SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA VANCOUVER REGISTRY JAN 0 8 2015 g? sers?isr No. .. Vancouver Registry IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN SHELLEY WHITELAW AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, MINISTER OF JUSTICE FOR THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF MANITOBA, LAURENCE MCKENZIE, DAVE BETTESWORTH, ROLAND BOWMAN AND JUDY LE PAGE NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM This action has been started by the plaintiff(s) for the relief set out in Part 2 below. If you intend to reSpond to this action, you or your lawyer must file a response to civil claim in Form 2 in the above?named registry ofthis court within the time for reSponse to civil claim described below, and serve a copy of the ?led response to civil claim on the plaintiff. If you intend to make a counterclaim, you or your lawyer must ?le a response to civil claim in Form 2 and a counterclaim in Form 3 in the above?named registry of this court within the time for to civil claim described below, and serve a copy of the tiled response to civil claim and counterclaim on the plaintiff and on any new parties named in the counterclaim. JUDGMENT MAY BE PRONOUNCED AGAINST YOU IF YOU FAIL to ?le the response to civil claim within the time for response to civil claim described below. Time for response to civil claim A response to civil claim must be ?led and served on the plaintiff(s), if you reside anywhere in Canada, within 21 days after the date on which a copy of the filed notice of civil claim was served on you, if you reside in the United States of America, within 35 days after the date on which a cepy of the tiled notice of civil claim was served on you, if you reside elsewhere, within 49 days after the date on which a copy of the filed notice of civil claim was served on you, or if the time for reSponse to civil claim has been set by order of the court, within that time. CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFF Part 1: STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. The Plaintiffis a regular member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Division (British Columbia) and has an address for delivery at 500 128 West Pender Street, Vancouver, British Columbia. 2. The Defendant, the Attorney General of Canada (the "Federal Crown?) is a Defendant as a result ofacts or omissions by or on behalf ofthe RCMP, a police force continued pursuant to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R?l 0 and amendments thereto (the and the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3. The Defendant the Minister ofJustice for the Province of British Columbia, (the "British Columbia Provincial Crown?) is a Defendant as a result of acts or omissions by or on behalf of the RCMP, a police force constituted pursuant to the RCMP Act, or, in the alternative, as a result of acts or omissions by or on behalf of the members of the RCMP and lor individual Defendants as members of the RCMP, all of whom are or were provincial constables pursuant to the Police Act and the Crown Proceeding Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 89 and amendments thereto. 4. The Defendant the Queen ofright in the Province ofManitoba (the "Manitoba Provincial Crown?) is a Defendant as a result ofacts or omissions by or on behalf ofthe RCMP, a police force constituted pursuant to the RCMP Act, or, in the alternative, as a result of acts or omissions by or on behalf of the members ofthe RCMP and lor individual Defendants as members of the RCMP, all of whom are or were constables pursuant to The Police Services Act, C.C.S.M. 0. P945 (the ?The Police Services Act?) and The Proceedings A gains: ll?lG Crown Act, C.C.S.M. c. P140, and amendments thereto 10. ll. 12. 14. '15. -3- At all material times, the British Columbia Provincial Crown and the Federal Crown were parties to an agreement pursuant the Police Act. By virtue of this agreement, the British Columbia Provincial Crown is vicariously and statutorily liable for the wrongful acts of any and all members ofthe RCMP in British Columbia. At all material times, the Manitoba Provincial Crown and the Federal Crown were parties to an agreement pursuant to The Police Services Act. By virtue of this agreement, the Manitoba Provincial Crown is vicariously and statutorily liable for the wrongful acts of any and all members of the RCMP in Manitoba. The Defendant Laurence McKenzie was at all material times a member of the RCMP holding the rank of Staff Sergeant, within the province ofManitoba known as Division of the RCMP. At all material times, the Defendant Laurence McKenzie was acting within the scope of his employment and his actions, so far as they are material