conduct of the individual defendants infringed his rights set out in ss. 2 and  
3 of the Charter, being freedom of expression and association and the right to vote and be  
qualified for membership of a legislative assembly.  
[809] The plaintiff’s position is that Supt. Proulx’s examination of his political literature and  
criticism of his opinions at the May 27, 2005 meeting conveyed a message that his  
political views were incompatible with the RCMP’s accepted positions. Supt. Proulx told  
the plaintiff that he would have to choose between his career in the Force or politics.  
Page: 163  
Supt. Proulx then carried out an investigation into whether engaging in political activities  
without LWOP created a conflict. Subsequently, the plaintiff was punitively removed  
from TAG for expressing his political views. The punishment constitutes a Charter  
infringement.  
The Defendants’ Position  
[810] The defendants state that the facts of this case do not establish any infringement of the  
plaintiff’s ss. 2 and 3 Charter rights. He published his campaign materials and distributed  
them. He ran in the Barrie nomination meeting on May 14, 2005. There is no evidence  
that he wanted to run for political office again and was denied LWOP. The plaintiff did  
not challenge s. 58.4(1) of the RCMP Regulation.  
Analysis  
[811] I disagree with the plaintiff’s submission that steps were taken to punish him for  
expressing his political views. Any conflict was within management’s discretion to  
resolve simply by a retroactive LWOP approval, which had been granted in the past.  
Punitive steps were taken against the plaintiff because Insp. Jagoe and A/Sgt. Crane  
believed the plaintiff had lied to them when he said he would not be running in an  
election anytime soon. A/Sgt. Crane stated that at this point, “the trust was broken.” He  
refused to continue to work with the plaintiff. Insp. Jagoe refused to have the plaintiff  
transferred to the investigative side INSET, even though it had vacancies.  
Conclusion  
[812] The evidence does not support the plaintiff’s position that he was punitively transferred  
for expressing his political views. Accordingly, I find that his Charter rights were not  
breached.  
Has the RCMP breached its contract of employment with Mr. Merrifield?  
The Plaintiff’s Position  
[813] The plaintiff states that the RCMP breached its contract of employment with him by  
failing to provide him with a safe and harassment free work environment. The RCMP has  
an explicit policy against harassment which includes a Mission, Vision and Values  
statement. The section entitled “Commitment to the Employees of the RCMP” states:  
In the spirit of shared leadership and recognizing all employees as  
our greatest asset, we commit to: open, honest and bilateral  
communication; demonstrating leadership through accountability  
and responsibility at all levels; treating all employees with equal  
Page: 164  
respect and consideration…[and] Ensuring a safe and harassment  
free work environment” among other things.  
[814] The parties disagree as to whether there is an employment relationship between the  
Crown and regular members of the RCMP.  
The Defendants’ Position  
[815] The defendants rely on several cases in which plaintiffs were terminated and  
subsequently made claims for wrongful and constructive dismissal. In Flanagan v.  
Canada (Attorney General), 2013 B.C.S.C. 1205, 55 B.C.L.R. (5th) 139, the trial judge  
dismissed a constructive dismissal action by a former member of the RCMP on the  
grounds that the plaintiff’s employment relationship was defined solely by statute,  
concluding in para. 64 that, “the weight of authority is against the existence of a contract  
law-based employment relationship between the RCMP and its members.” The British  
Columbia Court of Appeal affirmed the decision.  
[816] In Davidson v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 ONSC 8008, 2016 C.L.L.C. 220 – 027,  
the court struck a proposed class proceeding brought on behalf of all female members of  
the RCMP alleging breach of contract for sexual discrimination, harassment and bullying.  
In para. 37, the court stated:  
A series of cases from across the country, in which RCMP officers  
have brought wrongful dismissal claims, are authority that there is  
no contact of employment between the Crown or the RCMP with  
RCMP members and that the employment relationship with  
members of the RCMP is fashioned by statute not contract.  
The Plaintiff’s Position  
[817] The plaintiff states that if the court were to accept the defendants’ position that there is no  
employment contract, based on law that recognizes the primacy of the statutory regime,  
this would mean that the Court of Appeal’s decision, which held that the grievance  
procedure was inadequate to address this plaintiff’s claims, would be meaningless.  
Analysis and Conclusion  
[818] I disagree. In this action, the plaintiff makes three tort claims, among others, that are  
properly before the court. In Flanagan at para. 76, the court stated:  
Indeed, virtually all of the cases I have before me in which the  
Courts have taken jurisdiction to hear a dispute between a member  
and the RCMP involve a tort rather than what has been described  
as a simple “garden-variety” labour dispute over such things as  
benefits or promotion. It has been said that the Courts are better  
equipped to deal with that sort of claim than is a grievance scheme,  
Page: 165  
such as that of the RCMP, which, as noted, lacks independent  
adjudication.  
