GSB#2011-3796, 2012-0167  
UNION# 2011-0232-0035, 2012-0362-0003  
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION  
Under  
THE CROWN EMPLOYEES COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT  
Before  
THE GRIEVANCE SETTLEMENT BOARD  
BETWEEN  
Ontario Public Service Employees Union  
(Martin)  
Union  
- and -  
The Crown in Right of Ontario  
(Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry)  
Employer  
Arbitrator  
BEFORE  
Nimal Dissanayake  
FOR THE UNION  
Michael Hancock  
(From Sept. 6, 2013 to Oct. 2, 2014)  
Mike Biliski  
(From March 25, 2015 to Dec. 21, 2018)  
Koskie Minsky LLP  
Counsel  
FOR THE EMPLOYER  
HEARING  
Stewart McMahon and Thomas Ayers  
Treasury Board Secretariat  
Legal Services Branch  
Co-Counsel  
September 6, October 29, November 12, 15, December 19 of  
2013; May 21, June 18, July 3, 4 and 10, September 4, 29,  
October 2 of 2014; March 25, 27, April 15, 16, 28, September 1,  
of 2015; September 16 of 2016; January 16, 30, February 23,  
March 7, 8, 30, May 11, September 19, November 20 of 2017;  
February 22, April 24, May 10, October 16, 24, November 30  
and December 21 of 2018  
- 2 -  
Decision  
[1]  
This decision relates to a group grievance filed on behalf of all seven individuals  
employed in the position of Agricultural Investigators (“AI”) in Agricultural  
Investigations Unit (“AIU”) of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry,  
(“MNRF”) a part of the Investigation and Intelligence Services Branch of the  
Ministry’s Enforcement Branch, and an individual grievance filed by one of those  
AI’s, Mr. Michael Martin. In substances both grievances allege violations of  
article 9.1 of the collective agreement and section 25(2)(h) of the Occupational  
Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”).  
[2]  
The relevant parts of those provisions read as follows:  
Article 9.1 of the Collective Agreement  
The Employer shall continue to make reasonable provisions for the safety  
and health of its employees during the hours of their employment.  
Section 25(2)(h) of the OHSA  
… an employer shall …,  
(h) take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the  
protection of a worker.  
[3]  
The Ministry of the Ontario Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (“OMAFRA”) had  
previously employed a number of AI’s to enforce legislation related to food safety.  
At the time they had not been provided sidearms/pepper spray as personal  
protection equipment (“PPE”). Through a reorganization in 2006 OMAFRA AIs  
were moved to the MNRF’s AIU, which had been created in 2000. Upon joining  
the AIU, the AIs were appointed as Conservation Officers (“CO”) under the Fish  
and Wildlife Conservation Act. Along with their CO designation, they were  
provided with sidearm and pepper spray.  
Their primary function was  
enforcement of the Food Safety and Quality Act (“FSQA”). Described very  
generally, their role was to investigate violations of the FSQA and gather  
evidence to facilitate prosecution.  
[4]  
In January 2012 the employer announced its decision to revoke the Als  
designation as COs and required them to return their sidearms and pepper spray.  
- 3 -  
That left them with limited PPE including soft body armour and collapsible baton.  
The removal of sidearm and pepper spray is the focus of the group grievance. In  
essence, the grievors allege that considering the nature of their work, by  
requiring them to carry out their duties without sidearms and pepper spray, the  
employer exposes them to unreasonable risk, and thereby fails to comply with its  
obligation under the collective agreement and OHSA. It is alleged that the  
decision to remove sidearms and pepper spray was made without due  
consideration and assessment of its impact on the health and safety of Als.  
[5]  
While the group grievance consisted of two parts, the union proceeded only on  
one. It reads:  
We, the seven (7) employees of the Agriculture Investigation Unit, as a  
group, hereby grieve the actions of our employer, who on January 30,  
2012, arbitrarily removed from us our Conservation Officer appointments,  
resulting in the loss and removal of our use of force tools. The use of  
force tools were recommended based on 2006 Justice Haines report and  
further justified and supported by a business case that detailed the  
inherent dangers of the work performed by Agriculture Investigators. The  
decision by management on January 30, 2012 was based solely on the  
legal authority to possess firearms and failed to address the health and  
safety issues that was the basis for the arming of officers in the first place,  
as per article 22.11 or any other article or act that may apply.  
Settlement Desired  
Return of conservation Officer Designation and Use of Force options,  
specifically, firearms and pepper stray, under the Fish and Wildlife  
conservation Act or any alternative legislation that would allow us to  
maintain Peace Officer status and designation.  
Recognize the duties performed as duties of employment for the  
preservation and maintenance of public peace, thereby defining  
them as “Peace Officers” pursuant to subparagraph (c) of s. 2  
“peace officer” definition within the Criminal Code of Canada,  
thereby enabling them under legal authority to possess firearms.  
(bold original).  
[6]  
Of the seven signatories, four participated in the arbitration proceeding and  
testified about incidents they were involved in while performing AI duties, which  
in their view exposed them to unreasonable health and safety risk. They were  
grievors Ridley, Campbell, Hartnick and Martin. Grievors Prey and Grosley did  
- 4 -  
not participate at all and no evidence was adduced about any unsafe situations  
they were exposed to. Grievor Todd did not personally participate due to  
sickness, but evidence was adduced by the union about incidents he was  
involved in, which the union relies on to support the group grievance.  
[7]  
Mr. Martin’s individual grievance is also about denial of sidearm and pepper  
spray, but in a different context. He was hired as an AI at the AIU in August  
2010, at which time his colleagues were designated as CO’s and had full PPE.  
However, until the sidearms and pepper spray were removed from all AIs in  
January 2012, Mr. Martin was not appointed as a CO and was not issued  
sidearm or pepper spray. Thus from August 2010 until January 2012 he  
performed duties of an AI, but unlike his colleagues, he had no sidearm or  
pepper spray. His grievance claims that thereby the employer put his health and  
safety at risk in contravention of article 9.1 of the collective agreement and s.  
25(2)(h) of OHSA; and also exercised its management rights in a manner  
contrary to article 2 of the collective agreement, by providing him less protective  
equipment than his colleagues. At the commencement of the hearing, in the  
face of a proposed motion of no prima facie case by the employer, the union  
formally conceded that for Mr. Martin’s grievance to succeed, the union must  
establish that the employer’s exercise of its management rights under article 2 to  
not to appoint Mr. Martin as a CO and not to issue him sidearm and pepper  
spray, resulted in the denial of a substantive right Mr. Martin had under the  
collective agreement or legislation. Counsel acknowledged that if the Board  
concludes that the employer did not contravene the collective agreement or  
OHSA by deciding to remove sidearms and pepper spray from all AIs, Mr.  
Martin’s claim that the employer contravened article 9 and s. 25.(2)(h) of OSHA  
by requiring him to perform AIs duties, without sidearm and pepper spray could  
not succeed.  
[8]  
Although the Act provided powers of arrest and the authority to stop vehicles in  
certain circumstances, the parties agreed that at the relevant time AIs had no  
authority to exercise either of those powers.  
Ontario Regulation 31/05,  
- 5 -  
commonly referred to as the Meat Regulation, imposes a number of restrictions  
on the selling, transportation of meat or meat product derived from animals. For  
present purposes, it suffices to note that the regulation includes licencing and  
inspection and approval for use as food under the Meat Inspection Act (Canada).  
[9]  
A large part of the grievances relates to the AIs work investigating slaughter of  
animals for food in contravention of the FSQA. It is alleged that the individuals  
AIs encounter in the course of investigating suspected illegal slaughter are often  
violent individuals, some with criminal backgrounds. Moreover in rural farms,  
where illegal slaughter is carried out, weapons such as guns, large knives, axes,  
as well as meat hooks, pitch forks and shovels are common. The union  
maintains that those engaged in illegal slaughter strongly oppose the  
government’s interference with their activity. It is thus grieved that the removal  
of sidearm and pepper spray from the AIs personal protection equipment  
exposes them to unreasonable health and safety risk. It is claimed that side  
arms are necessary not to engage in a fire fight with the perpetrators, but to  
deescalate volatile situations, and if that fails, to enable AIs to disengage and  
leave safety.  
[10]  
[11]  
The employer’s position is that considering the nature of an AI’s duties and  
responsibilities, the directions, policy and procedures in place, even in the  
absence of sidearm and pepper spray, it has the reasonable precautions  
required by the collective agreement and OHSA.  
The Board notes that by agreement of the parties the evidence led in this case  
was not cut off as of the date the grievances were filed. Evidence was led about  
additional precautions the employer implemented for AI’s health and safety  
following the filing of the grievances.  
- 6 -  
UNION EVIDENCE  
EVIDENCE OF MIKE KINDRIE  
[12]  
The union led voluminous evidence on the period that led up to the arming of  
AIs in 2006. Mr. Mike Kindrie had been the Manager of the Intelligence and  
Investigation Section (“IIS”) from 2003 to mid-2008 and had retired in 2013. At  
the time the AIU was part of the IIS, and under Mr. Kindrie. He testified that  
when he assumed duties as manager of IIS, he only had a general knowledge of  
the duties of an AI. As manager, he had no direct involvement with AI work,  
although the AIU reported directly to him. However, in time he became  
intimately aware of AI duties and responsibilities.  
[13]  
Union counsel referred Mr. Kindrie to a briefing note he prepared for the Deputy  
Minister, which received approval in November 2005. He testified that its  
purpose was to seek approval to arm AIs. This change was sought to  
“adequately protect” AIs. He discussed that with his superior, Mr. Serge  
Tenaglia, then Director of the Enforcement Branch. He stated that his  
realization of the need to arm AIs with sidearm and pepper spray was not  
related to any incidents. However, when he compared the duties of AIs with  
those of “officers of other agencies like OPP, municipal police, and even MNRF  
conservation officers” he saw that “there were huge similarities”. The only  
difference was the commodity they dealt with. The bad guys and their behaviour  
were all the same. Asked to explain the similarities between AI and police  
duties, he referred to “under-cover buys, mobile surveillance and stationary  
surveillance”. Mr. Kindrie testified that he sought input from AI Mr. Harry  
Prentice on these issues because he had been with the Hamilton police force  
and had intimate knowledge about IA health and safety issues. He also had  
input from “Christal in Health and Safety”, because he wanted to “make sure we  
are in the same ball park with other employees doing similar work”. Asked who  
those were, he replied, “OPP, Municipal Police forces and our COs”. He  
testified that at the time there were no health and safety complaints or  
grievances at the AIU. Mr. Kindrie testified that he also sought input from Mr.  
Roger Dunlop, Supervisor at the AIU and Mr. John Downey, supervisor at the  
- 7 -  
Provincial Training Unit.  
Mr. Dunlop was familiar with the background  
information because he had come from OMAFRA, and had been an AI himself.  
Mr. Downey received all use of force reports for Ontario in his position and was  
familiar with all use of force training and use of force issues.  
[14]  
Mr. Kindrie testified that AIs executed search warrants in rural slaughter houses  
as well as urban commercial businesses. Asked if an AI would ever be on his  
own when executing a search warrant, he said that the AI would always be  
assisted by a CO, OPP or Municipal Police Officer. Asked whether COs or  
Police Officers assisting would be armed, he replied “I can’t recall. I’d have to  
say no”. Asked if he had received requests by AIs for assistance, he replied that  
he was not sure since supervisors dealt with those requests. He agreed that  
after the AIs were armed COs continued to assist them in executing search  
warrants.  
[15]  
Mr. Kindrie testified that many kinds of knives are commonly used in the illegal  
slaughter operations, and that guns may also be used to kill some kinds of  
animals. He said that he is aware that illegal slaughter houses use dogs to alert  
the owners of the presence of intruders. He said that these dogs do not  
generally pose a threat to Als, but occasionally can, particularly in remote  
locations where immediate back up assistance may not be available.  
[16]  
In the Briefing Note, Mr. Kindrie had written that:  
“Independent studies by NGOs and Government Law Enforcement Institutions  
have consistently shown that law enforcement officers cannot effectively defend  
a themselves against edged weapons without a firearm. Even with a firearm, a  
reactionary gap of no less than 21 feet, between an officer armed with a side-  
arm, and a suspect armed with a edged weapon (knife, screw driver, axe etc.) is  
required for the officer to effectively apply approved use of force techniques and  
prevent being stabbed”).  
[17]  
Mr. Kindrie stated that while he was not aware of those studies, he agreed with  
those conclusions and that “it was a training mantra that is drilled into our  
heads”. Mr. Kindrie testified that the collapsible baton AIs had would not  
generally be effective against sharp edged weapons, but if that is the only option  
- 8 -  
available, in certain situations a baton could be useful. He stated that the  
incident of an assault with a baseball bat referred to in the Briefing Note had  
occurred at least 2-3 years earlier. Mr. Dunlop was the AI involved, but he did  
not know any specifics of what occurred, other than that Mr. Dunlop was not  
injured.  
[18]  
Mr. Kindrie testified that in preparing the Briefing Note he obtained all available  
information about other jurisdictions, and it was clear that there was no  
agricultural investigation agency that had equipped their officers with fire-arms.  
However, he stated that the practice in other jurisdictions did not really matter to  
him because “I wanted to ensure I was providing our officers with the tools to  
protect themselves as compared to what was normal in the law enforcement  
community”.  
[19]  
Counsel referred to an agenda for a meeting held on April 20, 2005, attended by  
all AIs, Mr. Kindrie and a lawyer from Legal Services. Mr. Kindrie testified that  
he took the opportunity to update the meeting about his attempt to arm Als.  
Referring to notes taken by the Administrative Assistant, he testified that at the  
meeting he stated that there is a need to build support for arming Als within  
MNRF before going to OMAFRA, to make sure that the Minister would support  
the change. He also agreed that he opined that AIs cannot be armed without  
appointing them as COs, because appointing Als as COs would be consistent  
with the intent of the original cooperative agreement between MNRF and  
OMAFRA about cross-appointment, cross-training and cross-utilization.  