to this proceeding, were expressly or impliedly authorized by the Federal Crown and Manitoba Provincial Crown as his employer. The Defendant Dave Bettesworth was at all material times a member of the RCMP holding the rank of Constable, within the province ofManitoba within Division. At all material times, the Defendant Dave Bettesworth was acting within the scope ofhis employment and his actions, so far as they are material to this proceeding, were expressly or impliedly authorized by the Federal Crown and Manitoba Provincial Crown as his employer. The Defendant Dr. Roland Bowman was at all material times a licensed within the Province of British Columbia and stationed at RCMP Health Services as a Regional within the province ofBritish Columbia, known as Division ofthe RCMP. At all material times, the Defendant Dr. Roland Bowman was acting within the scope of his employment and his actions, so far as they are material to this proceeding, were expressly or impliedly authorized by the Defendant Minister as his employer. . The Defendant Dr. Judy Le Page was at all material times a licensed within the Province of British Columbia and stationed at RCMP Health Services as a Regional within Division ofthe RCMP. At all material times, the Defendant Dr. Le Page was acting within the scope of her employment and her actions, so far as they are material to this proceeding, were expressly or impliedly authorized by the Defendants Minister as her employer. All members ofthe RCMP have sworn to perform their duties diligently and to obey all lawful orders and instructions. 11211012 31111211 112011113 .1011 120111111 111111100101 121112 1111111121c1 0111 1211111011 1111 12021112111 K121011112 121112 1202111112 00110111121 1111212110110q 0111 ?11011 19112011 12 8111.1(11120 1112A 0111 121 p021112m1111111121c1 0111 311 58111210111 12 01111 3021011 121112 011111111111 81111212121 312211 121112 00110121301 3111110 1110 3111210111 111 011112131100 .1120/{ 0211.1 0111 12013133121111.1111112111 0111 1201101101 011 01 311103 1031101 011 11112130111 81111111211 12101.1 11111001 0111 111q ll11112113 .10 >11113ll 1011110 121110111 0113 121112 01212111 110011 121211 1101310012 0111 0111 00110111121 11112pu010q 01111; '1110 10013111211 01 120210101112 00110111121 111121211010c1 0111 011111 011112131100 11201 02111 12 001211101 01 01111201103 111113 0111 110 11111 011 121110211 121112 101111211 12 1111211 1102111031101 011 12111011 0113 11211111110101d 0111 11031211212 00110111111 1111212110110q 0111 ?81111111211 121011 110.1001 111110111 1113 0111 01111 111110111 12 K101121111110111d12 101.1191 112111110 10111110111 12 01 1101-2110111 12 1102113 121211 121112 K111101111110Q 31111110111131011 12 120110111211 0113 112111 1101111211 53111211211 11 12011111101 121112 213012 1011111110 21001101011 12 01013 11110113011011 0A12q 1111212110103 0111 ?1101312000 0110 110 0111011 00111 11201 12 01111 11 111111 1211100 131112 111211102111 12 312/111 0113 001113 3211012111211 0111 110 31111211110 11111 121112 1112111213 3111311111 12011013110110 0111 (I11 1112010 1211100 0113 112111 1111111121d 0111 12101 00110111121 111121211010q 0111 ?01011111/(10/10 31111012 121112 1201211203112 3110121111111 110210.111 111111 3011111112113 111 121112 ?11111} 3122111 110111213 58111311111 1201101211121112 0111) ?3121d1211 12111211) 111 3111111 11211101 01111211122112 011 0.102111 0.10111 112111 121112 8111311011 (IWQH 010111 011 8132111 010111 001113 010111 02111 1211100 0113 112111 .1011 12101 121112 110111213 3111311111 12011012031112 1112 011111111121C1 0111 >1001 01111030141 00110111121 111121211010q 0111 '3111311011 (110311 010111 011 312/111 010111 112111 1011 120111101111 00110111127 11112p110110q 0111 c11101111103103 312111123 12111219 0111 112 12021111121111111121?1 0111 0011/11 11011121110110 112111103 121112 .1012110?/1103 .1011 110 12031211 1.1111111121C1 0111 112 1201001112 311011012 121112 3111011111100 K101121111111103112 01212111 1111111111214 0111 1203312112111pzads 9118 112111, Empumuap smug}, oldppuu .Iml pmqumm put; [wowed .Im[ 013mm .Iom?psgmu 1onpuog) 5.0 apog) 12 fmom s?u0poas 013pr mp w; .1001} mpgo 9p)me mp u; apd 12 u; passe} 3.19m uumgun asap .ISLI mop mum; fmsuupmeq mp Luci; mam ?eq [mxosmd .19q (13) :01 pmgul? 