[819] The plaintiff’s argues that the RCMP was required to act in accordance with its own  
policy; however, I am not aware of any legislative requirement for compliance with the  
policy and, therefore, cannot interpret the RCMP’s actions as a breach of contract in this  
respect.  
[820] Considering the above, I find that Mr. Merrifield’s claim for breach of contract is not  
supported at law because his relationship with the RCMP is governed by statute, not  
contract.  
Do the actions of the RCMP regarding Mr. Merrifield constitute abuse of/misfeasance in  
public office?  
[821] The requirements for the tort of abuse of/malfeasance in public office are set out in  
Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, 2003 SCC 69, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263 at para. 32 as follows:  
(a) the public officer must have engaged in deliberate and unlawful conduct in his or  
her capacity as a public officer (in the exercise of public functions generally);  
(b) the public officer must have been aware both that his or her conduct was unlawful  
and that it was likely to harm the plaintiff;  
(c) the unlawful conduct must be the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries; and,  
(d) the injuries suffered must be compensable in tort law.  
[822] In Odhavji, the plaintiffs alleged that police officers, who had fatally shot an individual,  
had failed to cooperate with the Special Investigations Unit during its investigation.  
Cooperation is a statutory requirement under the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.  
P.15. The plaintiffs also alleged that the Chief of Police failed to ensure that the officers  
cooperated. The defendant brought a motion to strike the claim.  
[823] The court stated in para. 23 that, “the tort involves deliberate disregard of official duty  
coupled with knowledge that the misconduct is likely to injure the plaintiff.” In para. 28,  
the court stated, “the officer must deliberately engage in conduct that he or she knows to  
be inconsistent with the obligations of the office.” Furthermore, the court commented in  
para. 30 that, “the underlying purpose of the tort is to protect each citizen’s reasonable  
expectation that a public officer will not intentionally injure a member of the public  
through deliberate and unlawful conduct in the exercise of public functions.” The court  
allowed the appeal on this point because it was not plain and obvious that the actions for  
misfeasance in a public office against the officers and the Chief would fail.  
[824] In O’Dwyer v. Ontario Racing Commission, 2008 ONCA 446, 293 D.L.R. (4th) 559, a  
starter at a racetrack was under investigation. The Commission decided that he would  
not be approved to work in the next racing season. Accordingly, he was not re-hired and  
Page: 166  
suffered damages. The plaintiff had a statutory right to have the Commission’s decision  
reviewed under s. 11(7) of the Racing Commission Act, 2000, S.O. 2000 c.20.  
[825] The court found that the Commission’s conduct frustrated the plaintiff’s right to have the  
decision reviewed. The Commission acted with reckless indifference as to the legality of  
its acts or the probable consequences to the plaintiff. At para. 42, the court stated:  
The state of mind required to establish liability depends on which  
category the tort [misfeasance in public office] falls into. Category  
A involves “targeted malice”, whereas the requirement of  
intentional misconduct for Category B may be satisfied by  
“reckless indifference” as to the legality of the act or its probable  
consequences. As established in Odhavji at para 38, “[a]t the very  
least…. the defendant must have been subjectively reckless or  
wilfully blind as to the possibility that harm was a likely  
consequence of the alleged misconduct”.  
[826] I interpret these cases to mean that, in the context of misfeasance in public office, any  
action or inaction that fails to comply with a statutory requirement constitutes unlawful  
conduct. Where a plaintiff establishes that the defendant failed to comply with a  
statutory requirement and did so with reckless indifference, wilful blindness or disregard  
for the legality of such unlawful conduct, s/he has laid the foundation for a claim of abuse  
of public office.  
The Plaintiff’s Position  
[827] The plaintiff states that Supt. Proulx and Insp. Jagoe were public officials. They  
deliberately engaged in a course of abusive and harassing conduct knowing that it would  
cause harm to the plaintiff. Some examples include Supt. Proulx’s punitive transfer of  
Mr. Merrifield from TAG to Criminal Intelligence and his ordering a Part IV  
investigation. The plaintiff states that Supt. Proulx exercised his powers for an improper  
purpose and in bad faith. These incidents constitute unlawful conduct. Both Supt. Proulx  
and Insp. Jagoe were aware that their conduct was unlawful and contrary to the legal  
obligation to provide a safe and harassment free work environment.  
[828] The plaintiff further states that A/Sgt. Crane and Insp. Jagoe were aware that he was  
going to participate in the Barrie nomination meeting and did not take any steps to stop  
him, contrary to their responsibility set out in s. 37(e) of the RCMP Act. A/Sgt. Crane  
stated that he did not take any steps because he did not have all of the facts. He then  
falsely advised Supt. Proulx in his email dated June 3, 2005, that as of May 13, 2005, he  
did not know the nomination meeting was to be held the following day. The plaintiff  
states that the defendants’ failure to comply with their Code of Conduct obligations  
constitutes unlawful conduct.  