[20]  
Under cross-examination, Mr. Kindrie agreed that since the first draft of the  
briefing note was produced in October 2004, he must have started that project  
earlier, and that would have been approximately about one year after he started  
as full time manager of the AIU. When suggested that since he only had a very  
general idea of AI work and the risks involved at the time, he had to seek  
information from others like Mr. Prentice about details, he said “not entirely”, and  
explained that he had experience as a CO. Counsel suggested that as he  
- 9 -  
pushed his proposal to arm Als, the groups he consistently looked at for  
comparison were police officers and COs. Mr. Kindrie agreed. He also agreed  
that by the time he did the first draft in October 2004, he had concluded that the  
appropriate option to recommend was to appoint Als as COs, and that he  
reached that conclusion even before getting detailed information from Mr.  
Prentice or talking to Mr. Downey.  
[21]  
Counsel referred to a statement in the draft Briefing Note, “if there was a  
grievance or investigation by the MOL, very likely the result would be a labour  
order requiring MNRF to provide sidearms to AIs”. Employer counsel put to Mr.  
Kindrie that it was a presumption on his part that if a health and safety complaint  
or grievance is filed by an AI, it would be held that it was not safe for Als to work  
without sidearms. He agreed. When counsel put to Mr. Kindrie, “So it was  
paramount to get in front of such labour actions”, he replied, “No. From my  
discussions we decided we have a duty to protect our officers like others in law  
enforcement”. When counsel put, “That’s Police Officers and COs and not any  
other law enforcement agency officers”, Mr. Kindrie agreed and added that only  
police officers and COs perform law enforcement duties similar to AI duties.  
[22]  
Counsel referred to the following paragraph in the Briefing Note: According to  
Justice Haines’ report “… given the nature of the activities investigated, the  
instruments utilized to slaughter animals and to process meat, the wisdom of the  
prohibition (from carrying firearms) should be reconsidered”, and suggested that  
this paragraph was one of the driving factors for his initiative to arm Als. Mr.  
Kindrie disagreed and stated that the initiative was well underway before the  
Haines Report. Counsel referred to the list of “pros” favouring the arming of AIs  
listed to the effect that it would ‘satisfy the recommendation in the Haines  
Report”, and asked whether Mr. Kindrie was stating that Justice Haines was  
recommending that Als be armed. Mr. Kindrie replied, “the language was sloppy  
but that was the intention”. Counsel pointed out that the Haines Report was  
about food safety and not officer safety, that the quoted language was set out in  
a foot-note, and that Justice Haines only suggested that the policy be  
- 10 -  
reconsidered, and asked whether it was Mr. Kindrie’s position that if Als were  
not provided with sidearms, MNRF would not be complying with a  
recommendation in the Haines Report. Mr. Kindrie replied, “yes”.  
[23]  
Mr. Kindrie agreed that the purpose of the Briefing Note was to obtain approval  
of senior management for arming of Als, and therefore, he put forward the best  
examples of incidents he could find, where Als were exposed to risk while  
performing their duties. He also agreed that when he asked Mr. Prentice for  
information that supported his position, Mr. Prentice provided only the following:  
(1) That where illegal slaughter takes place, the individuals involved have  
access to weapons such as knives and fire arms and in rural areas immediate  
backup may not be available if a volatile situation arises.  
(2) That when doing undercover operations, although cover teams are assigned  
to protect AIs, AIs having sidearms would increase their current level of safety in  
the event they have to quickly remove themselves from risky situations.  
(3) That studies show that law enforcement officers cannot effectively defend  
against edged weapons without a firearm, and even with a fire-arm a gap of no  
less than 21 feet between officer and offender is required.  
(4) That the protection equipment AIs had are ineffective against offenders  
armed with edged weapons, firearms, clubs or guard dogs.  
[24]  
Mr. Kindrie agreed that Mr. Prentice only states that the people AIs encounter  
have access to knives and guns, not that they confront AIs brandishing those;  
that he only states that they have dogs, not that dogs have attacked AIs. When  
counsel, suggested that knives, guns and dogs are common in rural farms, Mr.  
Kindrie replied that he could not comment. Employer counsel put to Mr. Kindrie  
that if immediate back-up is made available the risk to AIs would be significantly  
reduced. Mr. Kindrie disagreed and said that he can think of situations where  
that may not be so.  
[25]  
Mr. Kindrie agreed that undercover work by AIs is mostly about posing as a  
member of the public and “making a buy”, and that Mr. Prentice states that the  
- 11 -  
cover team assigned to assist must be armed. He agreed that the “cover team”  
when AIs do under-cover work could be police officers or COs who would be  
armed. Mr. Kindrie agreed that since under-cover buys are done in the open or  
in public places the level of risk to AIs is on the lower end.  
[26]  
Mr. Kindrie confirmed that by e-mail dated February 14, 2005, he requested Mr.  
Terry O’Neil of MNRF to do a search of non-police agencies which provide their  
officers with pistols, and told Mr. O’Neil that he needed that information to  
rationalize the need to arm AIs with sidearms. He agreed that, he is not aware  
of any Canadian jurisdiction or province that provides sidearms to their officers,  
apart from Police and conservation officers.  
[27]  
Counsel suggested that the highest point of risk when executing a search  
warrant is the securing of the location, and getting the people in the location to  
come out, and that this task is done by the Police first before AIs enter. Mr.  
Kindrie agreed. Employer counsel asked Mr. Kindrie, whether there was any  
occasion, during his tenure as Manager of AIU, when an AI told him that he/she  
was not prepared to go on an assignment because it was too risky. Mr. Kindrie  
replied that he was sure there would have been such occasions, but he could  
not recall any. He agreed that in such situations he would never compel to go  
despite the AI’s concern about risk.  
[28]  
Mr. Kindrie had set out in the Briefing Note that without an appointment as CO,  
AIs would not be able to carry sidearms, and without issuing sidearms, the  
employer would not be able to meet its obligations under OHSA. Counsel asked  
whether Mr. Kindrie based that on his belief that if there is a work refusal by an  
AI, a Ministry of Labour inspector would make a finding that because the  
employer did not equip the AI with sidearm, it had failed to take “reasonable  
precautions” as required by OSHA. Mr. Kindrie replied “yes”. When referred to  
Mr. Kindrie’s rationale for the recommendation that Als be appointed as COs,  
Mr. Kindrie agreed that in this version the only rationale he set out was that  
- 12 -  
arming AIs would improve the level of their health and safety and also would  
minimize the chance of liability in the event of law suits against the employer.  
[29]  
Mr. Kindrie agreed that he asked Mr. Dunlop to provide a history of incidents of  
assault on AIs because he was one of the original AIs who had come over to the  
AIU from OMAFRA, was one of the most experienced, and therefore, would be  
aware of that history. He also agreed that Mr. Dunlop was aware of only one  
incident, an assault with a baseball bat, that Mr. Dunlop was the AI involved, and  
that he was not injured. When counsel put to him that Mr. Dunlop was not  
struck with the bat, Mr. Kindrie replied that he did not know.  
[30]  
Employer counsel put the following hypothetical to Mr. Kindrie. If an AI armed  
with a sidearm is confronted by an individual wielding an edged weapon, as per  
training the AI would draw his sidearm and order the person to drop the weapon.  
Mr. Kindrie agreed. Counsel asked whether the AI would shoot the person, if he  
does not comply and continues to advance. Mr. Kindrie replied that the AI  
would, if he was in fear of grievous bodily harm and if all the standards taught in  
training are met. Mr. Kindrie agreed that AIs are required to complete an  
Incident Report whenever there is use of force. Counsel put that the Briefing  
Note does not indicate that Mr. Kindrie had searched for any Incident Reports  
relating to use of force in the previous 2-3 years. Mr. Kindrie agreed.  
[31]  
[32]  
Mr. Kindrie agreed with the following propositions by counsel: that MNRF  
employs other enforcement officers such as Park Wardens, Deputy COs, and  
Port Observers, that none of those officers carry sidearms; that Park Wardens  
have the same powers as police officers within Provincial Parks.  
Mr. Kindrie agreed that the primary duties of police officers are to keep the  
peace and protect the public, and that they have a general power of arrest and  
detention. When counsel put to him that AIs do not have any power of arrest or  
detention, Mr. Kindrie replied that he did not know, but agreed that his Briefing  
Note does not state that they do. Mr. Kindrie agreed that AIs have no duty to  
- 13 -  
keep the peace, or to protect the public other than by removing unsafe meat and  
food. Mr. Kindrie agreed. Counsel then referred to Mr. Kindrie’s testimony in  
chief when comparing AIs with police officers, that the only difference was the  
commodity they deal with, and that the bad guys they deal with and their modus  
operandi are the same. Counsel put to him that the testimony was “utter  
nonsense”, and asked whether Mr. Kindrie was aware of the following: that  
police officers deal with organized criminal gangs that sell guns and narcotic  
drugs; that it is common for such gangs to engage in armed competition with  
each other; that it is not uncommon for these gangs to exchange gun fire with  
each other or with police; and that part of the modus operandi of these gangs is  
to use severe forms of intimidation against rival gangs and police forces. Mr.  
Kindrie agreed that he was aware. Counsel put to Mr. Kindrie that he was not  
aware of any incident of an illegal slaughter operator or anyone selling illegal  
meat after hours ever doing any of that. Mr. Kindrie replied that the focus of the  
Briefing Note was on day to day work and not on extreme situations, and that  
police officers also do not face those situations every day. Counsel asked, “Can  
you point to any incident where a subject even threatened an AI with grievous  
bodily harm?” Mr. Kindrie replied that he could not think of one.  
[33]  
In re-direct, Mr. Kindrie explained that in the Briefing Note his focus was on the  
day to day work of AIs compared to day to day work of police and other  
agencies, not on extreme events, and that he tried to focus on the 99% and not  
the extreme 1%. He added that “we have to think about the 1% but not focus on  
it”. Asked how often bad guys exchange gun fire with police in Ontario, he  
replied that it is probably a daily or weekly event, based on media and news  
reports. Asked why he did not focus on it, if that was so, he said that his focus  
was on the risks involved in daily routine duties like surveillance, and that they  
were similar to daily police duties.  
[34]  
Pointing out that he had agreed with employer counsel that history was the best  
indicator of future events, union counsel asked, apart from history what else Mr.  
Kindrie relied on to conclude that injuries to Als may increase if they are not  
- 14 -  
issued sidearms. He replied that “the lay of the land, the current situation, the  
history of the subjects, our ability to respond, are all part of the risk analysis”.  
Counsel asked why he testified that the availability of fast back-up does not  
eliminate risk to Als, he replied that the AI’s job is inherently risky because they  
are taking away people’s livelihood and they are angry towards law enforcement  
officers for doing that and may respond inappropriately.  
EVIDENCE OF GRAHAM RIDLEY  
[35]  
Mr. Graham Ridley has been employed as an AI since 2010. He had been a  
police officer with the Ottawa City Police from 1976 to 1981, and the Calgary  
City Police from 1981 to 1982. Then he joined Environment Canada Wildlife  
Service as Chief of Intelligence, a senior management position, before joining  
the OPS.  
[36]  
Mr. Ridley testified that at one time Als mostly did mobile surveillance.  
However, due to concern about officer safety and potential civil liability, the way  
mobile surveillance was carried out was changed pending a review whether an  
exemption should be requested for Als from the provisions of the Highway  
Traffic Act, particularly relating to speed limits. He believed that this was still  
unresolved. Therefore, “full blown” mobile surveillance is not done now. Als are  
only allowed to follow vehicles passively. Mr. Ridley testified that nevertheless,  
even sitting in a vehicle to carryout surveillance is risky because passersby,  
neighbours or even the target itself may get suspicious about someone sitting in  
a car in a rural road, and can get aggressive.  
[37]  
Mr. Ridley stated that “dogs on the property is the biggest concern. Dogs pose  
a risk”. He stated that, moreover, a barking dog can alert the property owner.  
Then the AI has to get out fast. He said that even if an AI finds a good spot to  
set up for surveillance, for example with the cooperation of the owner of an  
adjacent property, there is no guarantee that he will not be detected. He  
testified that there would be a particularly high safety risk if an AI doing  
surveillance is detected by a member of a “radical group”, like the Ontario  
- 15 -  
Landowners Association. They have sign boards like “Government back off.  
This is our land” on their properties. They had dumped bales of hay at the doors  
of the OMAFRA office, and threatened a MNRF lawyer leaving court hearings.  
[38]  
Mr. Ridley testified that when he applied for the AI position he expected that he  
would have the “CO use of force tools”, that is sidearm, suit body armour,  
pepper spray and collapsible baton. As an AI he was assigned files by his  
supervisor, Mr. Dennis Beuckelman, who receives files from OMAFRA. Files he  
received generally contained information only about food safety risks, not officer  
safety. Occasionally OMAFRA may include information that the individual is a  
person of interest and can be violent, but OMAFRA had no way of doing a CPIC  
check, which would disclose charges under the Criminal Code, and the  
disposition, and whether the person possessed a fire arm licence.  
[39]  
Asked when an AI would have covert contact with a suspect, Mr. Ridley stated  
as an example when a complaint is received that someone is selling pepperoni  
containing uninspected meat, an AI would go posing as a consumer and  
purchase pepperoni, to enable determination whether the complaint is valid. AIs  
would also make overt contact with suspects. Then the AI would introduce  
him/herself as an AI and show the badge and obtain a cautioned statement from  
the suspect. Mr. Ridley testified that suspects do not focus on the badge. They  
have to decide whether to “flight or fight”. Often they are wondering whether the  
officer is from Police, Customs, or Immigration. Therefore, overt contact is  
always a “touchy situation”.  
[40]  
He agreed that when overt contact is made there are always two AIs, for two  
reasons. First, for officer safety so one can watch the others back, and second  
to have a witness in the event of allegation of unlawful conduct by AIs. He  
explained that even in what appears to be a safe situation like sitting with the  
subject who has no violent history at a table and documenting something,  
people can still get agitated. While one AI is writing with head down, someone  
- 16 -  
may come in. Since AIs have no power of arrest, there may be a need to get  
out quickly.  
[41]  
Mr. Ridley testified that the point of making first contact with a suspect is  
particularly risky. He considered that to be a “flash point”. The AI has to be very  
aware of where he is and the surroundings, and be non aggressive and non-  
confrontational. He said that when the badge is shown, a suspect would feel a  
bit threatened. So Mr. Ridley typically talked about the weather or something in  
the news to put the suspect more at ease. Then he would explain why he is  
there, like “to investigate something on your farm”. However, Mr. Ridley testified  
that the AI would not know who else is present in the premises besides the  
people he can see. He said, “I won’t know if he knew I was coming and had  
people come over – possible assailants”.  