10H 1nq ??ugpnpu; mp mop snonupuoo page} mp ?sasou?mp .1911 {pm ?uptmp 9mm pampmu uo apqm ?Japmmp $111,129 L18 pun ((13 id) Japjosgq $533,113 opmumzli 130d {tapiomq .Ioftzw pgsou?mp mu 9.1123 11 I331 mews 0 9.18:) .1 .19 um sum . pun; m1 139 .Im .10 mugmm'[11 I. 60!. '801 '90! '901 ?1701 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. -14- The Plaintiff filed a grievance on the decision to serve her with the Notice of Discharge which served to stay the discharge. The RCMP proceeded to discharge the Plaintiff from the RCMP despite the statutory effect of the Plaintiff?s grievance was that the discharge was stayed until final resolution of the grievance. After the Plaintiff commenced legal proceedings, the RCMP reinstated the Plaintiff back to continuous service while she grieved the discharge. The Plaintiff felt devalued and undermined by the bullying tactic of intentionally discharging her contrary to statute and it caused her extreme distress. At the end of May 2013, the Plaintiff advised Division Health Services that the RCMP had reinstated her and she requested medical treatment. On June 6, 2013, Dr. Fieschi, a Health Services Of?cer, informed her that Health Services denied her treatment. On June 6, 2013, the Defendant Dr. Le Page, without a factual basis, informed Sgt. Dawn Parker that the Plaintiff represented a physical threat to Dr. Le Page and the staff at Health Services. As a result ofDr. Le Page?s statement to Sgt. Parker, the RCMP ordered that the Plaintiff had to have an uniformed and armed escort when she entered Division Headquarters. The Plaintiff felt humiliated and embarrassed by the Defendant Dr. Le Page?s statement and the subsequent order and she made a complaint to the Human Resources Of?cer. The Plaintiff subsequently learned that the Defendant Dr. Le Page made several imprOper and inaccurate disclosures of the Plaintiffs personal medical information to the Human Resources Officer that were prejudicial to the Plaintiff. The Defendant Dr. Le Page was in breach of her duty of con?dentiality to the Plaintiff either express within the rules, regulations and administrative manuals ofthe RCMP or implied as a result of the relationship between the Plaintiff as a patient and the Defendant Dr. Le Page as a case manager of her medical file trained as a The Defendant Dr. Le Page breached that con?dentiality by discussing the Plaintiff" medical condition at length with regular members of the RCMP that supervised her or were in a position of authority over the Plaintiff, all of which destroyed the potential for her to have any further career in the RCMP. N15. 123. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of the negligent conduct of the Defendants, the Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, permanent and irreparable harm including extreme embarrassment, humiliation, loss of reputation, personal expense and ?nancial loss and extreme stress resulting in disabling injury, particulars of which are as follows: continuous exacerbation of PTSD depression; (0) anxiety; loss of self esteem and confidence; inability to sleep at night; headaches and physical pain; fear of leaving her surroundings; avoidance of friendships and relationships; paranoia; hyper arousal; inability to multi-task; reducedconcentration; (in) numbness; and obsessive thoughts. Part 2: RELIEF SOUGHT 1. General damages; 2. Special damages; 3. )ast loss ofopportunity; 4. Future income loss; 5. In the alternative, diminished earning capacity; 6. Aggravated damages; 7. Punitive damages; 8. Interest pursuant to the (To-mt Order Interest. Act, R.S.B.C. l996, c. 79, from the date of judgment or date of payment, whichever is sooner; 9. Costs; and .10 ?119.10 9121-2111 19121111129 12 ?911111211191112 9111 111 .10 ?8111111111 111 1119111991312 1112 01111 129191119 ?11211011'3 1121911121001 1211111111103 121112 111110.13 1121911121001 12110111112111 9111 ?92111121119119 9111 111 .10 ?11111013 11219129111 1111212119119q 9111 12111211111111121d 9111 91111211191112 9111 111 .10 ?1112111121212 111 111/931] 91111.0 391911011 119.111.1111 191110 121112 31121111121/\1 11011011311111.1112V (11/113); 9111 111 1110 19S 1212 2111311 9111110 391911011 12911219 121112 311011121112293 121112 191/ (ff/1133] 9111 1111211 99111212109912 111 121112 1(1q121112s1291 89211981119111 1911121109 111911193121112111 121112 SJQQUJQLLI 1112 112111 121112 99121112110211 99.11~11191113812.11211 121112 911212 12 91113119 01 X1111q19110ds91 12 9211211 31111212119193 9111 9311111191110 .10 112111191; ?1119111331211211 211112 121112 11011121111111.1990) 121112 111911112121211211 112112193 ?1111123912 112112198 1110.11 99.11 9912111211011 12 9121210111 012(11112 1211111111121c1 9111 91110 121.112 111111191c1 9111 01 911113110113919112110919111 11121112111111.1109 K1112 .10 1119111 _.10 119129 121112 12111121211919q 911111 919111119319 129112112 .10 911.1 ~1.0 31121111121A1 11011911311111.0121; 91.11 111 1291289111219 312 511919.210 3111121112151 s1219110193111111103 .10/121112 891911011 12911211; 1112 121113 {(1112 121112 8110111211139?d ?pV (11/111331 911110 $111,191 9111 11112111 ((11111109 01 {(11112 1219121112 9.112 s11112p119?19q 111;; 11191911 1110 1912 9191112111 111 9111110 1219111119111 191110 ?1112 121112 12111121211919q 1291111211/(11121112111112111 9111 11121.0 811011912 9111 .1011 91111211 K13110111291A 9.112 ?1119111110 11011121111111109 ?1112 .10 ?191110 9111.10 9110 c111911110 119129 121112 91111011911911110 ?111111013 1121911121001 1211111111103 118111113 121112 111110.13 1121911121014 1211011111219 9111 ?11211013 1121912911 9111112111 311111219 191111111. 