[829] The plaintiff also states that Supt. Proulx and Insp. Jagoe engaged in an unlawful  
sensitive sector investigation when they took issue with the contents of Mr. Merrifield’s  
Page: 167  
political pamphlet and when Supt. Proulx questioned Mr. Merrifield about it. Supt.  
Proulx exercised his powers for an improper purpose. Supt. Proulx and Insp. Jagoe were  
aware that their conduct was unlawful and that it was likely to harm the plaintiff.  
Analysis  
[830] I have already found that Supt. Proulx’s conduct was tortious; however, this alone does  
not make it unlawful. The plaintiff’s transfer does not constitute an action or inaction  
that fails to comply with a statute nor does Supt. Proulx’s ordering the Part IV  
investigation. As noted above, there is no legislative requirement that the RCMP must  
comply with its harassment policy.  
[831] The plaintiff points to s. 37(e) of the RCMP Act which states, “It is the responsibility of  
every member…to ensure that any improper or unlawful conduct of any member is not  
concealed or permitted to continue.” A/Sgt. Crane and Insp. Jagoe testified that they  
were aware of this statutory obligation. A/Sgt. Crane stated that he did not take any  
action because he believed that he did not have all of the facts. Supt. Jagoe stated that he  
was aware of the nomination meeting but did not know the exact date. Both officers  
decided to take no action. Neither of these reasons prevented the officers from contacting  
the plaintiff before the nomination meeting to ask if he had LWOP. I find that their  
failure to contact the plaintiff was deliberate and unlawful.  
[832] The next question is whether the officers were aware that their unlawful conduct was  
likely to harm the plaintiff or whether they were recklessly indifferent to the probable  
consequences of their conduct. The plaintiff suffered harm, being depression and post-  
traumatic stress disorder because he was punitively transferred and was subsequently the  
subject of an unfounded Part IV investigation.  
[833] I find that the officers could not have been aware that their failure to contact the plaintiff  
would likely harm the plaintiff. They could not have foreseen the actions that Supt.  
Proulx would take which subsequently caused the plaintiff to suffer. For the same  
reason, I find that they were not recklessly indifferent to the probable consequences of  
their inaction. The plaintiff’s suffering from depression and post-traumatic stress  
disorder was not a probable consequence of their failure to act.  
[834] The plaintiff submits that Supt. Proulx and Insp. Jagoe carried out an unlawful sensitive  
sector investigation when they acquired and reviewed Mr. Merrifield’s political brochure  
and when Supt. Proulx questioned him regarding its contents, I note that sensitive sector  
investigations are governed by a Ministerial Direction on National Security, found in  
OPS. Manual Appendix IV-10. It states, “This direction will guide the investigations of  
the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), with respect to matters that fall under  
subsection 6(1) of the Security Offences Act and investigations related to a terrorist  
offence or terrorist activity as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code of Canada, as  
they relate to sensitive sectors of Canadian society.” Section 2 of the Security Offences  
Act R.S.C., 1985, c. S-7, states generally that the Attorney General of Canada may  
conduct proceedings with respect to an offence under any law of Canada where (a) the  
Page: 168  
alleged offence arises out of conduct constituting a threat to the security of Canada within  
the meaning of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-33 or  
(b) the victim of the alleged offence is an internationally protected person within the  
meaning of s. 2 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46.  
[835] Section 6(1) of the Security Offences Act states, “Members of the Royal Canadian  
Mounted Police who are peace officers have the primary responsibility to perform the  
duties that are assigned to peace officers in relation to any offence referred to in section 2  
or the apprehension of the commission of such an offence.”  
[836] Supt. Proulx and Insp. Jagoe’s actions did not constitute an investigation into a threat to  
the security of Canada or an investigation related to a terrorist offence or terrorist  
activity. Mr. Merrifield was not an internationally protected person. I find that the above-  
noted activities of Supt. Proulx and Insp. Jagoe did not constitute an investigation into a  
sensitive sector.  
[837] I find that the plaintiff has not proven the tort of abuse of/misfeasance in public office.  
Do the actions of the RCMP regarding Mr. Merrifield constitute intentional infliction of  
mental suffering?  
[838] According to Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp., 2014 ONCA 419, 120 O.R. (3d) 481,  
the test for intentional infliction of mental suffering has three elements. The defendants’  
conduct must have been (a) flagrant and outrageous, (b) calculated to harm the plaintiff  
and (c) it must have caused the plaintiff to suffer a visible and provable illness.  
[839] The test for intentional infliction of mental suffering is similar to the test for harassment.  
One difference is that in addition to being outrageous, the conduct resulting in intentional  
infliction of mental suffering must also be flagrant. Another difference is that the  
plaintiff must show that he suffered a visible and provable illness.  