[42]  
Counsel asked how search warrants were executed when AIs were designated  
as a CO and therefore armed. Mr. Ridley testified as follows: An operational  
plan is drafted including the date of execution, names of all officers who will be  
involved, their cell phone numbers, and duties during the search, the evidence  
the AIs were looking for and information about the hospital closest to the  
location to be searched. He said that as many as possible of the seven AIs in  
the province are included in the search warrant. The operational plan then has  
to approved and signed by the supervisor. Mr. Ridley was asked besides AIs,  
who else may be involved in the execution of a search warrant. He testified that  
Als may call on COs to provide security, and sometimes experts from the  
Ministry of Finance may accompany them. Since AIs were armed themselves,  
police were not requested to provide back-up.  
[43]  
He testified that upon arrival at the location, the lead AI and the second in  
command would enter the premises, while the rest remain out of sight so it does  
not look like an invasion. The lead AI would ask to speak to the owner and  
explain why they were there, and show the search warrant. Depending on the  
owner’s response, the rest of the team would join and begin the search. Mr.  
- 17 -  
Ridley testified that a search warrant may be executed anywhere including a  
residence. Officers do not always know how many people are in the premises to  
be searched. So one AI would go early and watch the premises from a covert  
position to see who goes in and out. That AI must not be detected because if  
the owner gets tipped off evidence may be removed or destroyed.  
[44]  
Counsel asked whether execution of a search warrant is done any differently  
after the sidearm and pepper spray were removed. He replied: “Yes. Now we  
cannot call on COs for security assistance. We have to call the local police or  
OPP”. He testified that since AI’s sidearm was removed he had concerns for his  
safety. He said, “If we have two armed police officers and four or five unarmed  
AIs, it is still a concern. We wouldn’t know how many people are in the  
premises. If there are five people, there won’t be enough police power to hold  
off those five. We need at least one to one to be safe”.  
[45]  
Mr. Ridley testified that compared to the time when AIs were armed, now more  
officers are involved in investigation of illegal slaughter, and instead of COs, AIs  
now have police assistance. He said that the problem, however, is when the  
police officers do not want to be involved. Although the FSQA requires the  
police to provide assistance upon request, it does not happen always. He  
referred to the Barn/OPP assistance incident where the police were called for  
assistance before he and two other Als entered a farm where illegal slaughter  
was going on. One police officer arrived ten minutes later but remained in his  
vehicle, while the three Als had to control eleven people who had access to  
large knives. He said that since Als were armed at the time everything went  
well. He said that since he is no longer armed, he would not do such an  
investigation.  
[46]  
Mr. Ridley testified that sometimes, there are reasonable grounds to believe that  
a food safety related offence has occurred, but if there is delay in obtaining a  
search warrant, the evidence may be removed. To prevent that the FSQA  
allows AIs immediate entry and search of the premises, other than residential  
- 18 -  
dwellings. Mr. Ridley was asked how such a search, described in the Act as an  
“exigent circumstance search”, was done prior to the removal of sidearms. He  
testified as follows: No operational plan was prepared. The AI obtains approval  
of the supervisor to do an exigent circumstance search. The search would be  
conducted by the AI with assistance from other AIs, or COs. He recalled once  
calling for assistance from the Ottawa Police because he was by himself, and he  
believed the evidence was in the process of being removed. He described the  
typical process as follows: The team of two AIs enters the barn in a rural farm  
and assesses how many individuals are present. The lead officer identifies the  
team as from AIU and orders all the people who were involved in the slaughter  
to drop the knives they hold. The people are moved to a corner away from  
weapons on the ground. One officer collects all weapons and each weapon is  
photographed, and placed outside the door. One AI then would get identification  
and relevant information from the owner/operator, while the other obtains  
identification from the rest one by one. Each is asked what they were doing  
there, are they employees or customers and how much they were paid etc.  
Then they are free to leave. If anyone decides to leave before being  
interviewed, AIs have no authority to detain them. Finally, the area is  
photographed. Mr. Ridley testified that in an exigent circumstance search AIs  
would have no information at all about the criminal/violence history of the people  
they encounter.  
[47]  
Mr. Ridley testified that after the removal of sidearms, in performing an exigent  
circumstance search, in addition to calling the supervisor, police are always  
called for assistance. It was the police that enter the property first. He testified  
that exigent circumstance searches pose increased risk to AIs. They have no  
search warrant or other legal document to establish authority to enter and  
search someone’s property. People therefore see it as government trespassing  
into private property and get very emotional. It takes longer for Als to explain  
that they have authority and get the owner’s anger level down. Sometimes they  
yell, stomp around, point fingers and argue. So the AIs must do the search and  
get out quickly.  
- 19 -  
[48]  
Mr. Ridley testified that a family would buy an animal from the farmer and  
slaughter it in accordance with their religious beliefs. They do not want  
government officers interrupting it. Asked what the officer safety concerns were  
when seizing meat in these circumstances, Mr. Ridley referred to “the Goat  
slaughter incident” as an illustration. He said five men were slaughtering and  
carving a goat. They had knives and the floors were covered with blood and  
animal parts. He said that an AI could slip and get injured. If the dirty blood  
gets into the wound there is a high risk of an infection.  
[49]  
Mr. Ridley testified that in the period when he was armed, he did not have to  
draw his sidearm even once. Asked if he has ever been involved in a physical  
altercation in his career as an AI, he responded that in the Ontario Landowners  
Association incident, there was no actual physical contact, but “it could have got  
out of hand”.  
[50]  
Mr. Ridley testified that disengagement was a predominant part of the use of  
force training provided to Als. Whether armed or not, if the situation is  
escalating and an AI identifies a potential risk, the AI has to remove himself from  
the situation even if that means that the incriminating evidence is lost. He said,  
“The Ministry is emphatic that officer safety is of paramount importance and loss  
of evidence is secondary to you being safe”.  
[51]  
Mr. Ridley testified that he first heard about the removal of sidearms from AI Ed  
Hartnick. Mr. Ridley called his supervisor Mr. Benkelman and asked about it.  
The next day Mr. Benkelman sent him an e-mail that it was just a rumour. The  
AIs met as a group to discuss about the rumour. Mr. Noel Todd, sent an e-mail  
to senior management stating that if removal of sidearms is being considered,  
the AIs would like to assist in the study of the issue. Mr. Ridley testified that he  
also drafted a report outlining two options, retain the status quo or remove the  
CO designation from AIs but retain their sidearms under a FSQA designation.  
He said that the only response from Mr. Benkelman was to the effect that he had  
- 20 -  
sent the report up to senior management. There was no further contact from  
management until the conference call in January 2012 when Mr. Moody  
announced the decision to remove the CO designation and sidearms.  
[52]  
Counsel referred to the speaking notes Mr. Moody had used during that  
conference call to the effect that since AIs were first appointed as COs in 2006  
AIs had performed only around 1% of MNRF enforcement duties and laid only 4  
MNRF charges since 2000. Mr. Ridley said that was inaccurate. He explained  
that when AIs assist MNRFs COs to execute a search warrant related for  
example a deer or moose hunting or ice fishing offences, the enforcement action  
is credited to the CO on the CAVERS system and not to the AI. Thus a lot of  
MNRF enforcement related work AIs do is not recorded.  
[53]  
Mr. Ridley agreed that AIs continued to receive use of force training following  
the removal of sidearms. However, the training had been amended. Previously  
the training was based on the “one up” rule. For example, if the offender comes  
at you with his fists, you go one up and use the baton. If someone lunges at you  
with a weapon, you go one level up and use the sidearm. He said that now if  
someone comes at you with a knife, the AI cannot go one up with no sidearm.  
He explained that while AIs are expected to disengage from unsafe situations it  
is not always possible to disengage. If the offender is blocking the only exit to  
the room, and is armed with a knife or axe, there is no way to disengage.  
[54]  
Mr. Ridley agreed that during the conference call Mr. Moody had assured that  
he would be requesting the Regulatory Compliance Unit (“RCU”) to address any  
known or suspected safety issues on each occurrence sent to the AIU for  
investigation. Mr. Ridley testified that despite that assurance, the RCU provides  
very little other than food safety related information. The RCU has no access to  
CPIC to check criminal records of individuals. At times they provide unverified  
information about officer safety issues based on rumours, such as X owns guns  
or Y is aggressive. While even that information is helpful to AIs, they have to  
make their own inquiries and seek police assistance.  
- 21 -  
[55]  
Mr. Ridley testified that during the call Mr. Moody stated that management had  
concluded that designation of AIs as COs is inappropriate and invited AIs to  
suggest options that would allow them to carry sidearms without a CO  
designation. That is why he suggested in the report that AIs should be allowed  
to carry sidearms with a designation under the FSQA.  
[56]  
The evidence is that a “Request for Direction”, dated February 3, 2012 signed by  
all AIs was submitted to Mr. Moody. It included the following:  
Since 2006 Agriculture Investigators, have through policy been required  
to wear and carry use of force tools for health and safety reasons,  
therefore we request clarification and direction on how to proceed when  
we are in situations where we have reason to believe that we are in a  
health and safety risk.  
We respectfully request clarification on how you propose to provide us  
with reasonable provisions for our safety, since no direction has been  
given, and present policies are contrary to your verbal direction. This  
request is pursuant to section 25(2)(a) of the Occupational Health and  
Safety Act.  
At the same time the AIs submitted a request for a workplace risk assessment  
pursuant to s. 32.0.3(1) of OHSA. Mr. Ridley testified that he could not recall  
any specific action in response to either request by management.  
[57]  
Mr. Ridley testified that there were two work refusals by AIs pursuant to s. 43 of  
OHSA. He was involved in one of those. He stated that RCU had forwarded an  
informant complaint alleging that the meat packing business was slaughtering  
animals outside the licenced hours, which meant that the meat was not being  
inspected as required by law. The documentation from RCU set out many food  
safety risks, but with regard to officer safety it only stated “Licenced abattoir-  
history shows the operator has been cooperative with inspectors, small  
language barriers, licence holder is the father”. Mr. Ridley testified that prior to  
doing surveillance on this location he did a CPIC check. It disclosed that the  
operator had criminal charges of robbery, extortion, theft over $ 2000, had a  
peace bond from 2009, had a fire arms licence but no record of possessing any  
- 22 -  
fire arms. Mr. Ridley testified that he and Mr. Hartnick set out around 8 p.m.; he  
in an unmarked mini-van and Mr. Hartnick in his own pick-up truck. It was dark  
and streets were not lighted. The area was not populated. The owner’s house  
and the business were next to each other. Mr. Ridley decided that it was not  
safe to get close because there was little cover. They took photographs from a  
distance. Mr. Ridley testified that at the point he decided to engage in a work  
refusal. Asked why, he said “There were only two of us. If one of us is dropped  
off close to the house, he is left exposed. We couldn’t park and walk close to  
the house because there was no way to conceal the vehicle. There was no  
cover for us once away from the vehicle. We discussed and decided that the  
“cons” outweighed the “pros”. We were so far away from the nearest OPP. So  
even the panic button on our radio won’t get us back up. So we agreed to  
refuse”.  
[58]  
Therefore, Mr. Ridley called Mr. Beuckelman and informed about his refusal to  
do unsafe work. Mr. Beuckelman directed them to get to a safe location and do  
a report. They drove back to the Kemptville AIU office and wrote a report. In it  
Mr. Ridley reviewed the operator’s criminal background disclosed in the CPIC  
check, and wrote the following:  
In view of having been accosted previously by the Ontario Land Owners  
Association in a similar situation, the time of night, the above information related  
to the individual, the remoteness of the location, that butchering is conducted  
with long bladed knives, I was of the honest belief that I was not in a safe  
situation and that a danger existed to me without my protective tools.  
[59]  
The work refusal was referred to the Ministry of Labour, and a number of  
conference calls were held with the Inspector who was appointed, with Mr.  
Hartnick, Mr. Moody, and others participating. In the inspector’s Field visit  
Report dated February 29, 2012, the following is included:  
These workers investigate illegal slaughter and meat processing  
operations. Cases are passed to them for investigation by the Ontario  
Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs. Until January this year the  
workers were appointed Conservation Officers and carried body armor,  
hand cuffs baton, pepper spray and a firearm. Recently their status as  
Conservation Officers was withdrawn and their pepper spray and firearms  
were handed in.  
- 23 -  
Firearms are often used in the locations being investigated to kill animals.  
Knives are also in regular use.  
In each of the refusals the workers were operating in teams of two.  
Existing protocols allow the investigators to call on local police  
departments for assistance in pursuing their investigations.  
The workers believe their ability to protect or defend themselves in a  
conflict situation has been compromised as a result of removing the  
pepper spray and firearm.  
[60]  
[61]  
[62]  
With respect to the two work refusals, the inspector concluded:  
Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act section 43.3 a worker has  
the right to refuse where workplace violence is likely endanger him or  
herself.  
The threat scenarios presented in the two work refusals refer to  
hypothetical situations. In other words the workers were refusing on the  
basis that a series of hypothetical events might occur which in turn might  
lead of a conflict situation which might lead to an unsafe situation. This is  
insufficient to meet the requirement of “Likely to endanger” as required by  
the OHSA. This inspector finds that the circumstances reported in the  
two refusals mentioned do not meet the requirements of the OHSA.  
However, the inspector ordered that the employer do a risk assessment  
for AIs.  
On March 1, 2012 Mr. Moody requested the following from each of the AIs:  
As I move toward compliance with the orders I will need your input to  
ensure that all of the workplace violence risks associated with AIU duties  
can be identified and assessed. To that end, please send me a list of all  
the situations and locations that you think an AIU investigator could  
reasonably find themselves in during the course of an investigation. This  
means everything from routine business to higher end things like  
executing search warrants etc. Think about the types and locations of  
places you go, the times of day, people you deal with and the activities  
they are engaged in. In each case, briefly describe the violence risk you  
believe is associated with each location or situation. I would like separate  
input from each AIU member so that I know everyone has had an  
opportunity to provide their personal view.  
An interim direction dated March 23, 2012 was issued to AIU officers in  
response to the MOL order. Reviewing its provisions, Mr. Ridley’s opinion was  
that most of it was newly written down, but not new in practice. He testified that  
AIs still operate in accordance with this interim direction. With input from his  
colleagues, he responded to the interim direction raising questions and  
concerns. As examples, he said it uses the words “Risk” and “Threat”, but it had  
never been explained to AIs what the difference between the two words are.  