11111111'21d 9111 111911911 1291111913912 3191112111 111 121101111121A1 111 31119312 .10/p119 8991(01111119 $111 9111110 99119211113911 9111101 91111211 [(18110111201/1 9811111191110 31 111110.13 1121911121011 1211011111211 9111 11111111111 (1121133 9111110 12.19q1119111 1112 121112 K1112 10 9911931153911 9111.101 91q1211?11101111121s .10/121112 21180011129111 121 11111013 12110111112111 9111 ?11111013 11219111A0.1d 12q0111112w 121112 11211013 1121912911 9112, 1199111191111191119912113 111 121112 ?191/ 399111193 9911001 91111 10 3110131210111 9111110 91111111 Kg ?11191911 12911119991) 3191112111 111 129A10A111 1211111111103 1112111191 111 31119312 .10/p012 S99?01d1119 8111 111211311 9111 10 9911922113911 9111.101 91q1211 [(1311011129111 9121111191110 91 11111013 1121911111001 1211111111103 113111.13 9111 '121q11111103 113111.151 11111111111 9111 ?10 $.19q1119111 1112 121112 1(1112 112 9911981118911 9111 10.1 91111211/(111011111213 .10/121112 s1 112110.13 11219111210111 12111111111123 113111.151 9111 ?111111013 1121911121001 121q11111103 119111.1E1 121112 11111013 1121912911 9111 11991111911 1119111991312 111 121112 ?191/ 9911111] 911110 9110181110111 9111 ?10 91111111 Kg '6 '9 SISVH FIVDEVI 113:1 '91q121111b9 121112 13111 1119912 {(12111 1.11103 91q12.111011011 81111 $12 191191191110 121112 191111111 119113 '01 10. ll. 12. 14. 15. ..17.. partly in writing, or in the alternative a contract made orally, for the purposes of engaging the Plaintiff on two separate occasions as a member ofthe RCMP. It was a term of the contract, express or implied, that the Defendants would provide a work environment free from undue harm and risk, harassing behaviour, sexual abuse and/or sexual assault and malicious character assassination, and that any report of inappropriate conduct would be investigated, and the safety of the workplace for the Plaintiff would be provided in accordance with the RCMP Act and Regulations, all stated policies of the RCMP and/or Commissioner ?5 Standing Orders as expressed in the Administration Manuals of the RCMP or stated elsewhere. The Defendants owed the Plaintiffa duty of good faith, fair dealing and honesty in performance of the contract. The Defendant Laurence McKenzie and the Defendant Dave Bettesworth are liable to the Plaintiff for civil sexual assault and the tort of assault and battery. The Defendant Laurence McKenzie acted with the intent of sexual gratification which resulted in harmful and offensive contact with the Plaintiff. The conduct of the Defendant Laurence McKenzie and the Defendant Dave Bettesworth were malicious and wilful and caused or contributed to a recognizable illness or harm to the Plaintiff, such as to warrant aggravated damages because the sexual harassment, sexual assault and battery occurred in a humiliating and undignified manner. The RCMP is vicariously liable to the Plaintiff for the sexual assault, assault, battery and sexual harassment by the Defendant Laurence McKenzie, some particulars of which include: they knew, or ought to have known, that the Defendant Laurence McKenzie had not worked with female members and openly stated that he did not want to work with female and the knew, or ought to have know, of the toxic workplace environment at the Grand Rapids Detachment, which included pervasive sexual harassment and discrimination. The Defendants have a responsibility to ensure a safe and harassmentdi'ee workplace and that all members and management conduct themselves reasonably and with due care to the career aspirations and development of members in accordance with the RCMP Act and Regulations and stated policies ofthe RCMP, as set out in the RCMP Administration Manuals and other written policies ofthe RCMP. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. -18- The failure of the Plaintiff?s supervisors to prevent or address the bullying and harassing behaviour of the Plaintiff?s colleagues and the negative and destructive rumours about the Plaintiff constituted a breach of their duty of care to the Plaintiff and is a breach of the RCMP Act and Regulations, all stated policies of the RCMP and/or Commissioner ?5 Standing Orders as expressed in the Administration Manuals of the RCMP or stated elsewhere including but not limited to the Harassment Policy. The Defendants knew, or ought to have known, that the Plaintiff?s career advancement would suffer as a result of their breach of their duty of care. The Defendants knew, or ought to have known, that wilfully, or recklessly, seeking to discharge the Plaintiff on numerous occasions without basis were an abuse of authority and contrary to the RCMP Act and Regulations, all stated policies of the RCMP and/or Coriimissioner ?3 Standing Orders as expressed in the Administration Manuals of the RCMP or stated elsewhere, and would cause the Plaintiff to suffer the illness and damages detailed above. By virtue of the Defendant Dr. Bowman qualifications as a health care professional, his role as a case manager of the Plaintiff?s medical file and care, and his position of providing services to, or on behalfof, the RCMP assigned to Division Health Services, Dr. Bowman owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff. Dr. Bowman breached the standard of care when he acted without authority whatsoever to initiate a discharge without a valid medical diagnosis. The conduct of the Defendants in intentionally, or recklessly, attempting to in seeking to discharge the Plaintiff on numerous occasions was high-handed and reprehensible. Such conduct demonstrated a wanton and callous disregard for the Plaintiff?s health and safety. As a result, the Plaintiff is entitled to aggravated damages against the Defendants. General and aggravated damages are inadequate to address the hi gh~handed, malicious, arrogant and arbitrary behaviour and conduct of the Defendants and as a result, the Plaintiff claims punitive and exemplary damages. By virtue of the Defendant Dr. Le Page?s quali?cations as a health care professional, her role as a case manager of the PlaintifPS medical file and care, and her position of providing services to, or on behalf of, the RCMP assigned to Division Health Services, Dr. Le Page owed a duty ofcare to the Plaintiff. Dr. Le Page breached the standard of care by making prejudicial and unsubstantiated representations about the Plaintiff and disclosing the Plaintiff?s personal medical information to regular members ofthe RCMP without consent. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. -19- The conduct of the Defendant, Dr. Le Page, in her management of the Plaintiff" personal medical information was high~handed and reprehensible. Such conduct demonstrated a wanton and callous disregard for the Plaintiff?s health and safety. As a result, the Plaintiffis entitled to punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages against the Defendants. The Defendants committed the tort of willful infliction of mental suffering. In the alternative, the Defendants committed the tort of negligent infliction of mental suffering. The Defendants committed the tort of misfeasance of public of?ce. It is a direct and foreseeable consequence of the negligent conduct of the Defendants, either individually or in combination, that the Plaintiff?s career would be jeopardized and that she would suffer loss and injury. Plaintiffs address for service: 5th Floor The Sun Tower 128 West Pender Street Vancouver, BC V68 1R8 Fax number address for service: Place oftrial: 604?684~8427 Vancouver, BC The address of the registry is: 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver, BC V62 2131 Date: January 8, 2015 Signature of Amanda Merritt Lawyer for plaintiff -20- Rule 7?1 (1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules states: (1) Unless all parties of record consent or the court otherwise orders, each party of record to an action must, within 35 days after the end of the pleading period, prepare a list of documents in Form 22 that lists (I) all documents that are or have been in the party/*5 possession or control and that could, if available, be used by any party at trial to prove or disprove a material fact, and (ii) all other documents to which the party intends to refer at trial, and serve the list on all parties of record. APPENDIX [Tltefollowz'ng information is providerlfor data collection purposes only and is ofno legal @27ch Part 1: CONCISE SUMMARY 01? NATURE or CLAIM: The Plaintiff 3 claim is against the Defendant for damages arising from willful in?iction of mental suffering and inisfeasance in public of?ce. Part 2: THIS CLAIM ARISES FROM THE FOLLOWING: [Check one box the ease type that best describes this case] A personal injury arising out of: a motor vehicle accident medical malpractice another cause A dispute concerning: contaminated sites construction defects real property (real estate) personal preperty the provision of goods or services or other general commercial matters investment losses the lending of money an employment relationship a will or other issues concerning the probate of an estate a matter not listed here