Was the defendants’ conduct flagrant  
[840] The defendants state that in order for conduct to be flagrant, its offensiveness must be  
palpable. The Oxford English Dictionary defines palpable as “conspicuously or  
obviously offensive”.  
[841] As discussed earlier, Supt. Proulx ordered the Part IV investigation without asking Mr.  
Merrifield for an explanation for the cash withdrawals. Before he ordered the  
investigation, Mr. Merrifield specifically asked him if there was any reason to believe  
that his Amex card was being used for anything other than RCMP purposes. Supt. Proulx  
did not reply to this question. Instead, he ordered the investigation. In his mandate letter,  
he provided no particulars of the transactions that concerned him nor did he provide a  
date range in which the investigation was to be conducted. He ordered the investigation  
Page: 169  
alleging discreditable conduct at a time that was contemporaneous to his own  
discreditable conduct. I find that Supt. Proulx’s actions were obviously offensive.  
Therefore, I find that in addition to being outrageous, his conduct was also flagrant.  
Was the defendants’ conduct calculated to cause harm?  
[842] In Zoran-Smith v. Bank of Montreal (2003), 31 C.C.E.L. (3d) 267, the court stated in  
para. 167 that:  
In terms of establishing that the conduct was calculated to produce  
harm, it suffices if there is a reckless disregard as to whether or not  
harm would ensue from the conduct. Furthermore, the requirement  
that the conduct be calculated to produce harm is met where the  
actor decides to produce the consequences that follow from the act,  
or if the consequences are known to be substantially certain to  
follow. There is no requirement of malicious purpose to cause the  
harm or any motive of spite.  
[843] I have already determined that the defendants had a reckless disregard of causing the  
plaintiff’s emotional distress. The plaintiff had already been off work for significant  
periods of time, suffering from stress and depression because Supt. Proulx and Insp.  
Jagoe determined he was no longer suitable to work in national security. As a result of  
Supt. Proulx’s ordering the Part IV investigation, Mr. Merrifield again suffered from  
stress, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Given Mr. Merrifield’s medical  
history and the fact that Supt. Proulx made unfounded allegations that Mr. Merrifield’s  
conduct was disgraceful, I find that Mr. Merrifield’s suffering from emotional distress,  
was a consequence that was known to be substantially certain to follow.  
Is medical evidence required to prove that a plaintiff suffered from a visible and provable  
illness?  
[844] The plaintiff states that he was off duty sick, suffering from depression and post-  
traumatic stress disorder, among other things, which was supported by his family doctor.  
The RCMP health services never challenged this. The plaintiff states that he is not  
required to call medical evidence to prove that he was suffering from an illness.  
[845] The plaintiff relies on Rahemtulla v. Vanfred Credit Union (1984), 4 C.C.E.L. 170  
(BCSC). The court did not require medical evidence to support a finding that the plaintiff  
suffered a visible and provable illness.  
[846] Ms. Rahemtulla was a bank teller who was accused of theft and was fired. The allegation  
was not proved and the court found that she was entitled to reasonable notice or pay in  
lieu of notice. The plaintiff had suffered from severe depression and was unable to leave  
her house or participate in any of her normal activities. She stopped eating. She had  
blackouts and headaches. She was hospitalized twice. Ms. Rahemtulla had some pre-  
incident medical issues; however, the court found that the most significant cause of her  
Page: 170  
depression was the manner in which she was terminated and the impact that it had on her  
prospects for employment. Notwithstanding the absence of medical evidence, the court  
was, “… satisfied that the plaintiff suffered depression accompanied by symptoms of  
physical illness as a result of [her supervisor] Mr. Flack’s accusations.”  
[847] The defendants state that a plaintiff must provide medical evidence to show that he  
suffered a visible and provable illness. They rely on Prinzo where the plaintiff provided  
medical evidence of her injury and was awarded damages for intentional infliction of  
mental suffering. On appeal, the court confirmed this aspect of the judgment; however,  
the court referred to Rahemtulla and at para. 46 stated, “concerning the requirement of a  
‘visible and provable illness’ it appears that the absence of a medical expert will not  
necessarily be fatal.”  
Conclusion  
[848] I have already found that the plaintiff suffered severe or emotional distress.  
Notwithstanding the absence of medical evidence, I am satisfied that the plaintiff suffered  
from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the RCMP’s actions. I  
find that the plaintiff has proven the tort of 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?  
The Plaintiff’s Position  
[849] The plaintiff relies on Frame v. Smith, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 99 for its description of certain  
characteristics in relationships where fiduciary obligations have been imposed.  
[850] In this case, the father brought a civil action against the mother of his children on the  
basis of a tort for breach of a statutorily authorized order for access on the basis that it  
was a breach of a fiduciary duty.  