- 24 -  
Also, the interim direction did not explain how an AI with no sidearm can  
disengage if an armed person is blocking the only exit and there is no way to  
escape. If the person is wielding a knife, the AI, if armed, is able to draw the  
sidearm to get the person to move away from the exit, or to drop the knife, to be  
able to disengage. Without a sidearm disengagement is not possible. Mr.  
Ridley testified that he has never faced a situation where he could not  
disengage, but said that it could happen. If it does, an AI is able to log on to  
notify the PSU on his radio which is connected to the OPP Fleetnet system.  
However, the problem is that if he is in a rural location, the closest police vehicle  
receiving his call for assistance could be 10 minutes away and in that time “a lot  
can happen”.  
[63]  
Union counsel asked who gets to the scene first, where AIs have police  
accompanying them, AIs or police. He replied, “It depends. The Police are there  
to keep the peace, not to enforce legislation. Unless we have grounds to  
believe there is imminent danger we cannot ask police to go in first and secure  
the place. In my view, they can’t be there until we are there. I may be wrong on  
that. That is why we asked the question”. Mr. Ridley agreed that AIs were  
issued radios with a red button. When the button is pressed the radio sends a  
message to the OPP with the AIs name, his vehicle identification and the  
address the AI had logged in as the location he was going to. He said, however,  
that this tool would not help if the AI had left the radio in the vehicle and did not  
have it on his belt.  
[64]  
Union counsel asked Mr. Ridley why he took the position that he would not be  
adequately protected by one police officer, when a number of persons of interest  
are present. Mr. Ridley replied, “A police officer is there to preserve the peace.  
But his first concern is to protect himself, and then perhaps protect me later. He  
will be first concerned with the person of interest closest to him”. He said that he  
formed that opinion based on his time as a police officer, that “we were told you  
have to protect yourself first because if you go down you can’t protect the  
public”.  
- 25 -  
[65]  
The evidence is that the employer contracted the Public Service Health and  
Safety Association (hereinafter “consultants”) to do the risk assessment ordered  
by the MOL. Each AI was invited to be interviewed by the Consultants. The  
Consultant’s report (hereinafter “The Risk Assessment”) authored by Mr. Jeff  
Pajot and Mr. Dave Carter was released in August 2012. The 28 page report  
sets out the following conclusion:  
Conclusion  
The MNRF Agriculture Investigators (AI) may occasionally face moderate  
and low risks of Violence in the workplace. Management and workers  
alike at MNRF have exhibited top-notch professionalism and strong  
desire for the safety of all AI’s. The current Violence prevention controls  
at MNRF are numerous and the training is excellent especially related to  
disengagement, defensive tactics, conflict resolution skills/tactical  
communication and negotiation skills. Historically, the actual use of force  
is extremely rare. There has not been a single officially documented  
report of use of force with the AI’s in accordance with policy ENF PO  
3.01.02 (Use of Force Reporting).  
Furthermore, the Rules of  
Engagement policy is very clear and the AI’s are not required to  
knowingly place themselves into a potentially violent situation without  
adequate safeguards in place.  
[66]  
Mr. Ridley testified that he disagreed with that conclusion. The AIs met as a  
group to discuss. Using input from the AIs, he put together a document titled  
“Employee Input and Comments”, and it was submitted to Mr. Moody. In that,  
he included the following criticisms: First, the report mitigates risk because  
employer policy states that AIs are to disengage where risk arises. That fails to  
recognize the unpredictability of human nature. Seemingly calm situations can  
quickly turn violent. Second, AI investigations sometimes involve contact with  
individuals with criminal records. What can start off as a cordial conversation  
can quickly and without warning turn into a life and death struggle because the  
place is a grow op, or the person being contacted by an AI has just committed a  
criminal offence.” Third, consultants conclude that AI training is “excellent” but  
does not address the fact that AIs have not received any training on how an AI  
may disengage, where it is not possible and they no longer can rely on the use  
of deadly force for officer safety.  
- 26 -  
[67]  
Mr. Ridley was asked about incidents he was involved in as an AI where he felt  
at risk. He testified as follows. In the OPP Detachment Incident in 2010, when  
AIs were still armed, Mr. Ridley was asked to return records seized by another  
AI to an individual C. C had been just released from jail and was required to  
periodically report to the Renfrew OPP unit as a condition of release. Mr. Ridley  
arranged with the OPP to hand over the records to C at the OPP detachment in  
Renfrew. Counsel asked what the safety concern was. He replied that the OPP  
advised him that C had a bad temper and had been convicted and jailed  
because he had driven his vehicle head on to the vehicle driven by his ex-wife’s  
boyfriend. Mr. Ridley met C at the OPP detachment, walked together to Mr.  
Ridley’s vehicle and the records were handed over to C.  
[68]  
The Ottawa Police Incident was in 2009, and AIs were still armed. It related to  
an allegation that a home owner A was slaughtering animals on his property.  
A’s house was on a 5 acre property on a rural side road. The neighbour who  
complained had informed that currently A had meat hanging from hooks in his  
garage. Mr. Ridley and AI Todd entered the property under s. 24(1) of the  
FSQA and looked from the window of the detached garage. He observed 6  
sides of beef and a pig hanging from hooks. He photographed the evidence.  
He did not observe any activity or any butchering tools like knives. Then on  
three consecutive days, he carried out passive surveillance of the property with  
a CO, who remained out of sight in his marked vehicle. One day he observed A  
put plastic bags in a container, and placing the container in the trunk of a car  
and the car drove away. He and the CO followed and stopped the car. An  
inspection of the trunk revealed 24 zip-lock bags of ground pork. Using that  
evidence, Mr. Ridley obtained a search warrant to search the garage. The next  
day AIU received a complaint that meat was being removed in a rental truck.  
Mr. Ridley informed the COs in the area and the local police, and requested that  
any vehicle leaving the property be stopped. When Mr. Ridley arrived, the truck  
had been stopped on the road by the police. The truck contained meat –  
evidence of unlawful slaughter. With his supervisor’s consent, Mr. Ridley  
initiated an exigent circumstance search. In the meantime the police officers  
- 27 -  
had checked A’s background and found that he was an active member of the  
Canadian Armed Forces and owned guns. As required by Police policy they  
called a SWAT team but they were busy. Therefore it was agreed that A, who  
was still in his residence, should be called and asked to turn on the lights and  
come out and meet them on his driveway. It was night time and dark. The  
police took the lead and proceeded to the driveway and met A. Mr. Ridley  
testified that A was very cooperative. He did as directed. Mr. Ridley, in a  
Ministry Vehicle, entered the property. He testified that he observed a police  
officer walking behind a police vehicle as it approached the house, crouched  
and holding a high-powered rifle at his shoulder. The police kept A occupied,  
while Mr. Ridley and the CO searched and seized evidence. After the police  
officers left, Mr. Ridley and the CO went in to the house with A, sat at the kitchen  
table and took a statement from him and left. Mr. Ridley said that since he and  
the CO were both armed, he felt he had the situation under control.  
[69]  
Mr. Ridley next testified about the Lamb Slaughter incident in a rural area west  
of Ottawa in 2009, also prior to the removal of sidearms from Als. It related to a  
complaint that the property owner M was slaughtering lamb in a barn behind his  
house. Mr. Ridley and Mr. Todd set up surveillance. Mr. Ridley testified that he  
observed a man carry garbage bags out of the barn and load them on to a  
vehicle. They stopped the vehicle as it left M’s property and the meat was  
seized. Mr. Ridley stated that the man at first was “pleading and crying on his  
knees”. Then he stood up angrily and forcefully leaned towards the two AIs,  
clenching his fists and raising his voice. Mr. Ridley testified that he believed that  
he was “going to be assaulted”. Then the man calmed down and passionately  
explained that he needed the meat for a family religious ceremony in Montreal.  
A statement was then obtained from the man.  
[70]  
Mr. Ridley then called his supervisor and received authorization to conduct an  
exigent circumstance search of M’s property. They opened the barn door and  
entered. M was seated and watching 5 men butchering sheep and goats  
hanging on hooks, each using a large butcher knife. Mr. Ridley held up his  
- 28 -  
badge and in a loud voice announced who they were and ordered the men to  
drop the knives. The men moved to a side of the barn, some dropping their  
knives. Mr. Ridley ordered everyone to pull out their identification. Mr. Ridley  
went over to M, who had his identification in hand, and took his note book out to  
take a statement from M. As he did that he heard Mr. Todd yell out “show me  
your hands” twice, and then “stop where you are”. He saw the five men walk  
towards Mr. Todd. He saw that four of the men had nothing in their hands. The  
fifth had his hands behind his back and was not visible to Mr. Ridley, and he did  
not stop but kept walking towards Mr. Todd. He observed Mr. Todd reach into  
his jacket and believed he was going to draw his sidearm. Mr. Ridley testified  
that the four other men started to yell to the fifth in Arabic. The man abruptly  
stopped and put his hands up to show he was not holding anything. The officers  
then took separate statements from the five men, and left. M stayed and was  
then interviewed by the two AIs.  
[71]  
The officers searched the property and took photographs. Referring to the  
photographs, Mr. Ridley highlighted the health and safety risks he faced during  
this investigation; Five knives, two large and three smaller; Two meat hooks,  
which could have been used as weapons; Animal parts, blood, water and feces  
covering the barn floor would have prevented traction and hindered  
disengagement if there was a threat to safety; There was a hammer on the floor  
near the chair M was seated on, and a shovel outside the barn back door which  
also could have been used as weapons; Behind the barn, there was a burn pile  
with animal parts, which could attract predatory animals. Mr. Ridley testified that  
when they arrived at the property, there were three parked cars. Therefore, they  
knew at least three people were there. Union counsel asked why he entered the  
barn without knowing how many people he would encounter. He replied, “We  
were both armed and therefore secure, and we were not going too far into the  
building”.  
[72]  
The next illustration of safety risks, Mr. Ridley testified about was the Ontario  
Landowners Association Incident in 2009, relating to a complaint that A, a  
- 29 -  
farmer in a rural area outside Ottawa was illegally slaughtering sheep. He and  
Mr. Todd were assigned the file, but received no information about A. On  
November 27, 2009, he and Mr. Todd went out to the property on a rural road.  
They were both armed, but in civil clothes, and were in separate unmarked  
MNRF vehicles. Mr. Ridley parked on the gravel part of the road in front of A’s  
property with the intention of surveilling the property. Mr. Todd was parked  
some distance away out of sight.  
[73]  
Mr. Ridley testified that he got out to go sit in the back of his van, when a pick-up  
truck approached from the front and stopped 5 feet in front of his van. Two men,  
A and his adult son, got out and approached. Mr. Ridley saw a plywood sign on  
the bed of their pick-up, with the lettering, “This is our land – Back off  
government”. Mr. Ridley testified that he was aware that the OLOA was a  
radical group described by the OPP as a vigilante group supporting the right to  
do traditional farming. He had heard that its supporters had dumped bales of  
hay in front of an OMAFRA office and harassed a crown prosecutor leaving the  
court house. The two men stood between the two vehicles. Mr. Ridley said  
that A “came towards me and in an aggressive way not shouting but in a loud  
voice said, “what are you doing here, get off my property”. Then another vehicle  
came and parked behind Mr. Ridley’s van, boxing it in. Mr. Ridley asked A, “Are  
they with you” and A said “yes”. Mr. Ridley told A, “tell them not to get out of the  
car”, and A shouted, “stay in your car”. Then Mr. Ridley opened the driver’s  
door of his van and turned on the red lights to indicate it was a law enforcement  
vehicle, and also displayed his badge. The 2 men calmed down when they saw  
the red-lights and Mr. Ridley’s badge. Mr. Ridley asked them to “back off” and  
they did. Mr. Ridley moved towards his van and had a conversation with A, who  
said to the effect that someone was stalking his daughter and he thought Mr.  
Ridley was that person. Mr. Ridley did not believe A. He also lied to A that he  
was watching the area because of reports of someone hunting deer at night.  
Finally, since he had not seen any other vehicles, he told A the truth that he was  
investigating a report that he was slaughtering on his property. A started ranting  
a bit about government interfering with his farming business. Mr. Ridley  
- 30 -  
explained that he was only doing his duty and told A that he and the others  
should leave. The two men got in and drove up the driveway to the house  
followed by the other vehicle.  
[74]  
Mr. Ridley testified that the encounter was “fairly stressful”. He sat in his vehicle  
for a few minutes. He saw 8 to 10 vehicles arrive and drive up to A’s house. Mr.  
Ridley had heard that the OLOA had a communication system for use by its  
members, and believed that A had called for backup. Union counsel asked why  
Mr. Ridley did not call Mr. Todd on the radio when he found himself in a stressful  
situation. He replied that had he reached for the radio in the car, it would have  
escalated the situation. He said that he could not disengage immediately and  
drive away because his vehicle had been boxed in. After a few minutes Mr.  
Ridley decided not to continue any surveillance because it was not safe, and  
left. Mr. Ridley later found out that A was a leader of the OLOA and that he had  
firearms registered in his name. A had subsequently lodged a complaint about  
Mr. Ridley being there that night, and his supervisor Mr. Kyle Cachagee had  
visited A to discuss it.  
[75]  
Mr. Ridley also testified about the animal part dump site incident. Referring to  
photographs taken during his visit to the site accompanied by a CO, he testified  
that he discovered a dump site with animal parts strewn around in the woods  
behind a remote rural property. He later determined that the site had been used  
regularly to dump animal parts. He was able to identify and contact the owner of  
the property owner M. M told him that he had arranged with a friend who  
operated a beef processing business to give him discarded beef bones/and  
parts which he dumped at the site. He assured Mr. Ridley that he did that so the  
under nourished bears in the area can feed on it, and not to bait bears.  
[76]  
Asked what Mr. Ridley’s health and safety concern was, he said there was “a  
high possibility” of a bear or other predatory animal emerging from the woods  
while he was inspecting the dump site. He felt secure only because he had a  
sidearm. He added that, even if an armed CO was with him, he would not feel  
- 31 -  
safe if he did not have his own sidearm because the CO may delay shooting the  
bear out of reluctance to kill it.  
[77]  
Mr. Ridley also testified about an investigation relating to a former veterinarian  
V, in July 2010, while he was still armed. V’s veterinarian licence was revoked  
and he had been ordered to return all medicines he had. He did not comply.  