[851] When considering whether the mother had breached a fiduciary duty, Wilson J. stated in  
her dissenting decision at par. 24 that,  
[852] Relationships in which a fiduciary obligation have been imposed seem to possess three  
general characteristics:  
1. The fiduciary has scope for the exercise of some discretion or power.  
2. The fiduciary can unilaterally exercise that power or discretion so as to affect the  
beneficiary’s legal or practical interests.  
3. The beneficiary is peculiarly vulnerable to or at the mercy of the fiduciary holding the  
discretion or power.  
Page: 171  
[853] Ultimately, the court concluded that...“the statute shows a clear disposition not to permit  
recourse to the courts for civil actions of this nature.”  
[854] For this and other reasons, the court determined that there was no possible basis for the  
cause of action.  
[855] Twenty-four years later, the court considered the issue of an ad hoc fiduciary duty in  
Elder Advocates of Alberta Society v. Alberta, 2011 SCC 24, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 261. This  
concerned a motion to strike the plaintiffs’ claim on the basis that the causes of action  
pleaded were not supportable at law.  
[856] Approximately 12,500 residents of Alberta’s long-term care facilities sued as a class  
alleging that the government had unjustifiably raised the amount of their required  
monetary contribution to subsidize medical expenses, which they alleged was the  
government’s responsibility. The plaintiffs stated that this constituted a breach of  
fiduciary duty.  
[857] The court held that the claim for breach of fiduciary duty disclosed no cause of action. It  
was struck. In considering whether the government had a fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs  
in the circumstances, the court stated at para. 36:  
In summary, for an ad hoc fiduciary duty to arise, the claimant  
must show, in addition to the vulnerability arising from the  
relationship as described by Wilson J. in Frame: (1) an  
undertaking by the alleged fiduciary to act in the best interests of  
the alleged beneficiary or beneficiaries; (2) a defined person or  
class of persons vulnerable to a fiduciary’s control (the beneficiary  
or beneficiaries); and (3) a legal or substantial practical interest of  
the beneficiary or beneficiaries that stands to be adversely affected  
by the alleged fiduciary’s exercise of discretion or control.  
[858] In para. 37, the court referred to Guerin v. R. [19034] 2 S.C.R. 335, at p. 385 in which the  
court stated:  
It should be noted that fiduciary duties generally arise only with  
regard to obligations originating in a private law context. Public  
law duties, the performance of which requires the exercise of  
discretion, do not typically give rise to a fiduciary relationship.  
[Emphasis added by SCC.]  
[859] The plaintiff acknowledges that an employer-employee relationship is presumptively not  
a fiduciary relationship. The imposition of a fiduciary duty in this type of relationship  
should be rare.  
Page: 172  
[860] In Nadolny v. Peel (Region), 2009 51194 (ON SC), the plaintiff was a retired  
employee of the Region of Peel. In order to address an administrative error, the Region  
decided to increase the premiums payable by its retired non-unionized employees who  
had received early retirement health benefits. The plaintiff stated that she and the other  
retirees were vulnerable to the Region because after they had retired, they were no longer  
employed and were no longer in a position to bargain.  
[861] The court considered the indicia of a fiduciary relationship. At para. 40, it stated:  
In order for a fiduciary relationship to exist, there must be scope  
for the exercise of some discretion or power, the ability of that  
power or discretion to be exercised unilaterally so as to affect the  
beneficiary’s legal or practical interests and a peculiar vulnerability  
on the part of the claimant to the exercise of that power or  
discretion. Outside of the established categories of fiduciaries, the  
case law suggests that there must either be evidence of a mutual  
understanding that one party has relinquished its own self-interest  
and agreed to act solely on behalf of the other party, or evidence of  
a power dependency.  
[862] The plaintiff alleged a power dependency relationship. The court held that her pleadings  
were sufficient to establish the existence of a fiduciary relationship between herself and  
the Region.  
The Defendants’ Position  
[863] The defendants state that in Elder Advocates, the court commented on the requirements  
for the imposition of a fiduciary burden on the Crown. Some of those requirements are  
set out as follows:  
[44] Imposing such a burden on the Crown is inherently at odds  
with its duty to act in the best interests of society as a whole….  
[47] Generally speaking, a strong correspondence with one of the  
traditional categories of fiduciary relationship – trustee-cestui qui  
trust, executor-beneficiary, solicitor-client, agent-principle,  
director-corporation, and guardian-ward or parent-child - is a  
precondition to finding an implied fiduciary duty on the  
government.  
[51] It is not enough that the alleged fiduciary’s acts impact  
generally on a person’s well-being, property or security. The  
interest affected must be a specific private law interest to which  
the person has a pre-existing distinct and complete legal  
entitlement.  
Page: 173  
[864] The plaintiff states that the question of whether the employer relinquished its self-interest  
is the real issue. It makes the imposition of fiduciary duty on an employer an exception  
to the usual employer-employee obligations.  
The Plaintiff’s Position  
[865] The plaintiff states that the RCMP unilaterally adopted the harassment policy which  
represents a commitment made by the RCMP as an employer to its employees/members.  
The employees/members, including Mr. Merrifield, were the beneficiaries of this policy.  
Management and senior officers had discretion regarding enforcement of the policy. The  
RCMP explicitly and voluntarily relinquished its self-interest in relationship to the  
employee/members with respect to harassment in the workplace. It made a unilateral  
commitment to act in the best interests of its employees/members. The plaintiff states that  
the RCMP had a fiduciary duty to protect him from harassment in the workplace.  
Analysis and Conclusion  
[866] The RCMP did adopt a policy to provide a safe and harassment free workplace; however,  
I find that the policy did not arise from an undertaking by the RCMP to act in the best  
interests of its employees/members. The RCMP did not have a private law duty to do so.  
Mr. Merrifield’s affected interest was not a specific private law interest to which he had a  
pre-existing distinct and complete legal entitlement. Accordingly, I find that the RCMP  
did not have a fiduciary duty to the plaintiff.  
Has Mr. Merrifield suffered a loss of income related to the actions taken by the RCMP?  
The Defendants’ Position  
[867] The defendants challenge Mr. Merrifield’s evidence that he could not write the Cpl. JSE  
exam on February 4, 2006. He provided no medical evidence to support this. Mr.  
Merrifield’s evidence was that he was too ill to write the exam on that date. February 25,  
2006 was the alternative date for candidates to write the exam. The defendants state that  
Mr. Merrifield gave no explanation as to why he did not write the exam on the alternative  
date.  
[868] The defendants state that although Mr. Merrifield claims that he was too sick to write the  
exam in February, on January 17, 2006, the day that the Ottawa Citizen article was  
published, Mr. Merrifield was well enough to travel to “O” Division headquarters in  
London for a meeting with C/Supt. Mazerolle and SRR Bohus. He kept in contact with  
his colleagues while he was off duty sick. The defendants state that Mr. Merrifield has  
not met the burden of proving that he was too sick to write the exam and that the cause of  
that sickness was the direct result of actions taken by the defendants.  
[869] The defendants state, in the alternative, that if Mr. Merrifield is entitled to lost wages, the  
calculation should not take into account any assumptions with respect to overtime.  
Page: 174  
Because the amount of overtime earned by members varies depending on the position and  
nature of the duties performed, it is not reasonable to assume that Mr. Merrifield would  
earn overtime at the same rate as was earned in his previous postings. The defendants  
state that any and all calculations should rely on base salary.  
[870] The defendants also state that Mr. Wollach’s assumption that Mr. Merrifield would have  
been promoted to Corporal within six months of successfully completing the exam is  
unreasonable. After Mr. Merrifield did complete the exam, he was promoted to Corporal  
eighteen months later. This is a more reasonable assumption for both promotions.  
Analysis  
[871] I find that Mr. Merrifield’s testimony that he was able to travel to London on January 17,  
2006 and that he maintained contact with his work colleagues while on medical leave is  
not inconsistent with his testimony that he was too sick to write the Cpl. JSE exam on  
February 4, 2006. I accept his evidence that he was too sick to write the exam. He was on  
approved medical leave at that time and did not return to work until July, 2006. The  
RCMP never challenged Mr. Merrifield’s approved medical leave.  
[872] I have already found that the plaintiff has proven the torts of harassment and intentional  
infliction of mental suffering. I find that the mental distress suffered by the plaintiff in  
February, 2006 resulted in his inability to write the exam.  
[873] I accept the defendants’ position that the amount of overtime earned by a member varies  
depending on the position and nature of the duties performed. There was no evidence of  
an average amount of overtime earned by either a Corporal or a Sergeant across a variety  
of positions and duties performed. The defendants’ assertion that only a base salary for a  
Corporal and Sergeant should be used to calculate Mr. Merrifield’s loss assumes that Mr.  
Merrifield would work no overtime as a Corporal and Sergeant. This is unrealistic. A  
calculation assuming no overtime would under-compensate Mr. Merrifield.  
[874] Given the lack of evidence regarding a different percentage to be applied, I am satisfied  
that Mr. Wollach’s use of Mr. Merrifield’s post-event average overtime is appropriate in  
calculating his loss.  
[875] The defendants’ state that eighteen months is an appropriate interval to use to determine  
when Mr. Merrifield would have been promoted to Corporal and then Sergeant. In fact,  
Mr. Merrifield waited considerably longer to be promoted to Sergeant. I accept the  
defendants’ position on this issue.  