Mr. Ridley was assigned the file. Mr. Ridley testified that V had assaulted a  
RCU Inspector by grabbing her arm when she attempted to serve a document  
on him. Mr. Ridley obtained a search warrant and attended at V’s residence to  
execute it. The team consisted of Mr. Ridley, 3 other AIs, 3 RCU officers, and 4  
police officers. The police knocked on the door and V opened the door. The  
police showed him an arrest warrant for assaulting the RCU officer and took him  
into custody. When asked who else was in the house, V said that only his  
daughter, who was sleeping in her bed-room. The police brought her also  
outside, and the search of the house commenced. Mr. Ridley testified that  
police assistance in the execution of this search warrant was requested because  
he believed there was a risk of someone being bitten by V’s dogs, and that he  
may have firearms. A check of the Canadian Firearms Registry did not show  
any registered firearms in V’s name. However, the search disclosed 9 long guns  
in the premises. Two shot guns were also located, one inside and the other in  
V’s pick-up truck parked outside. Only the shot gun in the truck was loaded.  
Several boxes of ammunition, some loose shells, and a knife were also located  
in different areas in the house. Mr. Ridley did not know if the ammunition fitted  
any of the firearms found. Mr. Ridley testified that the discovery of the firearms  
raised two safety concerns for him because of the way and they had been  
placed behind doors and propped up on the floor. First, it was unsafe storage.  
Second, why were they placed to enable quick access was it to be used on  
critters or on people V did not like.  
[78]  
Mr. Ridley next described the Barn Slaughter Investigation he conducted in the  
Ottawa area in August 2011, when AI’s were still armed. Following a complaint  
that a farmer, N, was slaughtering cows, goats, sheep and pigs in a barn on his  
- 32 -  
farm and selling the meat, Mr. Ridley, Mr. Hartnick and a CO set up surveillance  
of N’s farm. On the second day of surveillance, they observed a number of  
vehicles arrive. Several men exited and entered the barn. Then another man  
arrived in another car, went in and came out carrying five large garbage bags  
and loaded them into his vehicle and drove off. The officers followed and  
stopped the vehicle and a search revealed that the bags contained freshly  
butchered meat. The man told them that he had just purchased the meat from N  
and that a slaughter of a cow was still going on.  
[79]  
Mr. Ridley got permission from his supervisor to do an exigent circumstance  
search and called the OPP for assistance. Then Mr. Ridley, Mr. Hartnick and  
the CO entered N’s property. They entered the barn and the CO took position at  
the door. They observed about 10 men kneeling and cutting chunks of meat  
with knives. Nearby on the floor was a cow’s head. Mr. Ridley yelled out an  
order to the men to put their knives down and exit through the door where the  
CO was. They were slow complying, but they did. Later, one of the men told  
him that they had recently immigrated from Vietnam and did not understand  
much English. Upon questioning, it was determined that they were customers.  
After taking statements from them they were ordered to leave and they did. N  
was ordered to remain. Mr. Ridley testified that while the three officers were  
dealing with “10 to 15” people, an OPP officer arrived in a cruiser, but remained  
in the vehicle. Mr. Ridley commented that it was a very hot day.  
[80]  
Using the photographs put into evidence, Mr. Ridley noted the following potential  
weapons found in the slaughter area: numerous butcher knives, including one  
19½ inches long; two band saws; a foot long knife sharpener; a shovel; and a  
hammer. He also highlighted that the floor was covered with blood, animal parts  
and water from a hose which was running, and therefore was extremely slippery.  
Mr. Ridley demonstrated that the collapsible baton AIs have is only 21 inches  
when extended. It is supposed to be used in an “eight motion”. He said that to  
defend against a 19½ inch knife with it he would have to get close to the  
attacker, and the knife would be within striking distance.  
- 33 -  
[81]  
Mr. Ridley also testified in some detail about an investigation he conducted after  
the removal of the CO designation and sidearm from Als. It related to an  
allegation that S was allegedly slaughtering animals on his farm. Mr. Ridley  
testified in some detail, starting with conducting surveillance, obtaining  
statements from persons who drove off the property with illegally slaughtered  
animal meat, to the point when he and Mr. Hartnick met with S at the farm, and  
obtained a cautioned statement from him. When asked what his health and  
safety concerns were during this investigation, he replied that there was none.  
[82]  
Union counsel referred to Mr. Ridley’s evidence that the highest level of risk is in  
illegal slaughter files, and asked how many illegal slaughter investigations he did  
in a year. He said 2 or 3 files a year would be assigned to him, and he may  
assist in some others, and added that the number does not matter because one  
high risk situation is enough.  
[83]  
Asked about communication tools available, Mr. Ridley testified that Als had cell  
phones, which like OPP cell phones work through towers. Therefore, if the  
tower is down nothing works. He said that he is also provided a satellite radio.  
He takes it only when working in remote areas. He would usually be calling 911  
if he uses it. Mr. Ridley testified that the satellite phone “is not the easiest to  
use, because in high stress situations you lose your motor skills. So it is not  
easy to punch in the right numbers”. He said that in remote areas, nearest  
police assistance could be “round the corner or half an hour away”.  
[84]  
In cross-examination, Mr. Ridley confirmed that he was very concerned about a  
possible bear attack during the dump site incident. Counsel asked Mr. Ridley  
why he did not mention during testimony that at the time AIs had been issued  
bear spray and trained on how to use it. Mr. Ridley replied that “It slipped my  
mind” and added that in any event in training he was told that to be effective the  
bear has to be sprayed on the nose, and he would not want to get that close to a  
bear. Referring to material used during the AI training counsel asked whether  
- 34 -  
Mr. Ridley recalled being taught not to use a sidearm like the ones AIs had on a  
bear because it would be ineffective. Mr. Ridley said he could not recall. Asked  
whether he disagreed with what the material states, he replied “No. It is a  
scientific document”.  
[85]  
Mr. Ridley agreed that the Risk Assessment is designed to allow AIs to assess  
the extent of risk to be expected in an investigation, and that AIs are required to  
complete it based on the information available. Counsel reviewed with Mr.  
Ridley how each of several potential activities are scored and then added up to  
come up with a total score. If the total is zero to 8 an AI can do the assignment  
alone. If it is 9 to 16, the AI must be accompanied by another AI. If it is 16 to 24  
an operational plan must be done and two AIs are required. If the score is 25 or  
higher two AIs and operational plans are required and the Police must be  
present. The AI must present the completed risk assessment to the supervisor,  
who will approve it with or without changes to the total score. If an AI finds  
during the assignment that unanticipated activity is necessary, a risk  
assessment must be completed for that activity.  
[86]  
Mr. Ridley agreed that the review was accurate. He also confirmed that the last  
time he was a member of a police force was 30 years ago, and that the Federal  
Intelligence Service of which he was the chief was primarily a research and  
analysis unit that supported federal officers. He also agreed that the review he  
testified about disclosed that besides the RCMP, only three other groups,  
Canadian Wildlife Wardens, Corrections Canada Jail Guards, and Fisheries and  
Oceans Officers were armed. He agreed parks Canada Officers were not  
armed, and that while Parliamentary Committee recommended that fire-arms be  
retained for the three groups, it did not recommend that Canadian Food  
Inspectors be armed.  
[87]  
Mr. Ridley testified that compared to the past, limited mobile surveillance is  
conducted by the MNRF and by the AIU now. He agreed that AIs were given  
direction that they cannot exceed the posted speed limits or stop vehicles by  
- 35 -  
turning on the red lights on MNRF vehicles. He added that AIs may still stop  
vehicles using hand signals if it can be done safely. Counsel reviewed Mr.  
Ridley’s evidence about how he would follow a vehicle leaving a farm and when  
it stops at the driver’s destination, he would make contact and obtain  
information. Mr. Ridley agreed that while he did that when he was armed, he  
had not done that since his sidearm was removed. Now he would take  
photographs and videos as he follows the car to its destination, but if the driver  
detects him following, he would call off the surveillance.  
[88]  
[89]  
[90]  
Mr. Ridley agreed with the following facts suggested by employer counsel.  
Presently, before conducting surveillance of a farm or business, he would  
complete the risk assessment and determine whether he could do it alone, or  
would need the presence of other officers and/or police; he would inform his  
supervisor as well as dispatch, the date, time, location, who he is accompanied  
by, and the identity of the person of interest, and what vehicle he would be in; if  
he has any safety concerns during the surveillance he could inform the  
supervisor or simply stop the surveillance.  
Mr. Ridley agreed that if he was doing surveillance on an illegal slaughter  
operation by himself based on the risk assessment tool, he would in most cases  
sit in his vehicle and look out for vehicles entering and leaving the farm. In  
some cases, where there is no suitable spot to park his vehicle to do  
surveillance, he would be dropped off by a second officer and he would observe  
on foot from a position where he could not be seen. In those instances he would  
be in radio contact with the second officer who would be close by in the vehicle  
out of sight.  
Mr. Ridley agreed that of all of the incidents doing surveillance he testified  
about, he was detected only in two. Counsel put to him that despite his  
testimony that it could be very dangerous if detected, in one, the OLOA incident,  
all that happened was the individual got agitated and aggressive, but in the  
other, the CPIC incident, the person did not even approach him. He agreed.  
- 36 -  
Counsel put to Mr. Ridley that although he testified that presence of dogs was  
one of his “biggest dangers” when investigating illegal slaughters, he did not  
mention dogs in any of the incidents. Mr. Ridley agreed.  
[91]  
Mr. Ridley confirmed his testimony that people associated with OLOA posed a  
particular threat to his health and safety. Counsel put to him that, besides the  
incident involving a member of that organization, the only other evidence he  
tendered to support the presence of such a threat was: that they had dumped  
bales of hay at an OMAFRA office; that they display signs like “Government  
back off. This is our land” on their vehicles, on road signs or at entrances to  
their farms; that they show up at court proceedings and once blocked a crown  
attorney. Mr. Ridley agreed. Counsel put to him that all of these actions were  
public statements by the OLOA of their displeasure about government interfering  
with their rights. Mr. Ridley agreed. He also agreed that he is not aware of any  
member of the OLOA ever making a threat against or assaulting anyone.  
Counsel put to Mr. Ridley that threatening or assaulting someone would be  
entirely inconsistent with the very public and vocal campaign the OLOA is  
carrying on against government interference. Mr. Ridley agreed.  
[92]  
Counsel suggested that generally in investigating illegal slaughter, the AI would  
first review all information gathered through informants and surveillance, and  
based on those obtain a search warrant. Presently a search warrant may only  
be executed with police presence. The team would conduct the search after the  
police had secured the place. Then the person of interest would be invited to  
provide a cautioned statement in the presence of at least two AIs. If deemed  
necessary, the police can be asked to stay until the statement is obtained and  
the AIs are ready to leave. Mr. Ridley agreed.  
[93]  
Counsel referred to Mr. Ridley’s testimony that the point of first contact with a  
person of interest is a “flash point” because people get agitated as soon as an  
officer shows the badge which identifies him as law enforcement, and that at  
that point the person decides whether to “fight or flight”. Counsel asked whether  
- 37 -  
Mr. Ridley can think of any instance of a person either fighting or fleeing when  
first contacted by him. He said he could not. Counsel suggested that when an  
AI shows the badge, beyond providing identification, it is a means of asserting  
control. Mr. Ridley disagreed. Following further cross-examination, Mr. Ridley  
stated that if the officer is uniformed, a badge may help assert control, but not  
for AIs because they are in civil clothing. For AIs the badge provides  
identification and shows that the officer has authority to be there. Under further  
questioning he agreed that he has seen that the badge has a calming effect on  
people.  
[94]  
Mr. Ridley testified that AIs are still allowed to stop vehicles with hand signals,  
but it is not safe to do so. Counsel put to Mr. Ridley that when AIs raised that  
concern, by email dated November 12, 2012, Mr. Moody directed that AIs  
should not stop vehicles at all, even if it means evidence would be lost; that if  
deemed essential to stop a vehicle the police should be called; and that “safety  
comes first”. Mr. Ridley agreed. When counsel put to him that this is consistent  
with “what Mr. Moody always said that Officer safety comes first”. Mr. Ridley  
agreed.  
[95]  
Counsel put to Mr. Ridley that members of the OMFRA Regulatory Compliance  
Unit are also engaged in regulatory compliance relating to food safety like AIs,  
the only difference being their investigations lead to a direction, while AIU  
investigations lead to prosecution. Mr. Ridley agreed. He also agreed that RCU  
officers attend the same farms and businesses and interview the same people,  
before AIs investigate illegal slaughter. Mr. Ridley agreed that RCU officers  
have never been appointed as COs and were never armed with a sidearm.  
[96]  
Mr. Ridley disagreed that when RCU officers make contact with farmers, those  
are non-confrontational, and testified that he was aware of quite a few instances  
where RCU officers had to call the police. He agreed, however, that if he felt  
there was any risk in meeting with a farmer, he would not proceed. Counsel  
reviewed again the steps the lead AI has to take in order to obtain a search  
- 38 -  
warrant and how an operational plan is created. Mr. Ridley agreed that before a  
search warrant is executed a briefing meeting is held with everyone, including  
the police, in attendance, and that the role of each individual is outlined.  
[97]  
Mr. Ridley agreed that in the “old days”, AIs used the police much less than  
presently; that it was COs who assisted in execution of search warrants. They  
would secure the property, locate all individuals present and keep them isolated  
securely while AIs searched the property. He agreed that instead of COs, now  
the police perform that function. He also agreed that the point of first contact is  
when the lead AI seeks out the owner or operator of the property where illegal  
slaughter is suspected, serves him with the search warrant and explains what  
they would be doing, and that all of this is done with the police present.  
[98]  
Counsel reviewed that in the Goat Slaughter incident two armed AIs came upon  
five men who had butchering knives in their hands, and in the barn/police  
assistance incident two armed AIs and an armed CO came upon thirteen men  
who also had access to knives and other potential weapons. Counsel pointed  
out that Mr. Ridley had testified that despite being badly outnumbered he felt  
safe because the AIs and CO were armed. Counsel asked why he then takes  
the position that today, AIs are not safe unless there are armed police officers in  
a one to one ratio to the number of people they come upon. Mr. Ridley replied  
that when he is armed he is in control of protecting himself. “Now we are not  
armed. The police officer will protect himself before he protects me”. Mr. Ridley  
agreed that he is contemplating a situation where multiple people attack with  
weapons, the police officer shoots the one attacking him and will not have time  
to shoot the others who continue to attack the AIs. Mr. Ridley agreed that he  
had never made a complaint about the number of officers assigned when police  
assistance is requested. Counsel asked, “Let alone multiple attackers, can you  
give any example of even one person attacking an AI with a weapon”. Mr.  
Ridley replied that he was not aware of any.  
- 39 -  
[99]  
Counsel referred to Mr. Ridley’s testimony that in the Barn/OPP assistance  
incident when police assistance was requested one officer arrived but sat in the  
vehicle and that the three officers had to control eleven men who had knives.  
He asked whether he was saying the police officer was derelict and failed to  
provide the support requested. Mr. Ridley replied, “I didn’t say derelict. It was  
just that it was a hot day and he had AC in the vehicle”. Counsel put to Mr.  
Ridley, “You are saying to the arbitrator that the police cannot always be relied  
on”. He replied, “I am indicating they don’t necessarily assist although we call  
them”. Counsel pointed out that the employer had informed AIs that the FSQA  
requires the police to assist when requested, and asked whether Mr. Ridley ever  
complained that the police failed to assist. Mr. Ridley replied that the police  
officer in this instance was not asked to do anything and he was not going to  
make a big fuss about it. Asked whether he asked the police officer to assist, he  
replied that he did not because he did not feel there was a need for assistance  
because “nothing happened”. Asked whether the police officer would have  
assisted if requested, Mr. Ridley replied, “probably”. Counsel pointed out that  
since the police attended the briefing meeting held prior to execution of a search  
warrant the role of the police would be determined at that meeting. Counsel  
asked Mr. Ridley whether he was saying that despite that, and the legislated  
duty to assist, police officers decide if and when they would assist. Mr. Ridley  
replied, “they fulfill the role assigned during the briefing”. Mr. Ridley agreed that  
the weapons usually found at illegal slaughter locations are knives used to kill  
the animals and that he had never seen guns.  
[100] Mr. Ridley agreed that in April 2014 Mr. Moody made a presentation by  
teleconference, followed by a written direction which included the following: that  
exigent circumstance searches should not be resorted to where use of force,  
such as kicking down a door, is necessary; that evidence found during an  
exigent circumstance search may not be removed unless the person consents;  
and that whenever possible search warrants should be resorted to instead of  
exigent circumstance searches.  
- 40 -  
[101] Mr. Ridley agreed that on an application of the risk assessment tool presently  
used, exigent circumstance searches always exceed the 25 score and therefore  
can only be done with an operational plan and police presence. He agreed that  
this was a marked change from the past practice when an AI who believes that  
illegal slaughter was going on could do an exigent circumstance search with a  
second AI, after obtaining permission from the supervisor. Employer counsel  
put to Mr. Ridley that now, like in a search pursuant to a warrant, in exigent  
circumstance searches the police enters the property first, secures it, locates  
and isolates all persons on property and watches them while the officers carry  
out the search. Mr. Ridley agreed.  
[102] Counsel referred to Mr. Ridley’s testimony that adequate training had not been  
provided to AIs on how to disengage with no sidearm or pepper spray,  
particularly if the person is blocking the exit and has a weapon. He pointed out  
that now during a search there always would be an armed police officer present.  
Mr. Ridley replied that this danger can arise when AIs are there not to do a  
search, but to simply question the person. He said that once he went to a  
business with its manager with no intention of doing a search. Upon entering he  
saw calves hanging from hooks. When counsel put to him that the business in  
question was licenced, that the AIs were being taken around by the manager to  
show the operation in broad daylight, and suggested that in those circumstances  
the chances of the manager or anyone else assaulting the officers were  
negligible. Mr. Ridley replied, “No. Anything can happen”. Asked if that has  
ever happened to an AI, Mr. Ridley replied “no”. Counsel asked whether he  
would go by himself to question a business owner if the risk assessment score  
indicated an under 8 score the least risky. Mr. Ridley said, “yes”. Counsel  
suggested that if Mr. Ridley cannot obtain the information about the person he  
was meeting, about his record relating to crime, violence and threats etc. through  
a CPIC, he could say that he was not going because the risk cannot be  
assessed. Mr. Ridley replied, “Yes. But you can get a CPIC report indicating no  
risk. But then later they may say we made a mistake”. Asked whether he was  
- 41 -  
aware of that ever happening or of an AI ever getting injured to date, he replied  
“no”.  
[103] Mr. Ridley was cross-examined at length on the incidents he testified had  
caused him serious concern about his safety. The following are the key parts of  
that cross-examination: with regard to the work refusal incident, Mr. Ridley  
agreed that before going out to do surveillance he had followed the procedure  
and obtained all available information about the two persons of interest,  
including their criminal records and the fire-arms they had. Asked when he  
decided that he should refuse work, Mr. Ridley said that it was shortly after  
arrival at the property. He agreed that he had scouted the area in advance and  
knew that there was no spot from which to do surveillance without risk of  
detection. Counsel asked what happened or what new information he received  
after arrival caused him to decide to resort to a work refusal. He said there was  
nothing. Counsel asked what prevented him from simply driving off at that point  
and explaining to his supervisor the next day what occurred rather than invoking  
a formal work refusal under OHSA. Mr. Ridley replied that Ministry of Labour  
policy and procedure did not allow that. He said that at the time of removal of  
sidearms, he inquired from the Ministry of Labour, and was told that simply  
staying in the office without going to the site was not a valid exercise of the right  
to refuse. Counsel asked whether Mr. Ridley still believes, despite the directions  
he has received, that if he is on site and is concerned about his safety, he is not  
allowed to simply leave but must call the supervisor and get directions, he  
replied “yes”, and explained that a MNRF directive on disengagement required  
that. He agreed with counsel that if that situation arises today, with the  
completion of the risk assessment he would be able to discuss with the police  
and arrange for police attendance.  
[104] Counsel reviewed Mr. Ridley’s testimony that during the dump site incident, he  
was in a state of heightened alert because there was a good possibility of a bear  
attack, and because he did not know “what wild critter may emerge from the  
woods”. Mr. Ridley agreed that at the time he was accompanied by a CO and  
- 42 -  
that he got a CO to assist because the CO had expertise, had a sidearm, and  
had access to long guns also if necessary. He agreed, but could not recall  
whether the CO also had a concern about a bear attack. Counsel showed Mr.  
Ridley a photograph showing the CO posing with hands in pockets near the  
animal part dump site and with his back to the woods, and suggested that it  
appears that the CO was relaxed and not concerned about a bear emerging  
from the woods behind him. Mr. Ridley replied that the photograph only shows a  
moment of time. Counsel asked why he did not ask the CO to bring a long gun  
for added protection if he was so concerned about a bear attack. Mr. Ridley  
replied “I saw no need because we both had pistols”. Asked whether a long gun  
would not be more effective against an attacking bear, he replied that he left it to  
the CO to decide whether to bring his long gun, and that he felt secure because  
he had his own sidearm. Counsel put to Mr. Ridley that if the dump site  
scenario arose today, he would devise a plan which would include police  
presence. Mr. Ridley replied that today he would probably refuse the  
assignment after completing the risk assessment. Asked if would refuse even  
with the presence of an armed CO or a police officer, Mr. Ridley replied that he  
probably would, because armed only with bear spray he “won’t have a chance”.  
He said that he would not know how proficient and fast the armed officer is,  
whether his gun was loaded, and whether he may not want to kill a bear by  
shooting it.  
[105] On the ex-veterinarian incident, Mr. Ridley agreed that he was accompanied by  
two officers from PCU and a police officer. Counsel put to him that the guns  
found were old, some rusted and covered in dust. Mr. Ridley agreed. He also  
agreed that none of the guns found in the residence was loaded, and that no  
ammunition associated with the guns were found in the vicinity; that some guns  
and the two boxes of ammunition found were also covered in dust and were  
found with all kinds of “junk”. He agreed that all indications are that the gun and  
the ammunition had not been moved in a long time. Counsel put to Mr. Ridley  
that contrary to his evidence in chief that the guns had been strategically placed  
for easy access, the guns and the ammunition were haphazardly thrown about.  
- 43 -  
Mr. Ridley disagreed. Counsel asked how he says that the guns were  
strategically placed for easy access to use on “critters and people he didn’t like”,  
when none of the guns were loaded and there was no associated ammunition in  
the vicinity. Mr. Ridley replied that he could have loaded a gun because there  
was a box of ammunition on the window sill. He said that although the guns  
were old it was possible they could still fire. Mr. Ridley agreed that when he  
went to execute the search warrant, the person cooperated and made no threat,  
and that even today in those circumstances, he would be accompanied by  
police.  
[106] Counsel next referred to Mr. Ridley’s testimony about the Ottawa Police  
incident, that after two police vehicles and a marked MNRF vehicle had arrived,  
and after the property owner was called and directed to turn on the house lights  
and come out to the drive way, a police officer had his high powered rifle raised  
and was crouching and taking cover behind cars. Counsel put to Mr. Ridley that  
he was indicating that the police were anticipating a possible shoot out. Mr.  
Ridley replied that they were expecting trouble. Counsel pointed out that Mr.  
Ridley’s notes make no mention of the police crouching, taking cover or having  
rifles raised ready to fire. Mr. Ridley agreed. Employer counsel put to Mr.  
Ridley that he testified about a dark back country road, a police policy requiring  
SWAT attendance and heightened readiness by the police, all of which were  
factually incorrect, to suggest to the arbitrator that there was a significant risk.  
Mr. Ridley replied that as it turned out nothing happened, but there was a risk.  
[107] Mr. Ridley agreed that the police and MNRF vehicles entered the property  
without incident, that the owner turned on the lights and came out as directed,  
was non-confrontational, and that the resident was searched and evidence  
seized without any incident. Counsel pointed out that Mr. Ridley took a  
cautioned statement from the POI, after the police had left, and suggested that if  
he had any concern at all for his safety, he would have asked the police to stay,  
but he did not. Mr. Ridley agreed. He agreed that if this scenario happened  
today, the police would be required to stay while the AI takes the statement.  
- 44 -  
[108] Counsel pointed out that the CPIC incident took place after the removal of  
sidearms from AIs, and yet Mr. Ridley contacted the individual, met him outside,  
and suggested that they go inside the residence to have a discussion. He could  
have asked for police assistance but did not. Counsel put to Mr. Ridley that this  
suggests that he had no concern for his safety and felt comfortable meeting with  
the person by himself in his residence. Mr. Ridley agreed.  
[109] On the Ontario Landowners Association incident, Mr. Ridley agreed that when  
the owner and his son exited the pick-up truck and were walking towards him,  
he directed them to tell the person in the other car parked behind his vehicle to  
stay in the car and told the owner and son to stop advancing and that they  
complied. When he directed the owner, and his son to step back, so Mr. Ridley  
could get close to his vehicle, they complied again. They complied with all of his  
directions without him having to use any of his protective equipment. Counsel  
put to Mr. Ridley that when a discussion ensued, the owner went on about the  
government interfering with his property rights, but did not direct any threat to  
Mr. Ridley. He agreed. Counsel referred to Mr. Ridley’s evidence that as the  
owner was ranting about government interference, he was thinking about what  
protective equipment, baton or sidearm, he would have to use. Counsel asked  
why he would anticipate using a sidearm, when the men were unarmed and had  
complied with every direction he had given. Mr. Ridley replied that he would  
have used the sidearm only if they attacked and there was a threat to his life.  
Counsel pointed out that the pick-up truck was blocking his vehicle, but was on  
the gravel shoulder. He asked why Mr. Ridley would contemplate using the  
sidearm instead of simply getting in and driving off around the parked vehicle.  
Mr. Ridley replied, “I could have if I can get in”. Counsel asked, “Were you not  
standing right by your vehicle?” Mr. Ridley replied, “yes”.  
[110] Counsel put to Mr. Ridley, referring to a google map, that while he had  
described that the goat slaughter incident was in a rural area, the map shows it  
was in Orleans near two busy roads, and that there was a built up residential  
- 45 -  
area to the north of the property and an industrial area to the east. He agreed.  
Counsel put to Mr. Ridley that despite his testimony that the customer he  
stopped went through “stages of potential violence”, he made no overt threats  
and had no weapons. Mr. Ridley agreed. Counsel pointed out that at this time  
he was accompanied by an AI. Todd and both were armed with sidearms.  
Counsel asked why Mr. Ridley chose to engage the customer by asking  
questions rather than simply disengaging, if he was so concerned about  
potential violence. Mr. Ridley replied that he was able to talk to the person and  
calm him down before it reached the state of a potential assault. Counsel  
suggested that when Mr. Ridley and Mr. Todd entered the barn on an exigent  
circumstance search and saw the owner seated to the left of the entrance and  
five men with knives in hand butchering an animal, they could have simply  
disengaged if there was a concern about being outnumbered by five men, four  
with knives. Mr. Ridley agreed. He also agreed that the five men dropped their  
knives when directed to, and the one who kept advancing towards the officers  
did so only because of a language barrier and that he had dropped the knife  
when the others spoke to him in Arabic. He also agreed that the two AIs were  
able to take the five men to a side, question them and release them with no  
incident. Counsel pointed to Mr. Ridley’s evidence that the slippery condition of  
the floor with blood and water was a safety concern because it would have  
impeded disengagement. Counsel put to Mr. Ridley that disengagement would  
not have been an issue because, the AIs had control of the situation from the  
moment they entered. Mr. Ridley agreed. Counsel referred to Mr. Ridley’s  
evidence that the hammer and shovel were potential weapons that could have  
been used against the AIs, and put to him that the shovel was outside the back  
door of the barn, and the hammer was on the floor inside the barn, and both  
were discovered only after the event. Mr. Ridley agreed. Counsel asked Mr.  
Ridley what his safety concern was about the pile of animal parts outside the  
barn. He replied that it was about the possible presence of foxes, coyotes and  
dogs. Counsel asked whether Mr. Ridley was aware of an AI ever been  
attacked by a fox, coyote or dog, and Mr. Ridley replied that he was not. Mr.  
- 46 -  
Ridley agreed that if this event took place today, police presence would be  
required, and that the police will enter and secure the premises before AIs enter.  
[111] Relating to the Barn/OPP assistance incident, Mr. Ridley agreed with the  
following: that when he and AI Hartnick entered the barn and encountered the  
POI and 8 to 10 other men slaughtering an animal he ordered them to drop their  
knives and they did so; that the men were taken outside to be supervised by the  
CO who had accompanied them; that they had called for police assistance, but  
entered the building and conducted the search without waiting for the arrival of  
the police. Counsel put to Mr. Ridley, and he agreed, that once the police officer  
arrived, if he had asked for any assistance, the police officer had a duty to  
provide assistance, but no assistance was requested because the AIs had  
already secured the place and everything was under control.  
Counsel  
recounted the evidence that after the search was done and the 8 to 10 men had  
been interviewed, the police officer left. Mr. Ridley and Mr. Hartnick then  
accompanied the owner to his residence next to the barn, sat in the kitchen and  
obtained a statement. Mr. Ridley agreed that he would not have done that if he  
had any concern about potential violence. He also agreed that if this incident  
plays out today, police presence would be required and the AIs would not enter  
the barn until the police had arrived and secured the place.  
EVIDENCE OF MICHAEL MARTIN  
[112] Mr. Martin was a signatory to the group grievance and filed an individual  
grievance also. The significant aspect of the individual grievance is the  
allegation that for a period of some months following his hire as AI, he was  
required to perform duties of an AI with no CO appointment and no sidearm,  
when all his colleagues had the appointment and the sidearm. His position is  
that he was exposed to unreasonable health and safety risk by not having the  
personal protection equipment other AIs have. His evidence is, therefore,  
relevant to the issue for determination in both grievances, i.e. whether working  
with no sidearm and pepper spray exposes AIs to unreasonable risk.  
- 47 -  
[113] Mr. Martin testified that when he applied for the AI position in April 2010 he  
expected that he would be designated a CO which would include duties  
enforcing fish and wildlife legislation. He expected that he would receive various  
levels of use of force and firearms training and would work in the field as a  
uniformed CO. As such he understood that he would carry a sidearm, because  
his review of web-sites about what CO’s do informed him that COs are  
considered to be police officers with Provincial parks. Due to the duties  
involved, he understood that to be able to protect the health and safety of the AI,  
as well as others under public safety legislation, a sidearm would be issued.  
[114] Once he started as an AI, he received MNRF defensive tactics training in  
November 2010, and fire-arms training in April 2011. Asked to compare that  
training with training received as a police officer, he stated that they were  
similar, the main difference being in the approach. He opined that the difference  
in approach was due to the fact that COs do not encounter serious violent  
situations as often as police officers, particularly those in police forces in big  
cities like Hamilton. Mr. Martin testified that he was directed to purchase a  
baton, hand-cuffs and a duty belt to carry those prior to attending the defensive  
tactics training. He received pepper-spray only after completion of that training  
at the end of November, 2010.  
[115] Asked whether he did any field work prior to end of November, Mr. Martin  
replied that in August 2010 he was assigned by Mr. Cachagee to assist AI Brett  
Campbell with an investigation in Markham. It involved locating a particular  
vehicle associated with a person of interest. During this investigation he did  
surveillance in several places in a MNRF vehicle, which was equipped with  
Fleetnet link to the OPP system. He also had a cellular phone. Mr. Martin  
testified that although he did not have a sidearm or pepper spray at that time, he  
did not raise any safety concerns per se when he received the assignment.  
However he questioned Mr. Cachagee about when he would get to challenge  
the exam for level 1 training, which was required for a CO designation. He  
- 48 -  
testified that one reason the CO designation was important to him was because  
he would receive full personal protection equipment that came with it.  
[116] Mr. Martin testified that on September 15, 2010, Mr. Cachagee told him that Mr.  
Moody directed him to get him “on the road”, doing interviews, surveillance and  
assistance with search warrants as long as no threat is expected, and provided  
he is not the lead investigator. An e-mail dated January 13, 2011 from Mr.  
Cachagee to Mr. Martin was filed in evidence. It speaks about extra precautions  
Mr. Cachagee set out in view of the fact that Mr. Martin was not issued a  
sidearm. Mr. Martin testified that he understood these would mean that he  
would only do “soft enforcement”, that is, he would be sent only to low risk  
situations and that if he saw something happening on the street, he should not  
put himself in harm’s way. Mr. Martin testified that Mr. Cachagee advised “If you  
feel uncomfortable about anything I ask you to do or situations you are getting  
yourself into, please stand down and let me know”.  
[117] Mr. Martin testified about his participation in the Massey Investigation,  
accompanied by Mr. Ridley who was armed.  
Mr. Martin substantially  
corroborated Mr. Ridley’s evidence including the observation of a shot-gun  
leaning against the door to the person’s residence and a wooden block with  
knives in the kitchen, and that the two officers, the subject and his wife sat at a  
table and had a “very cordial” conversation. When union counsel asked why Mr.  
Martin’s notes do not make any reference to seeing a shot gun, Mr. Martin  
responded that finding a firearm in a rural residence was not a surprise and that  
the gun “was never a threat”.  
[118] Mr. Martin described the captive bolt gun incident where the individual was  
waving the captive bolt gun around while ranting about how government  
regulations result in waste of meat which could feed a family for months. He  
said that captive bolt guns of various types are commonly used in sales barns to  
euthanize sick animals. They are really not “guns” because there is no  
projectile. The person was not pointing it at anyone, but Mr. Martin was still  
- 49 -  
concerned as it could be used as a weapon. He said that in any event he kept  
at a safe distance, and the person never gave any body language or other  
indication that he would lunge at him or anyone else.  
[119] Mr. Martin testified in detail about repeated reminders he made to Mr. Cachagee  
about arranging him to challenge the exam, and his designation as a CO. The  
response he received from Mr. Cachagee always was that he was trying to do  
that, but senior management was not comfortable allowing Mr. Martin to  
challenge the exam. Over a year passed since he was hired, but he had not  
been appointed as a CO. As a result he was unable to carry a sidearm or  
pepper spray, but was required to work in the field accompanied by another AI  
or CO. Counsel asked Mr. Martin what, if any, duties specified in the AI job  
description he was unable to perform safely because he had no CO designation.  
Mr. Martin replied that he was able to “do it all” and he was not hurt. However,  
he said that if a threat to his safety arose he had no sidearm or pepper spray to  
protect himself.  
[120] Mr. Martin testified that when he got no results from his repeated requests to Mr.  
Cachagee, he started to copy his correspondence to other managers including  
the Director of the Enforcement Branch and the supervisor of the Training  
Branch. They generally were supportive and understood his frustration, but  
gave no satisfactory explanation for the delay. Therefore, on September 29,  
2011, he sent an e-mail to Mr. Moody, expressing his frustration that after 14  
months he had still not received his CO appointment, and he is required to do  
field work without protective equipment which his colleagues carry. He detailed  
his various concerns, including safety concerns. Mr. Moody replied by e-mail,  
but did not explain the delay to Mr. Martin’s satisfaction. The same day, Mr.  
Martin called Mr. Moody and had a discussion during which he reiterated his  
concerns and frustration. Mr. Moody apologized and assured that he had been  
working on this for the past 14 months. Mr. Moody explained that the matter has  
become very complex because there is an on-going review of the cross-  
- 50 -  
appointment of AIs as COs. He told Mr. Martin that he expected the review to  
be completed by end of October 2011.  
[121] The evidence is that the next day September 30, 2011, Mr. Martin met with Mr.  
Moody at the Guelph office. Mr. Moody again mentioned the on-going review of  
the cross-appointment and how the subject is very complex and frustrating. Mr.  
Martin asked Mr. Moody who was involved in the review and whether there is  
input from the AIU. Mr. Moody was not prepared to discuss those details. He  
again apologized, told Mr. Martin that it had nothing to do with him or his  
experience or competence, and asked him to be patient. Mr. Moody undertook  
to provide him with directions in view of the concerns expressed about working  
in the field with no CO appointment and no sidearm or pepper spray. The same  
day Mr. Martin received a rewritten direction from Mr. Moody. It confirmed that  
he is not to exercise any power or authority that flows from CO status, and that  
he should “follow the spirit and intent of those policies and procedures that  
reasonably apply to your duties as an AI”. The direction also stated, “Should  
you ever feel concerned about your safety during performance of your assigned  
duties, you are to immediately disengage and discuss your options with your  
supervisor or myself”.  
[122] Counsel asked Mr. Martin why he brought up the Motor Cycle Club Incident with  
Mr. Moody. Mr. Martin explained that the person of interest in that incident  
made no verbal threats or threatening physical gestures. He merely wanted to  
emphasize that while AIU policy recognizes that an environment can change  
rapidly, he is required to do investigations without protective equipment which  
other investigators have. He reminded Mr. Moody that the job posting stated  
that the AI would be appointed as CO. Mr. Martin testified that Mr. Moody stated  
that the posting only required the applicant to have the “ability to be a CO”, not  
to “be a CO”. Mr. Martin testified that he was not “completely satisfied” with the  
direction to disengage if there is any safety concern, because “at times you may  
not be able to disengage”.  
- 51 -  
[123] In cross-examination, counsel put to Mr. Martin that when preparing particulars  
union counsel had asked for, and Mr. Martin had provided information about any  
work he had been involved in where he asserts a health and safety risk existed.  
Mr. Martin agreed. Counsel put to Mr. Martin that while he had raised the New  
Liskeard Investigation with Mr. Moody in his attempts to obtain a CO  
appointment, he did not include that investigation in the particulars because he  
was not asserting any safety concern. He agreed. He also agreed that the only  
unsafe situations he was relying on were the ones he had testified about.  
[124] Employer counsel reviewed with Mr. Martin his testimony in chief about the  
Massey investigation. Counsel pointed out that Mr. Martin did not avail himself  
of safety precautions he could have obtained, including assistance from another  
armed AI or a CO. Counsel suggested that he acted as he did because he had  
no concern for his safety. Mr. Martin agreed. He also agreed that he could  
have, but did not leave even after he saw a shot gun propped up against a door,  
but decided to sit at the individual’s kitchen table because there was no safety  
concern. Mr. Martin also agreed that he had a CO accompany him when he  
toured various locations where the portable slaughter house had allegedly been  
seen, not as a safety precaution, but because that CO was very familiar with the  
area and was helpful as a guide in finding the various locations.  
[125] Similarly, employer counsel reviewed Mr. Martin’s testimony about his  
surveillance activity in the Markham investigation and put to him that as an  
experienced former police officer he would not have engaged in that activity  
under those conditions if he had any safety concerns. Mr. Martin agreed.  
[126] Under questioning about the captive bolt gun incident, Mr. Martin agreed that  
captive bolt guns are routinely used at sales barns and are not per se a health  
and safety risk to anyone. Counsel put to him that while the individual was  
upset and was “acting like an idiot”, negligently waving the captive bolt gun with  
people close by, Mr. Martin did not have any concern for his safety. He agreed.  
- 52 -  
Mr. Martin also agreed that the fact that he had no sidearm made no difference  
that day.  
[127] On the Motor Cycle Club incident, counsel put to him that while the individual  
may have had some link to the Motor Cycle Club, he was not a member of that  
club and had no criminal record. Mr. Martin replied that he did not know. He  
agreed that while the person was upset, he made no threat, and that there was  
no health and safety risk higher than that in the New Liskeard incident. Counsel  
put to Mr. Martin that while he had referred to this person and his family as an  
“organized criminal group” in his communications with Mr. Moody, it is not true  
because to his knowledge no one in that family had ever been convicted of any  
crime. Mr. Martin agreed.  
[128] Mr. Martin was cross-examined extensively about his testimony in chief to the  
effect that he had been hired as a CO performing AI duties. Counsel reviewed  
in detail the contents of the job posting and put to him that other than the  
requirement of “ability to qualify as a CO”, all the provisions set out under  
“purpose of the position”, “knowledge”, and “duties and responsibilities” relate to  
enforcement of OMAFRA legislation and AI duties relating to food safety, and  
any reference to CO duties involving enforcement of MNRF duties is merely  
incidental. Counsel pointed out that even in his cover letter to the job  
application, Mr. Martin had highlighted his qualifications and experience relating  
to performance of AI duties, not CO duties. Mr. Martin disagreed. He agreed,  
however, that the job offer letter states that he was being hired as an AI and not  
as a CO.  
[129] Employer counsel put to Mr. Martin that while it is true that a CO has the same  
powers as a police officer within provincial parks, a CO has no general duty to  
protect the public from physical threats as a police officer does. Mr. Martin  
agreed. Counsel put to Mr. Martin that in contrast, an AI’s only role is to protect  
the public from unsafe food. Mr. Martin replied that while an AI’s primary duty is  
about food safety, since an AI is also a CO, if an AI who sees a physically  
- 53 -  
threatening situation does not act “it would put the MNRF in a bad light”. He  
added that a CO would have an “inherent duty to Act”. Counsel asked Mr.  
Martin whether in his opinion then, if an AI sees a threat of physical violence to  
the public while in the field investigating violations of OMAFRA legislation, the AI  
has a legal obligation to act. Mr. Martin replied “I don’t know”. Mr. Martin  
agreed that under OMAFRA legislation AIs do not have the power of arrest, and  
that AIs have been directed that they should not stop vehicles. He also agreed  
that police officers would be dispatched to respond to situations of public  
disturbance or violence, but AIs would never be so dispatched. Counsel put to  
Mr. Martin that while police officers would be expected to intervene if they  
observe such situations while patrolling, there is no expectation that an AI  
observing such situations while in the field investigating violations of food safety  
legislation would intervene. Mr. Martin replied, “I don’t know”.  
[130] Counsel reviewed Mr. Martin’s evidence that Mr. Cachagee had told him that he  
would only be doing “soft enforcement”, should not put himself in harm’s way,  
and should not undertake any assignment if he had any safety concern and  
should ask that he be accompanied by another AI who is armed, if he felt it  
necessary, Mr. Moody’s direction also included a statement to the same effect.  
Mr. Martin agreed. Counsel asked him whether he had ever raised a safety  
concern or turned down any assigned activity on the grounds that it was not  
safe. Mr. Martin stated that he had not.  
EVIDENCE OF BRETT CAMPBELL  
[131] Mr. Brett Campbell, has been employed as an AI since 2004, after a 16 year  
career as a member of the Hamilton Police force. He could not recall what use  
of force tools he had when he started at the AIU, but testified that around 2005,  
AIs received full personal protection equipment including sidearm and pepper  
spray, and soon after received use of force training. Then when sidearm and  
pepper spray were removed from AIs in 2012, no new training was provided until  
a year had passed. In that period the AIs were left to rely on “old” training given  
at a time when they were fully armed.  
- 54 -  
[132] Mr. Campbell testified about the Caledon Farm investigation. The AIU received  
a complainant about possible illegal slaughter. He received a report from the  
PCU containing background information. Mr. Campbell set out to identify who  
were involved in the alleged illegal operation. He attended a live stock  
exchange and observed the suspect V purchase a goat and drive off. Mr.  
Campbell followed V to a farm. Mr. Campbell conducted surveillance on that  
farm for several days, but did not obtain any useful information. However, on  
May 4, 2012, he was continuing surveillance with AI Ed Hartnick and observed a  
vehicle leave the farm. They suspected that the driver Y had made a purchase  
of meat. After informing Mr. Cachagee and obtaining his consent the officers  
followed the vehicle to Y’s residence. They approached Y, who Mr. Campbell  
described as very honest and straightforward. Y told them that he had  
purchased two freshly slaughtered goats at the farm and showed the goats.  
With the assistance of Y’s son on the phone as interpreter, Mr. Campbell  
questioned Y in an attempt to identify who owned that farm.  
[133] Mr. Campbell then called Mr. Cachagee and requested permission to  
immediately return to the farm, and conducted a search. Mr. Cachagee refused,  
despite Mr. Campbell pointing out that the FSQA allows an exigent circumstance  
search in these circumstances to prevent destruction of evidence of illegal  
slaughter. Mr. Cachagee insisted that an operational plan must be done and a  
search warrant obtained, before returning to the farm. Mr. Campbell felt that Mr.  
Cachagee refused permission for an exigent circumstance because he believed  
that the evidence the AIU already had was sufficient to obtain a conviction. Mr.  
Campbell testified that he is not in agreement with Mr. Cachagee’s interpretation  
of the law. In his view the exigent circumstance search provision in the Act is  
there specifically to prevent loss of evidence in this type of circumstances. He  
only had the information obtained from the customer as evidence, which in his  
view, would be insufficient to get a conviction.  
- 55 -  
[134] Mr. Campbell testified that as directed by Mr. Cachagee an operational plan was  
done, a search warrant was obtained and executed on May 16, 2012. The farm  
was searched by Mr. Campbell and Mr. Noel Todd without incident, since there  
was no one present at the time they arrived. Mr. Campbell stated that there was  
a briefing held at the OPP detachment prior to the execution of the search  
warrant, and that a number of OPP officers accompanied the AIs to the farm and  
secured the farm before the search began. During the search some firearms  
other weapons and illicit drugs were found. The police also discovered a stolen  
ATV vehicle. The search was well underway when the police brought someone  
who had driven in to the farm to Mr. Campbell. That person turned out to be V,  
the suspect in the illegal slaughter investigation.  
[135] Counsel asked Mr. Campbell what his concerns were about officer safety. Mr.  
Campbell explained that the AIs had gone looking for evidence of illegal  
slaughter with no sidearm or pepper spray. When they got there they found  
“things we wouldn’t have guessed would be there”. They had not received new  
training since sidearms and pepper spray were removed. Mr. Campbell was  
uncomfortable that “things were being done in a patch work way”. He said that  
having been a police officer himself, he disagrees that the presence of police  
makes any difference. He said, “If something had gone wrong, I don’t know if  
the police officers would run, stand in front of me, or protect themselves first. Its  
human nature to protect yourself first”. Mr. Campbell testified that by not  
conducting an exigent circumstance important evidence was lost, which in his  
view, lessened the chances of a successful prosecution. Physical evidence like  
bloody knives and animal meat, which he had hoped to find was never found.  
[136] Union counsel asked what Mr. Campbell’s concerns were about the Georgina  
incident. He stated that on April 20, 2013, he and AI Todd went to that farm not  
to do any inspection, but only to confirm information that the owner had  
purchased a lot of goats. They parked the vehicle halfway into the drive way  
and walked towards the barn. They observed a vehicle parked near the barn  
and a family standing near it. When they got closer they found that a slaughter  
- 56 -  
ritual was going on in the barn. Mr. Campbell “knew that they were not happy  
we were there”. At that point, the owner came out of the barn and recognized  
Mr. Campbell since they had met during previous court appearances. Mr.  
Campbell told him to show the goat being slaughtered. When he took the two  
officers in, they observed a goat hanging upside down. The suspect began to  
plead with Mr. Campbell not to proceed against him. Mr. Campbell testified that  
up to that point, the owner had been very cooperative. He testified “But then  
without warning his attitude of cooperation disappeared. He became very  
agitated and started yelling for us to leave, and said we need a warrant to be  
there”. When Mr. Campbell responded that he did not need a warrant the owner  
yelled “you leave now”. Mr. Campbell said, “Then he blocked me with his body.  
He didn’t push me. It was more to escort me away. He sort of pushed at my  
elbow telling you have to leave”.  
[137] Mr. Campbell testified that he was not sure whether the owner was looking for a  
fight. He decided it was best to leave and not get into a confrontation. He said  
he is sure that if they had not left at that time, “things would’ve got a lot worse”.  
They got into the vehicle and called 911 and asked for police assistance, then  
drove slowly to the top of the driveway and stopped to wait for the police. Mr.  
Campbell testified that the owner had walked behind the vehicle. When the  
vehicle stopped the suspect again yelled for them to leave and began swinging  
the metal gate back and forth as if to damage the vehicle. Mr. Campbell told  
him that if he damaged the vehicle he would be prosecuted. Then the police  
arrived and spoke to the owner. After that Mr. Campbell and Mr. Todd were  
able to collect evidence, take photographs and leave.  
[138] Mr. Campbell also testified about his involvement in an investigation, also in  
Georgina, of suspected sale of pigeon meat from a farm. There was no  
identified suspect. However, there was information that numerous vehicles were  
going in and out as part of the AIU investigation. A hidden camera had been  
installed pointing at the driveway. Mr. Campbell’s assignment was to do  
surveillance and identify the licence plates, so that the farm owner and others  
- 57 -  
involved could be identified by running the plates through the MTO system. Mr.  
Campbell testified that the vehicle plate run identified the owner of the farm. A  
CPIC check revealed that he was flagged as “caution violent”. He testified that  
the information was that the individual is a high risk offender, a serious threat to  
society and had been convicted of attempted rape, sexual assault and  
abduction. He was still on probation and owned firearms and explosives. Mr.  
Campbell testified that this assignment did not expose him to any health and  
safety risks, and that he did not even encounter the suspect. He said that  
another name of a person who had visited the farm also had a lengthy criminal  
record and numerous flags. He said that he raised this assignment in support of  
the grievance only “to show the kinds of people out there you don’t know about”.  
[139] Under cross-examination, Mr. Campbell agreed that when he accepted the AI  
position he knew that it involved regulatory enforcement work, that such work  
involves some safety risks and that AIs were not armed. Mr. Campbell agreed  
that AIs had two communication devices when going out in the field, a vehicle  
radio and a portable radio, which had the following features. They were linked  
to the OPP dispatch system called Fleetnet. The AIs could log on to Fleetnet  
and inform OPP dispatch where they are heading and update their whereabouts  
as they continue an investigation; both radios had local channels which allowed  
secure communication with other AIs or with police forces; Both radios had a  
panic button, which sends a signal to the Police Communication Centre when  
pressed, indicating that the AI needs police assistance and the Centre would  
know precisely where the AI is. Mr. Campbell agreed that he knew that the  
covert surveillance he did on the Georgina farm had no high risk of detection  
and was safe. Yet a contingency plan had been prepared for him to leave the  
property in the event he was detected by the suspects, and a secure  
communication channel was set up for his use during the surveillance. He also  
agreed that with a neighbour’s cooperation he was able to install a camera with  
no issues.  
- 58 -  
[140] Mr. Campbell agreed that as lead investigator on this file, he did a lot of  
preliminary work, including running licence plates and a CPIC check, to obtain  
as much information as possible about the suspects, and all persons involved,  
including purchasers and people coming and going. Through this means he  
identified two suspects who had past criminal records and “flags”. Using this  
information a search warrant was obtained after an operational plan was  
prepared. All participants in the search, AIU staff and the public officers were  
made aware of all information about who may be encountered during the search  
and their criminal records. Counsel then put to Mr. Campbell that, given that  
evidence, it was not correct to say, as he did, that “you don’t know who is out  
there”. Mr. Campbell replied that “in this case we had information about the  
people”, but added that in some cases you may encounter “people not in your  
radar”. He agreed that in any event he did not encounter any of the two  
suspects he testified about.  
[141] Mr. Campbell agreed that by May 4, 2012, when the Caledon Incident occurred,  
sidearm and pepper spray had been removed from AIs. Asked if he was  
comfortable following the vehicle to the residence of the individual, accompanied  
by AI Ed Hartnick, and talking to him, Mr. Campbell replied that he had a CPIC  
check run while following the vehicle, did an assessment of the individual, and  
decided “it was worth doing it”, and spoke to him in the garage. Mr. Campbell  
agreed that based on the information from the purchaser, he wanted to return to  
the farm with another AI and do an exigent circumstance search of the barn to  
obtain evidence of illegal slaughter, but Mr. Cachagee refused permission.  
Counsel put to Mr. Campbell that permission was refused not only because the  
supervisor thought there was enough evidence already, it was mainly because  
an operational plan had not been done, and therefore was unsafe. Mr.  
Campbell replied he did not know. Counsel put to Mr. Campbell that he was  
prepared to proceed to the farm immediately with no warrant or operational plan,  
even though he and his partner were both unarmed. Mr. Campbell replied that  
he would have requested police assistance under the FSQA if he got  
- 59 -  
permission. Counsel put to him that if he did that, police would have entered the  
farm first and secured it, before the AIs enter. Mr. Campbell agreed.  
[142] Counsel asked Mr. Campbell why he was ready to proceed with no search  
warrant or operational plan, and neither of them were armed. Mr. Campbell  
replied, “although policy requires an operational plan and search warrant it was  
in my view not practical. That takes time. The longer you take the greater the  
chance the evidence will be gone”. Counsel put, “so you say sitting down and  
planning is inconsistent with the goal of getting the evidence before it  
disappears”. Mr. Campbell replied, “My interpretation is, the meat and potatoes  
of why the Act provides for exigent circumstance searches is to prevent loss of  
evidence”. Counsel asked, “But do you agree, the more planning you do, the  
safer it will be for you?” Mr. Campbell said “yes”. Counsel put to Mr. Campbell  
that although the AIs disagreed with management on when exigent  
circumstances searches are appropriate, ultimately the direction from  
management was that such searches are to be used in very limited  
circumstances. He agreed. Employer counsel summarized the management  
direction to be “If not satisfied it is safe or if in doubt, don’t do it”. Mr. Campbell  
said “If I know there is a significant risk I won’t do it”. Counsel asked, “So if you  
don’t know you will go?” Mr. Campbell replied, that he would not just rush in, but  
would get police assistance or at least other AIU assistance, and added, “Today  
I don’t go too many places without the police”.  
[143] Counsel suggested that the discovery of the fire arms in the Caledon incident  
was not surprising and did not pose any safety threat to him or to any other AIU  
staff. He agreed. Counsel suggested that similarly the arrival of an individual  
while the AIs were conducting the search posed no threat, because the police  
met him and took control. Mr. Campbell replied that he disagreed because the  
police may not stay there the whole time. Counsel put to Mr. Campbell that if he  
felt unsafe, he could have advised the police, and they would have either stayed  
or taken anyone who was of concern to the police station. He agreed. Counsel  
put to Mr. Campbell that in the post-mortem report, he wrote that everything  
- 60 -  
went well, and no work refusal was necessary. Mr. Campbell testified that  
during the vehicle stop, a work refusal was considered, but it was decided “it  
was safe enough”. Counsel suggested that rather than engage in a work  
refusal, if he had simply called Mr. Cachagee, he would have directed him not to  
proceed, and that the operational plan also stated “if not comfortable about  
safety stop”. Mr. Campbell agreed.  
[144] Counsel put to Mr. Campbell that he is more cautious now because he is not  
armed.  
Mr. Campbell replied, “Yes”.  
But still I think “we go place  
subconsciously and put ourselves in harm’s way. But I am happy the police is  
there because we have no sidearms”. Counsel asked “The policy says you  
don’t go until the risk is assessed. Are you saying that sometimes you don’t  
follow policy?” He said “yes”. Asked, “Also you seem to say that police  
presence is not a complete answer because they will protect themselves first  
before protecting you”. Again Mr. Campbell said, “Yes”. Counsel pointed out  
that now, when on a search with or without a warrant, the police go in first and  
secure the place before AIs go in, and suggested “therefore you won’t have a  
situation where police officers have to protect themselves first before you”. Mr.  
Campbell replied, “Yes, but in one case a person came in after the place had  
been secured and we had gone in”. Counsel asked, “Yes and the police  
handled him properly?” Mr. Campbell replied “yes”. Counsel put to him that in  
all three files he testified about, he was able to safely conduct the assignment.  
He replied, “correct”.  
[145] In relation to the Georgina Farm incident, employer counsel reviewed Mr.  
Campbell’s testimony and suggested that he and AI Todd had dropped by to  
speak to the farm owner; while there they observed signs indicating that the  
suspect, who had previously been charged for illegal slaughter, was continuing  
that operation and decided to investigate by going into the barn. Mr. Campbell  
agreed. Counsel asked why he did that without seeking police assistance,  
knowing that neither officer was armed. Mr. Campbell replied that he had known  
- 61 -  
the suspect from before and he had been “good all along”, and he assessed it  
was safe.  
[146] Counsel put to Mr. Campbell that he could have safely left after the suspect  
became agitated and started to yell for them to get out of his property. Mr.  
Campbell agreed. Counsel put to Mr. Campbell that, instead of walking away,  
he chose to stay and engage the suspect to convince him that he had a right to  
search without a warrant, and left only after the suspect pushed him at the elbow  
to get him to leave. Mr. Campbell agreed. Counsel stated that the suspect  
pushed his elbow to prevent Mr. Campbell from going further into the barn and  
to escort him out. Mr. Campbell replied, “Yes. It was not to hurt me. He wanted  
me out of there “. Counsel asked Mr. Campbell why he did not leave the  
property even at that point, but chose to stop at the end of the driveway and wait  
for the police to arrive.