Conclusion  
[876] If Mr. Merrifield wrote the Cpl. JSE exam in February 2006, and using an eighteen  
month interval, I assume he would have been promoted to Corporal in August 2007. If  
Mr. Merrifield wrote the Sgt. JSE exam in February 2008, I assume that he would have  
been promotable in August 2009 because he had to serve as a Corporal for two years.  
Page: 175  
Using the eighteen month interval, I assume that he would have been promoted to  
Sergeant in February 2011. Because he would have received these promotions later than  
the dates shown in Mr. Wollach’s report, Mr. Merrifield’s loss of income would be less  
than the amount calculated by Mr. Wollach. Given the promotion dates that I have  
assumed, I find that Mr. Merrifield’s income loss is properly assessed at $41,000.ix  
What amount should be awarded to Mr. Merrifield for general damages?  
Analysis  
[877] Amounts awarded for damages for intentional infliction of mental suffering and  
harassment have increased significantly since the 1990s.  
[878] In Clark v.Canada, [1994] 3 F.C. 323, 3 C.C.E.L. (2d) 172, a female member of the  
RCMP was harassed by her male co-workers. She was told to be a “real woman” and go  
home and have children. Her co-workers watched pornographic movies while she was in  
the office. Plastic breasts were left on her desk. When her body armour was delivered, it  
was set up with a mocking note attached to it. These are a few examples of what the  
plaintiff endured. When she complained to her supervisors, they were dismissive. These  
events caused her to have a documented mental health crisis. She resigned her position.  
[879] The court reviewed awards for intentional infliction of nervous shock prior to 1994,  
considered a “reasonable measure of consolation” for her particular mental condition and  
awarded the plaintiff $5,000. The defendants’ state that based on this decision, if Mr.  
Merrifield is entitled to damages, the amount should be nominal.  
[880] The plaintiff relies on four cases decided between 1997 and 2014. They are Wallace v.  
United Grain Growers Ltd., [1997] 3 S.C.R.701, Tipple v. Canada (Attorney General),  
2012 FCA 158, 431 N.R. 257, 158, Joseph v. Tl’azt’en First Nation, 2013 F.C. 767, 9  
C.C.E.L. (4th) 173 and Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp. The defendants state that  
these cases are not applicable because the plaintiffs were either terminated or  
constructively dismissed.  
[881] I disagree with the defendants’ position. In all of these cases, the court considered the  
events leading up to the termination or constructive dismissal. The defendants’ actions  
caused the plaintiffs to suffer from mental health conditions. Damages were awarded to  
the plaintiffs for mental suffering. I find that these cases are relevant and helpful on this  
issue.  
[882] In Wallace, the Supreme Court of Canada determined that the trial judge had discretion to  
extend the notice period with respect to the termination. The possibility of recovery for  
mental health damages remained. It noted that a tort for breach of good faith and fair  
dealing regarding a dismissal was not yet recognized.  
[883] In Tipple, the employer alleged that the plaintiff’s actions were a form of misconduct.  
The matter attracted a considerable amount of media attention. The court found that the  
Page: 176  
allegations were unfounded. In the interval, the plaintiff had suffered a significant loss of  
reputation. He was awarded $250,000 for the loss of reputation and $125,000 for the  
psychological injury that he sustained as a result of the manner of his termination.  
[884] In Joseph, an employer made vile and serious allegations of fraud upon the employee’s  
termination. This resulted in significant damage to the employee’s reputation. The  
employee had considerable difficulty in finding other employment. Prospective  
employers stated that the plaintiff had to be vindicated before they would consider hiring  
him. The court awarded $85,000 for damage to the employee’s physical health, well-  
being, integrity, dignity and personal and professional reputation.  
[885] In Boucher, the plaintiff was a cheerful and productive employee. When the personal  
defendant became her supervisor, he belittled, humiliated and demeaned the plaintiff in  
front of others continuously and relentlessly for approximately six months. She  
complained of her supervisors actions to management who determined that her  
complaints were unfounded and told her that she would be held responsible for making  
them. The plaintiff became broken and defeated. She suffered from a number illnesses  
including depression. A jury awarded the plaintiff $100,000 for intentional infliction of  
mental suffering. The award was upheld on appeal.  
[886] Mr. Merrifield suffered from significant depression and post-traumatic stress disorder as  
a result of the actions taken by the RCMP. He was unable to work for various periods of  
time. At one point, he disengaged from his family and spent his days lying on a sofa. He  
did not bathe and developed bed sores. His depression during these periods deprived him  
of meaningful interaction with his wife and young children. It deprived him of successful  
performance in a job that he loved and for which he was acknowledged to be a national  
expert. It also deprived him of the gratification of positive interaction and collaboration  
with his colleagues.  
[887] Not only did Mr. Merrifield suffer from significant mental health issues as a result of the  
actions taken by the RCMP, those actions also stained his reputation. A number of people  
knew that he had been removed from national security work. They assumed that he had  
done something wrong. Even Insp. Van Doren, who was not Mr. Merrifield’s supervisor,  
knew that he had been removed from national security work. As a result of this, he  
considered Mr. Merrifield to be unsuitable to work at the SOC during a national security  
emergency.  
[888] Supt. Proulx accused Mr. Merrifield of using his Amex card for personal reasons, in other  
words stealing money from the RCMP. Sgt. Dickinson interviewed a number of people  
during the Part IV investigation. All of them knew the serious allegations against Mr.  
Merrifield which were tantamount to criminal conduct. The allegations were insidious.  
For example, Supt. Jagoe still believes that the allegations were substantiated. Just as the  
news of Mr. Merrifield’s removal from national security work spread among the RCMP  
management and other members, so too would the allegations of disgraceful conduct.  
Sgt. Dickinson stated that the members that he interviewed would not have known of the  
outcome of the Part IV investigation or that the allegations were unfounded.  
Page: 177  
Conclusion  
[889] Taking all of this into account, I award Mr. Merrifield general damages against the  
defendants for harassment and intentional infliction of mental suffering in the amount of  
$100,000.  
Is Mr. Merrifield entitled to punitive and or aggravated damages?  
Analysis  
[890] Mr. Merrifield’s award of general damages is meant to compensate him for the harm he  
suffered because of the RCMP’s conduct. Punitive damages are not compensatory. In  
Boucher at paras. 59 and 60, the court stated:  
Punitive damage awards are not compensatory. They are meant to  
punish the defendant in exceptional cases where the defendant’s  
conduct has been “malicious, oppressive and high-handed” and  
“represents a marked departure from the ordinary standards of  
decent behaviour”, see Whiten, at para 36.  
In other words, punitive damages focus on the defendant’s  
conduct, not on the plaintiff’s loss. Here, for reasons I have already  
outlined, Pinnock’s misconduct met this exceptional standard of  
malicious and oppressive conduct. Pinnock deliberately targeted  
Boucher. He wanted her to resign. He persisted with his  
mistreatment of her over the course of five months. He forced her  
to leave a job that meant a great deal to her. His conduct did indeed  
amount to a marked departure from the ordinary standards of  
decent human behaviour.  
[891] Punitive damages must be rationally required to punish the defendants’ misconduct. I  
find that punitive damages are not required in this matter. The general damages award is  
sufficient to denounce and deter the defendant’s misconduct.  
[892] With respect to aggravated damages, in Boucher at para. 66, the court stated:  
Aggravated damages are compensatory damages. They are part of  
breach of contract damages. They compensate a plaintiff for the  
additional harm suffered because of the way the contract was  
breached. In a wrongful dismissal claim, aggravated damages may  
be awarded against the employer where “the employer engages in  
conduct during the course of dismissal that is ‘unfair or is in bad  
faith’”. [citation omitted]  
Page: 178  
[893] The plaintiff states that he was functionally in a contractual relationship with the RCMP.  
The RCMP breached the conditions of his employment when they allowed him to suffer  
from harassment.  
Conclusion  
[894] I have found that Mr. Merrifield’s claim for breach of contract is not supported at law  
because his relationship with the RCMP is governed by statute, not contract. He is not  
entitled to aggravated damages which flow from a breach of contract.  
Summary  
[895] The plaintiff is awarded general damages in the amount of $100,000 and special damages  
in the amount of $41,000.  
Costs  
[896] If the parties cannot agree on costs, they shall contact the trial coordinator to arrange an  
attendance date. If they cannot agree on a schedule for serving and filing materials, a  
conference call may be arranged. All materials shall be filed with the Barrie trial  
coordinator.  
VALLEE J.  
Released: February 28, 2017  
Page: 179  
ENDNOTES  
i Most of the witnesses in this trial were serving or retired RCMP members. I will refer to a retired member as Mr.  
regarding his testimony. I will refer to him in the narrative by the rank that he held at the relevant time. The  
plaintiff was a Constable, Corporal and is now a Sergeant. I will refer to him as Mr. Merrifield for consistency.  
ii Attached as Schedule ‘A’ is an organizational chart prepared by the plaintiff.  
iii At a nomination meeting, a person is selected by other members of the same political party to run as a candidate in  
the next election.  
iv HRMIS is the acronym for a computer program that contained information regarding RCMP member’s  
employment and other details  
v Counter proliferation work includes interrupting shipments to foreign countries of materials that can be used to  
make nuclear weapons  
vi This manual was dated 2010. A similar manual for 2006 was not provided  
vii Katherin Barber, ed. The Canadian Oxford Dictionary 2d ed, (Toronto: Oxford University Press Canada, 2004)  
viii Piresferriera v. Ayotte, 2010 ONCA 384  
ix If my assumptions are incorrect, counsel may address me on this issue  


© 2022 IncJournal is not affiliated with or endorsed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission