SUPREMtCOURT^
OF'BRITtSH COLUMBIA
'VANCOUVER REG'STk"/

^AK .::. 20'iy No- S~:':.~,3 ^3^
Vancouver Registry

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
?EEN:
RYAN THOMAS LETNES
PLAINTIFF
AND:

HER MAJEST/ THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA (ATTORNEY GENERAL), HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
IN RIGHT OF ALBERTA (MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND SOLICITOR GENERAL), HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN
RIGHT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL), DWAYNE MCDONALD,
ANTHONY HAMORI, TROYSWITZER, SCOTT SHEPPARD, CAROL BRADLEY, MAX1NE SCHWARTZ, RENE
BERNARD/ SCOTT BECK, DAMON POOLE, MICHAEL COADY, DENNIS ESAYENKO AND JOHN DOE 1-20

DEFENDANTS
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

(a) file a response to civil claim in Form 2 in the above-named registry of this court
within the time for response to civil claim described below, and
(b) serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim on the Plaintiff.
If you intend to make a counterclaim, you or your lawyer must

(a) file 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 response to civil claim
described below, and

(b) serve a copy of the filed 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 file 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 filed and served on the Plaintiff,

{FLG-00259065;2}

 •2

(a) if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere in Canada, within 21 days after
that service,

(b) if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere in the United States of
America, within 35 days after that service,

(c) if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere else, within 49 days after that
service, or

(d) 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
The Parties
1. The Plaintiff, Ryan Thomas Letnes, (the "Plaintiff) is an individual residing in Coquitlam,
British Columbia.
2. The Defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (Attorney General) represents the
Federal Government of Canada (the "Federal Crown") and the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police ("the "RCMP") in this action pursuant to s. 23(1) of the Crown Liability and Proceedings
Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-50. The Federal Crown's liability arises from the conduct, negligence,

malfeasance and vicarious liability of the RCMP and individuals who were at all material times
Federal Crown employees and agents,

3. The Defendant, Her Majesty the Q.ueen in Right of Alberta (Minister of Justice and Solicitor
General) represents the provincial government of Alberta (the "Alberta Crown"). The Alberta
Crown's liability arises from the conduct, negligence, malfeasance and vicarious liability of

individual provincial constables in the course of their duties in Alberta and/or individual who
were at all material times Alberta Crown employees and agents.

4. The Defendant, Her Majesty the Q.ueen in Right of British Columbia (Minister of Justice and
Attorney General) represents the provincial government of British Columbia (the "BC
Crown"). The BC Crown is named pursuant to ss. 11 and 21 of the Police Act, RSBC 1996, c

367 (the "BC Police Act"]. The BC Crown's liability arises from the conduct, negligence,
malfeasance and vicarious liability of individual provincial constables in the course of their
duties in British Columbia and/or individual who were at all material times BC Crown
employees and agents.

(FLG-00259065;2}

 5. The Defendant/ Assistant Commissioner Dwayne McDonald ("McDonald"), was at all material

times the Officer in Charge of the RCMP detachment located in Surrey, British Columbia (the
"Surrey Detachment").
6. The Defendant, Chief Superintendent Anthony Hamori ( "Hamori"), was at all material times

the Officer in Charge of the RCMP detachment located in Airdrie, Alberta (the "Airdrie
Detachment") or the District Commander for the Southern Alberta District of the RCMP.
7. The Defendant, Sergeant Troy Switzer ("Switzer"), was at all material times the Rural
Operations Non-Commissioned Officer for the Airdrie Detachment.

8. The Defendant, Chief Superintendent Scott Sheppard ("Sheppard"), was at all material times
the Departmental National Coordinator of RCMP Relocation Services.
9. The Defendant, Superintendent Carol Bradley ("Bradley"), was at all material times the

Operations Support Officer of the Surrey Detachment.
10. The Defendant, Superintendent Maxine Schwartz ("Schwartz"), was at all material times the

Client Services Officer or the Operations Support Officer of Surrey Detachment.
11. The Defendant, Superintendent Rene Bernard ("Bernard"), was at all material times the
Departmental National Coordinator of RCMP Relocation Services.

12. The Defendant, Staff Sergeant Scott Beck ("Beck"), was at all material times the Operations
Non-Commissioned Officer of Airdrie Detachment.
13. The Defendant, Staff Sergeant Damon Poole ("Poote"), was at all material times the acting

Officer in Charge or Operations Non-Commissioned Officer ("NCO") ofAirdrie Detachment.
14. . The Defendant, Staff Sergeant Michael Coady ("Coady"), was at all material times the Non-

Commissioned Officer in Charge ofAirdrie Detachment.
15. The Defendant, Sergeant Dennis Esayenko ("Esayenko"), was at all material times the
Operations Support Non-Commissionect Officer ofAirdrie Detachment.

16. The Defendants John Doe 1-20 are unknown individuals within the province of British
Columbia or Alberta who have been directly or indirectly involved with the Plaintiffs career
in the RCMP from time to time.
17. McDonald, Hamori, Switzer, Sheppard, Bradley, Schwartz, Bernard, Beck, Poole, Coady,
Esayenko and John Doe 1-20 shall be collectively referred to as the "Personal Defendants".

{FLG-002S906S;2}

 Background

18. The Plaintiff has been a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (the "RCMP") since
October 2, 2000, and has been continuously employed with the RCMP since that time.
19, On or about September 12, 2008, the Plaintiff commenced duties at the Airdrie Detachment
at the rank of Corporal, serving the role of Watch Commander for C Watch ("Watch
Commander"),

20. As Watch Commander, the Plaintiff commandeered all operational and administrative affairs
for both the municipal and rural components of C Watch. During the fulfillment of his duties
as Watch Commander, the Plaintiff observed a series of operational irregularities occurring

which included, inter alia, the following:
a. supervisor Police Reporting and Occurrence System ("PROS") reports were being

purposefully withheld from disclosure to the Crown, with many supervisor reports
expressly providing that they were "Not for Disclosure";

b. supervisor PROS reports at the Airdrie Detachment often were highly critical of
investigating members/ questioned the abilities of investigators and were treated as
being interpersonal grievance documents;

c. RCMP Form C-13 prisoner reports were intentionally and wrongfully withheld from
disclosure to the Crown, and contrary to requirements failed to indicate that they
were subject to disclosure;
d. Airdrie Detachment investigators were not expected to conduct comprehensive,

impartial investigations and no standard of care was mandated byAirdrie Detachment
managers;
e. Airdrie Detachment investigators, under orders or direction from Airdrie Detachment
managers, were intentionally laying criminal charges where there were no reasonable
grounds to do so;and
f. Esayenko, contrary to RCMP PROS policy was preparing reports in a manner that

allowed for subsequent modification or deletion without record of this activity
appearing in the PROS occurrence activity log.

(the "Operational Irregularities")

(FLG-00259065;2}

 21. Starting in September 2008, the Plaintiff repeatedly raised his concerns regarding the
Operational Irregularities with Airdrie Detachment management and requested that
management investigate and address these Irregularities.

22. In the late fall of 2008, where possible, the Plaintiff began to take steps to address the
Operational Irregularities on his own, which steps included but were not limited to
completing electronic reports that he handled in a manner that prevented future
modification and requiring those working under him to do the same.

23. In addition to the Operational Irregularities, the Plaintiff witnessed senior management of the
Airdrie Detachment coercing members into laying unjustified charges by threatening
sanctions or negative performance reviews (the "Improper Charges"). In response, the

Plaintiff identified to RCMP management that numerous investigations into criminal matters
were being improperly handled, resulting in the Improper Charges.
24. As set out below, as a direct result of the Plaintiff's continued insistence that the RCMP
address the Operational Irregularities and Improper Charges, the Plaintiff has been subject to
systemic harassment and humiliation by members of the RCMP and/or the Personal
Defendants.

Interference with Authority
25. Beginning in November 2008, Esayenko began to deliberately and improperly interfere in the
Plaintiff's duties as Watch Commander, which interference included but was not limited to:
a. issuing numerous unwarranted censures to C Watch members under the Plaintiff's

command; with the purpose of undermining his authority;
b. acting outside of hjs role as Operations Support NCO by documenting the
performance of C Watch members and doing so in an inaccurate manner;
c. improperly restricting members of C Watch under the Plaintiff's command from

accessing programs required for fulfilment of their duties; and,
d. such further particulars as they become known to the Plaintiff.
26. The actions of Esayenko during this time period were harassing in nature as they were a

calculated and deliberate attempt to undermine and embarrass the Plaintiff and to create an
appearance that the Plaintiff could not fulfill the duties required of him as Watch
Commander.

(FL6-Q0259065;2)

 Demeaning Investigation

27. On or about March 2009, the Plaintiff was the subject of a public complainant investigation
in response to a complaint brought by a member of the public.
28. Contrary to RCMP practice, in a direct attempt to embarrass and demean the Plaintiff, Coady

assigned the investigation to a junior member who had just previously been a direct
subordinate of the Plaintiff.
29. While the complaint against the Plaintiff was deemed to be unfounded, the actions of Coady
in respect to the investigation were highly embarrassing and had a profound effect on the
Plaintiff.
Meeting with Esayenko
30. On or about March 11, 2009, Esayenko called a meeting with the Plaintiff, during which the
Plaintiff raised his concerns in relation to the Improper Charges and the harassment which he
had been subject to during the preceding months ("Esayenko Meeting").
31. Contrary to RCMP policy, following the Esayenko Meeting, Esayenko deliberately summarized
the conversation had with the Plaintiff in his official performance log, which formed part of
his permanent service file, in an inaccurate manner, which summary was an intentional
attempt to misrepresent the content and dynamics of the Esayenko Meeting so as to create
a negative perception of the Plaintiffs competency, attitude and performance. This
inaccurate summary was done for no other purpose than to harass the Plaintiff and damage

his reputation within the Airdrie Detachment and the RCMP.
32. Following the Esayenko Meeting, the Plaintiff met with Coady and raised his concerns
regarding the harassment that he was being subject to by Esayenko and the inaccurate
performance log report. In response to this information, Coady informed the Plaintiff that
because Esayenko was a more senior member of the RCMP he was unwilling to intervene.

33, The inaction of Coady in response to these complaints further exacerbated the hostile work
environment experienced by the Plaintiff and added to the deterioration of his career.
The Promotion of Poole
34. On or about March 30, 2009, Poole was promoted to a supervisory position over the

Plaintiff. During this period of supervision, in concert with Esayenko and Coady, Poole
engaged in systemic harassment of the Plaintiff.

{FLG.00259065;2}

 35. Particulars of the harassment of Poole include but are not limited to:
a. refusing to communicate with the Plaintiff by means other than email;
b. beginning in May 2009, sending adversarial emails to the Plaintiff questioning his time
management and utilization of RCMP policy;
c. on or about May 26, 2009, without seeking an explanation from or notifying the

Plaintiff of any alleged issue, creating a negative performance log for the Plaintiff in
relation to an absence without leave taken on May 23, 2009, and placing this negative

performance log into his personnel file without advising him of same;
d. relying on the May 26, 2009, negative performance log in an annual review for the

Plaintiff;
e. colluding with Coady and Esayenko to find unwarranted fault and engage in
unwarranted criticism of the Plaintiff;
f. contrary to RCMP policy, attempting to complete an annual assessment of the

Plaintiff without obtaining the signature of the Plaintiff; and,
g. such further particulars as they become known to the Plaintiff.
The Summer of 2010
36. In or around late 2009 or early 2010, the Airdrie Detachment and the Detachment located in
Beiseker, Alberta were amalgamated into a single unit (the "Amalgamated Unit").
37. In or around early July 2010, a management meeting was conducted for the Amalgamated

Unit, with many members being present including Esayenko and the Plaintiff. During this
meeting, a disagreement arose between the Plaintiff and Esayenko in relation to how the
Amalgamated Unit was to be structured.'

38. On or about August 17, 2010, the Plaintiff presented his own structure plan for the
Amalgamated Unit to management at the Amalgamated Unit. The plan presented by the
Plaintiff was eventually accepted by the RCMP and in late summer 2010 Esayenko was
informed that the plan to be implemented would be that of the Plaintiff and not his own.
39. After having his amalgamation plan rejected, Esayenko returned to his targeted harassment

of the Plaintiff, which harassment included but was not limited to Esayenko serving the
Plaintiff with three unfounded performance log censures documents in or around September
2010. These censure documents were served despite the fact that the Plaintiff was no longer

{FLG-00259065;2}

 directly reporting to Esayenko, As such, the issuing of censure reports by Esayenko to the

Plaintiff was an abuse the authority afforded to him by the RCMP.
Continuing Harassment of Esayenko and Poole
40. The ongoing campaign of systemic harassment by Esayenko and Poole continued in the

Amalgamated Unit, the particulars of which include but are not limited to:
a. on or about October 21, 2010, Esayenko ordered an improper Code of Conduct

investigation into the Plaintiff's role in attending to a routine call regarding a Sudden
Death on September 29, 2010 (the "2010 Code");
b. Poole wrongly refused to accommodate a request by the Plaintiff to have the 2010
Code investigation assigned to another qualified member;
c. Poole wrongly refused to recuse himself from the 2010 Code investigation despite the
request of the Plaintiff to do so;
d. reaching unfounded negative findings against the Plaintiff in the 2010 Code
investigation, which were ultimately dismissed;
e. disseminating negative opinions and false information about the Plaintiff to other
members of the Amalgamated Unit and the RCMP in general;
f. such further particulars as they become known to the Plaintiff.
41. As a result of this ongoing and systemic harassment, the Plaintiff was ordered, to be

reassigned to the municipal component of Airdrie Detachment of the RCMP, which move was
a lateral demotion which resulted in diminished career prospects, loss of reputation, and
personal humiliation.
The Performance Enhancement Process and Annual Assessment

42. Following his transfer to the municipal Airdrie Detachment, in or around January 2011, the
Plaintiff was wrongly placed in a performance enhancement process, a program designed to

enhance the work of alleged poor performers. The Plaintiff was specifically advised that he
was placed into the performance enhancement process due to the fact that he filed
grievances under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. R-10 (the "RCMP
Act") in regards to his ongoing harassment.
43. The placement of the Plaintiff into the performance enhancement process was a continuation

of the ongoing workplace harassment being inflicted upon the Plaintiff as well as an attempt
to intimidate and dissuade him from filing further grievances.

(FLG-00259065;2}

 44. In or around March 2011, Hamori took over command of the Airdrie Detachment. Upon
review, Hamori dismissed the performance enhancement process for the Plaintiff,

acknowledging that it had been implemented without cause.
45. In or around April 2011, Poole left the Airdrie Detachment and was replaced by Beck. As a
result. Beck became the new direct supervisor of the Plaintiff.
46. On or about October 28, 2011, the Plaintiff received a positive and exemplary work evaluation

from Beck, in which he was praised for his knowledge and skills as well as his ability to deal
with other members within the RCMP.
47. Despite his positive work evaluation, in or around November, 2011, Esayenko continued to

harass the Plaintiff within the Airdrie Detachment, which harassment included but was not
limited to:
a. criticism regarding investigations conducted by the Plaintiff's direct subordinates;
b. setting out unwarranted concerns to Beck and demanding that the Plaintiff be
required to take remedial steps regarding his direct subordinates;
c. making persistent complaints about the Plaintiff to Beck in an attempt to undermine
their positive working relationship; and,
d. such further particulars as they become known to the Plaintiff.

48. As a result of this ongoing harassment by Esayenko, in or around November 2011, Beck began

to be unjustifiably critical of the Plaintiff in how he was managing the affairs of his Watch and
alleged complaints regarding those working under his supervision.
49. In or around March 2012, Beck completed an annual assessment in which he raised

unfounded concerns, including but not limited to allegations that:
a. the Plaintiff failed to effectively manage his subordinates;
b. members under the Plaintiff's watch were subject to more complaints than other
members;

c. the Plaintiff did not make client services a priority and failed to take professional
development seriously; and,

d. the Plaintiff demonstrated poor inter-personal skills outside of the members of his
Watch.
(the "Beck 2012 Assessment").

{FLG-00259065;2}

 10

50. The Plaintiff requested a reconsideration of the Beck 2012 Assessment, which was
undertaken by Hamori in or around July 2013 (the "Hamori Assessment"). In the Hamori
Assessment, Hamori found that the Beck 2012 Assessment was incorrect and that the Plaintiff

had met all of his employment responsibility, unit objectives and demonstrated a thorough
and comprehensive understanding of criminal law, case law, RCMP policy and all operational
and administrative aspects of general duty policing.

Further Improper Conduct Towards the Plaintiff
51. In or around February 2011, Esayenko and/or Switzer began to improperly track and monitor

the Plaintiff's whereabouts using the GPS on the Plaintiffs' mobile workstation for no other
reason than to harass and intimidate the Plaintiff.
52. Also in or around February 2011, Poole and Switzer wrongly interfered with the Plaintiff's
surveillance efforts in relation to a high risk sex offender who had kidnapped a child. When
the Plaintiff expressed his concerns to Hamori and McGowan in relation to this interference

between March 2011 and November 2012, the RCMP failed to investigate or deal with the
complaint and, instead, the harassment and intimidation of the Plaintiff by Poole, Coady,
Esayenko/ Hamori and/or Switzer increased as a result.

The Negligent Investigation
53. On or about January 11, 2012, a member under the Plaintiff's supervision became the subject

of a public complaint (the "Public Complaint"), While the Plaintiff was initially designated as
the lead investigator of the Public Complaint, Beck took over the file and conducted his own
review. On or about March 13, 2012, Beck expanded the scope his investigation to include

the conduct of the Plaintiff in supervising the officer who was the subject of the Public
Complaint. On or about March 16, 2012, after speaking with Beck, Hamori informed the
Plaintiff that an internal investigation would take place in regards to the Plaintiff's role in the
incident, even though the Plaintiff was not on shift when the alleged incident occurred (the
"Negligent Investigation").

54. Despite being told that the Plaintiff was not on duty at the time of the alleged incident,
Hamori did not correct this error and the Negligent Investigation continued.
55. In or around June 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a period of parental leave prior to any
resolution of the Public Complaint. Upon his return to duty in or around November 2012, the
Plaintiff reviewed the Public Complaint and discovered that the documents giving rise to the
Negligent Investigation had been improperly removed from the file.
56. On or about April 25, 2017, the Plaintiff requested that Hamori provide disclosure of all
relevant documentation related to the Public Complaint, including the Negligent

{FLG-ODZ59065;2}

 11

Investigation, pursuant to the Access to Information Act, RSC 1985, c A-l. The disclosure

received wrongly withheld documentation and communications relating to the Negligent
Investigation, including emails which had been sent to the Plaintiff during this time.
The Letter to Deputy Commissioner and Related Repercussions

57. On or about November 21, 2012, the Plaintiff submitted a without prejudice letter, in
confidence to the Deputy Commissioner of the RCMP (the "Letter").
58. Despite the confidential nature of the Letter, it was provided to other Airdrie Detachment
members, including Hamori.
59. On or about November 11, 2012, a senior member of the Alberta RCMP ordered that a

thorough review take place regarding the complaints raised within the Letter.
60. On or about December 18, 2012, the Plaintiff was requested to attend a meeting with Beck
and Hamori (the "December 2012 Meeting") to explore the concerns which had been raised
in the Letter. During the December 2012 Meeting, the Plaintiff became aware that the Letter
had been disseminated to management at the Airdie Detachment without his consent. The

December 2012 Meeting and dissemination of the Letter was an attempt by Hamori and Beck
to intimidate and harass the Plaintiff, and to discipline him for raising concerns with the
Deputy Commissioner. The RCMP even sought approval to discipline the Plaintiff as opposed
to address the concerns detailed in the Letter.
61. On or about January 17, 2013, without the consent of the Plaintiff, Hamori sent an email to

an uninvolved member of RCMP Health Services detailing his history with the Plaintiff, the
conflict between the Plaintiff and Esayenko, the Letter and the December 2012 Meeting (the
"Improper Disclosure Email"), There was no reason for the Improper Disclosure Email to be

sent other than to harass and intimidate the Plaintiff.
62. On or around January 23, 2013, the Plaintiff commenced a period of medical leave for illness
which was contributed to in part, or exacerbated by, stress relating to his work environment.
63. On or about February 12, 2013, Hamori forwarded the Improper Disclosure Email to two

additional members of RCMP Health Services and discussed transferring the Plaintiff to
another RCMP Detachment.
64. On or about March 11, 2013, an email was sent from Hamori to the RCMP Chief
Superintendent, requesting that the Plaintiff be transferred "as soon as possible". Within this

email, Hamori also discloses that the Plaintiff had sent the Letter.

(FLG-002SS065;2}

 12

65. On or about March 14, 2013, Hamori sent an email to the Plaintiff requesting that he liaise
with the local Career Development & Resourcing Advisor to expedite a transfer from the
Airdrie Detachment, In this' email, Hamori emphasized that the Plaintiff was no longer

welcome at the Airdrie Detachment by telling the Plaintiff and that he no longer had a position
at the Airdrie Detachment.

The On Shift Supervision
66, On or about March 28, 2013, the Plaintiff returned to duty at the Airdrie Detachment from
medical leave and at approximately 1900 hours, he attended his residence on his prescribed
lunch break to administer his medication.
67. On or about March 29, 2013, Hamori sent an email to the Plaintiff advising that he had been
informed that the Plaintiff had been parked outside of his residence for a lengthy period
during his shift (the "March 29th Email").
68. In response to the March 29th Email, the Plaintiff became concerned that an unknown
member of the RCMP was conducting surveillance of his house and/or whereabouts, and
requested information from Hamori regarding the identity of this member. In response to this

request, Hamori attempted to downplay the incident and requested that the Plaintiff begin
reporting to the neighbouring Beiseker detachment until he receives a formal transfer. While

Hamori attempted to describe this arrangement as an opportunity for the Plaintiff to form a
more trusting relationship with his Commanding Officer, the new position was a constructive

demotion as the Plaintiff no longer had any subordinates or tangible duties.
69. These incidents were further, targeted harassment of the Plaintiff, resulting in a further
breakdown in the relationship between the Plaintiff and members of the Airdrie Detachment.
The Transfer
70. On or around September 4,2015, the Plaintiff was transferred to the Surrey Detachment and

commenced his duties in the Professional Standards Unit (the "PSU"). In this new role, the
Plaintiff was to report to Bradley, the Operations Support Officer of Surrey Detachment. At
the time of the transfer, the Plaintiff was designated as a medically restricted member due to
poor uncorrected vision. '

71. Following his transfer to the Surrey Detachment, officers from the Airdrie Detachment,

including the Personal Defendants, continued to interfere with the Plaintiff's relationship with
the RCMP by improperly contacting officers within the Plaintiff's chain of command in the
Surrey Detachment in order to continue the targeted harassment of the Plaintiff.

{FLG-002S9065;2}

 13

72. As part of his transfer, the Plaintiff was put into contact with Sheppard, the Departmental
National Coordinator of RCMP Relocation Services and assigned an RCMP Relocation
Reviewer (the "Relocation Reviewer").
73. As part of his relocation, the Plaintiff was entitled to collect an Interim Accommodation,

Meals and Miscellaneous Relocation Allowance ("IAM&MRA").
74. During this relocation, the Plaintiff experienced issues in finding suitable permanent
accommodation. In response to these difficulties, the Plaintiff requested an extension of the

IAM&MRA payments, which was subsequently denied by the Relocation Reviewer (the
"lAM&MRA Denial").
75. In response to the IAM&MRA Denial, the Plaintiff filed a formal internal grievance regarding
the conduct of the Relocation Reviewer and sent an email to Sheppard outlining his concerns.

In doing so, the Plaintiff had a reasonable expectation that this grievance and related
correspondence would be treated as confidential bySheppard.
76. On or about December 22, 2015, without the consent. of the Plaintiff, Sheppard advised

Bradley that a grievance had been filed by the Plaintiff and provided her with the emails that
he had received from the Plaintiff in relation to the grievance. Bradley was not entitled to
receive this information and the sharing of this information was a deliberate privacy violation
by Sheppard who through his communications to Bradley acknowledged that he was violating
the Plaintiff's privacy.

77. On May 3, 2016, the grievance over the IAM&MRA Denial was resolved in favour of the
Plaintiff. In lieu of ordering payment for outstanding IAM&MRA costs, the adjudicator
referred the matter back to the decision-maker for re-consideration (the "Grievance
Decision").

78. On July 14, 2016, Bernard, a member of the RCMP Relocation Services, informed the Plaintiff
that he did not agree with the Grievance Decision and that he refused to pay the 1AM&MRA
requested. In addition, Bernard communicated with both the E Division Headquarters PSU
("EHQ. PSU") and Bradley regarding the Grievance Decision and in doing so disclosed
confidential information pertaining to the Plaintiff. The disclosure to EHQ, PSU was made
through an error of Bernard and as a result, and diminished the reputation of the Plaintiff
within the EHQPSU.
79. On August 25, 2016, the Plaintiff was issued a censure by the direction of Bradley in relation
to his conduct surrounding the IAM&MRA Denial and following grievance. The information
on which Bradley based this censure was disclosed without the consent of the Plaintiff, and
in breach of the confidential internal grievance process.

(FLG-00259065;2)

 14

Ongoing Harassment Following the Plaintiff's Transfer
80. On or about September 28, 2015, the Plaintiff returned to Airdrie, Alberta, to discuss a
potential resolution to the concerns raised in the Letter (the "Resolution Meeting"). No
resolution was agreed to during the Resolution Meeting, however, a proposal was put

forward by the Plaintiff, which proposal was not accepted.
81. On or about February 15, 2016, in direct retaliation to the Resolution Meeting, the Plaintiff
was informed that he was being transferred from the PSU and would assume a role within
the Surrey Detachment Services Unit (the "DSU"), a clear demotion which was intended to

cause the Plaintiff to resign from the RCMP.
82. Following his transfer to the DSU, officers from the Airdrie Detachment and the Surrey
Detachment, including the Personal Defendants, continued to wrongly interfere with the

Plaintiff's relationship with the RCMP by contacting officers within the Plaintiff's chain of
command in the DSU in an attempt to continue the systemic harassment of the Plaintiff.
83. The Plaintiff raised his concerns with the transfer and, upon raising said concerns, was subject
to further harassment from those members within his chain of command, which harassment
was, in part, as a result of the wrongful interference and communication by officers in the

Airdrie Detachment and/or other management as may be determined at trial. This
harassment included but was not limited to:
. a, demands that the Plaintiff complete work activities which were outside of the
Plaintiff's job duties;
b. continuing to deploy the Plaintiff in the DSU when there was no justification for same;
c. repeatedly passing the Plaintiff over for transfer from the DSU without justification;
and,

d. such further particulars as they become known to the Plaintiff.
84. On or about September 1, 2016, the Plaintiff was placed on stress leave as a result of the

conditions and harassment he was experiencing while in the DSU. The Plaintiff returned to
work approximately one month later and was placed on a modified work schedule.

The Human Right Complaint and Repercussions
85. On or about August 15, 2016, the Plaintiff submitted a discrimination complaint to the
Canadian Human Rights Commission as he was being precluded from promotional
opportunities as a result of his medical classification and visual restrictions (the "CHRC
Complaint").

{FLG-00259065;2}

 15

86. On or about September 3, 2016, members of the RCMP received confirmation from the

Canadian Human Rights Commission (the "CHRC") that the CHRC Complaint filed by the
Plaintiff was approved for an investigation.

87. Following the issuance of the CHRC Complaint, the Plaintiff became the victim of further
harassment in the workplace, the particulars of which include but are not limited to:
a. providing undue criticism and harassment about his workplace performance;

b. being openly hostile to the Plaintiff;
c. placing unreasonable restrictions upon communication within his workplace, which

restrictions were limited to the Plaintiff alone; and,
d. such further particulars as they become known to the Plaintiff.

The 2017 Code of Conduct Investigation
88. On or about June 15,1017, the Plaintiff filed a formal complaint against Schwartz in relation
to his unjustified transfer to the DSU and the ongoing harassment he suffered while at this
unit. On or about August 9, 2017, the complaint was ordered to be subject to investigation

and McDonald was informed (the "Schwartz Investigation").
89. On or about August 15,2017, the Plaintiff received notice that he was being subject to a Code
of Conduct investigation for contravention of Section 8.1 of the RCMP Code of Conduct (the
"2017 Code"), which investigation could have resulted in his dismissal.
90. The2017CodewasorderedbyMcDonald, alleging that the Plaintiff had failed to report a loss
of items which he had been provided by the RCMP. The items which were the subject of the
2017 Code consisted of:
a. .oleoresin capsicum spray;

b. a collapsible baton;
c. two pistol magazines;

d. a RCMP patrol jacket;
e. an external vest carrier and two panels; and
f. an RCMP-issued duty belt
(the "Missing Items").

91. The Plaintiff was subjected to an initial investigation by a PSU colleague who on July 8, 2017,
reported the alleged missing items to McDonald. McDonald took no action regarding the
alleged missing items until one month passed and he was informed of the Schwartz

{FLG-00259065,-2}

 16

Investigation. McDonald did not take action regarding the 2017 Code "without delay" as
mandated by RCMP guidelines.
92. Upon receiving notice of the 2017 Code, the Plaintiff promptly provided McDonald with proof
that the Missing Items were either located in his home or had been surrendered to the Airdrie
Detachment in 2014. Despite clear evidence that the 2017 Code was based on mistaken fact
and without merit, the investigation remains on-going. The Plaintiff has made numerous

requests that the allegations within the 2017 Code. Investigation be withdrawn, but these
requests have subsequently been ignored or dismissed.

93. On or about September 21, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a formal harassment complaint against
McDonald, alleging a multitude of managerial malfeasance, as well as a complaint of

retaliation against McDonald/ alleging that the 2017 Code had been ordered as retaliation
against the Schwartz Investigation. The commanding officer improperly and without
justification refused to action-the retaliation complaint. Additionally, the commanding officer,
having been in possession of the Plaintiff's harassment complaint since October 12,2017,has

wrongly refused to order an investigation into McDonald in relation to the Plaintiff.
94. On or about August 18, 2017, the Plaintiff commenced a second period of stress leave as a
direct result of the 2017 Code and on-going workplace harassment.

95. On or about September 18, 2017, the Plaintiff returned to duty at the Surrey Detachment and
discovered that his key card access had been disabled, locking him out in open view of the
Surrey Detachment in a deliberate attempt to embarrass and humiliate him in front of his
peers. Upon gaining access to the Surrey Detachment, the Plaintiff was informed that due to

the conflicts surrounding the 2017 Code Investigation he was no longer welcome in the PSU
office and instead was provided an empty workspace segregated from other members and
was required to report to the Ridge Meadows Detachment.
96. This conduct by the management at the Surrey Detachment was intended to harass and

humiliate the Plaintiff and to emphasize that the Plaintiff was no longer welcome at the
RCMP.

Continue Deliberate Targeting of the Plaintiff
97. Throughout the Plaintiff's employment with the Airdrie Detachment and the Surrey
Detachment, including following his transfer to the DSU, the Personal Defendants continued
to engage in wrongful and harassing behavior towards the Plaintiff, which behavior includes
but is not limited to:
a. improperly sharing confidential documents and information related to the plaintiff;

{FLG-00259065;2}

 17

b. improperly sharing unwarranted negative opinions of the Plaintiff;
c, colluding with one another to harass and intimidate the Plaintiff;
d. colludingwith one another to convince the Plaintiff to resign from the RCMP;
e. improperly targeting the Plaintiff for unwarranted criticism and sanctions; and,
f. such further particulars as they become known to the Plaintiff.
Employment Contract

98. The Plaintiff and the Federal Crown, or in the alternative, the British Columbia Crown and the
Alberta Crown (collectively, the "Provincial Crowns") entered into a contract of employment

with the Plaintiff, on or about October 2, 2000, for the purpose of employing the Plaintiff as
a general duty constable (the "Employment Contract").
99. As an express or implied term of the Employment Contract, the Federal Crown/ and/or, in the
alternative, the Provincial Crowns, was to provide a work environment free from harassing
behavior and intimidation.

100. The Plaintiff faithfully a nd diligently performed his duties under the Employment Contract.
101. The Federal Crown and/or in the alternative the Provincial Crowns breached the express or

implied terms of the Employment Contract by failing to provide a safe work environment free
from harassing, intimidating and discriminatory behaviour, by allowing the conduct of the
Personal Defendants to continue as alleged in paragraphs 23 to 92 above.

102. As a result of the breach of the Employment Contract by the Federal and/or Provincial
Crowns, the Plaintiff has suffered loss and damages and will continue to suffer the same,

Impact on the Plaintiff
103. The harassment, humiliation, and loss of privacy suffered by the Plaintiff at the handsof
members of the RCMP has had a profound impact on both his health and well-being. As a
result of these acts, the Plaintiff remains limited in his position and continuously feels
unwelcome and helpless in his work environment.
104. These events have also had a negative impact on the career and reputation of the Plaintiff.

Prior to the harassment beginning at the Airdrie Detachment, the Plaintiff was a highly
regarded member of the RCMP and regularly received praise for his leadership skills and
knowledge of policy. Despite his attempts for a fresh start at different detachments, the
Plaintiff remains unable to reverse the permanent damage that these acts have caused.

{FLG-00259065;2}

 18

105. Throughout his career at the RCMP, the Plaintiff has made numerous attempts to reach out
through both informal and formal processes regarding these wrongful acts, and has been
unable to obtain any meaningful recourse or remedy. On the contrary, these attempts made

by the Plaintiff to address these on-going issues were often improperly disclosed to other
members, in breach of .the Plaintiff's privacy, and have only resulted in backlash and
retaliation.

106, Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, because of the conduct of the Defendants
herein, the Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer the following injuries, including but
not limited to the following:
a. Exacerbation and/or aggravation of psychological conditions;

b. Exacerbation and/or aggravation of physical conditions;
c. Manifestation and aggravation of non-pensioned physical conditions;
d. Loss of career advancement opportunities;
e. Humiliation and loss of reputation;
f. Loss of income;

g. Loss of enjoyment of life;
h. Loss of privacy; and
i. Such further and other damages as shall be proven at a trial of this Action.

PART 2: RELIEF SOUGHT
. 1. Damages;

2. Punitive damages;
3. Aggravated damages;
4. Special damages;
5. Interest pursuant to.the Court Order InterestAct, R.S.B.C. 1996 c.79; and
6. Such other relief as this Honourable Court deems just and appropriate.

tFLG-00259065;2}

 19

PART 3: LEGAL BASIS
1. The Federal Crown and Provincial Crowns, on behalf of the RCMP and other Crown
employees, and each of them or any combination of them are vicariously liable forthe actions
their employees, including various members of the RCMP and the Personal Defendants.

2. At all material times the Defendants owed the Plaintiff a duty of care to ensure that he worked
in a safe workplace environment free of harassment and intimidation.

3. Section 124 of the Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2 provides that every employer shall

ensure that the health and safety of every person employed by that employer is protected.
4. The RCMPAct, R.S.C. 1985, c, R-10, provides:
Conduct
Purposes
36.2 The purposes of this Part are

.(a) to establish the responsibilities of members;
(b) to provide for the establishment of a Code of Conduct that emphasizes
the important of maintaining the public trust and reinforces the high
standard of conduct expected of members;
(c) to ensure that members are responsible and accountable for the
promotion and maintenance of good conduct in the Force;

(d) to establish a framework for dealing with contraventions of provisions
of the Code of Conduct, in a fair and consistent manner, at the most

appropriate level of the Force; and
(e) to provide, in relation to the contravention of any provision of the
Code of Conduct, for the imposition of conduct measures that are
proportionate to the nature and circumstances of the contravention
and, where appropriate, that are educative and remedial rather than
punitive.

Responsibilities
37 It is the responsibility of every member
(a) to respect the rights of all persons;

{FLG-OOZ59065;2}'

 20

(b) to maintain the integrity of the law, law enforcement and the
administration of justice;
(c) to perform the member's duties promptly, impartially and diligently,
in accordance with the law and without abusing the member's

authority;
(d) to avoid any actual, apparent or potential conflict of interest;
(e) to ensure that any improper or unlawful conduct of any members is
not concealed or permitted to continue;

(f) to be incorruptible, never accepting or seeking special privilege in the
performance of the member's duties or otherwise placing the

member under any obligation that may prejudice the proper
performance of the member's duties;
(g) to act at all times in a courteous, respectful and honourable manner;

and
(h) to maintain the honour of the Force and its principles and purposes,
5; The Federal Crown and the Provincial Crowns, on behalf of the RCMP and/or the Personal
Defendants, breached their duty to provide a workplace free from harassment and

intimidation by failing to make a timely, prompt and appropriate or remedial response to the
Plaintiffs information and formal complaints as follows:
(a) failing to act in a prompt, timely, efficient and appropriate manner to the Plaintiffs
complaints of harassment and intimidation by the Personal Defendants;
(b) failing to act when the RCMP knew or ought to have known of the harassment, and
intimidation;
(c) failing to properly, or at all, reprimand the Personal Defendants for their actions
towards the Plaintiff;
(d) failing to properly, or at all, protect the Plaintiff from repercussions from the Personal
Defendants after the Plaintiff made his informal and formal complaints about them
known to the RCMP; and
(e) failing to properly, or at all, protect the Plaintiff's privacy and information when he
made his formal complaints to the RCMP.

{FLG-00259065;2}

 21

6. The Personal Defendants willfully and without justification inflicted mental suffering upon the
Plaintiff by their conduct, the particulars of which are contained in paragraphs 24 to 102 of
Part 1 above.

7. In addition, or in the alternative, the Personal Defendants negligently .inflicted mental

suffering upon the Plaintiff by their conduct, the particulars of which are contained in
paragraphs 24 to 102 of Part 1 above.
8. The Federal Crown and/or the Provincial Crowns owed a duty to the Plaintiff as a result of
being the Plaintiff's employer, to act upon the Plaintiffs complaints of harassment and
intimidation and not to acquiesce to the participation of the Personal Defendants.

9. In addition, or in the alternative, the Federal Crown and/orthe Provincial Crowns were in the

position of a fiduciary to the Plaintiff as they were in a position of discretion and power over
the Plaintiff, such power that could be exercised unilaterally as to affect the Plaintiffs legal
and practical interest, and the Plaintiff was vulnerable to the exercise of that power.

10, The Federal Crown and/or the Provincial Crowns breached their fiduciary duty which they
owed to the Plaintiff by allowing the continuing course of harassing, intimidating and
discriminatory conduct of the Personal Defendants, which conduct had been reported to the
Plaintiff's superiors at the RCMP and which rendered it impossible for the Plaintiff to continue
to work in dignity and without fear of such conduct continuing,

11. The Federal Crown and/or the Provincial Crowns were in a position of authority over the

Personal Defendants and the Plaintiff, and had the authority and ability to control, prevent
and rectify the harassing, intimidating and discriminatory behavior directed towards the
Plaintiff. The Federal Crown and/or the Provincial Crown breached their fiduciary duty to the
Plaintiff by failing to act and allowing the harassment and intimidation to continue by the
Persona] Defendants.

Plaintiffs address for service: C. Michelle Tribe
Fraser Litigation Group

1100 - 570 Granville Street
Vancouver, BC V6C IP3

Direct Number: 604.343.3110

(FLG-00259065;2}

 22

Fax number address for service (if any):

604.343.3119

E-mail address for service (if any):

mtribe@fraserlitigation.com

Place of trial:

Vancouver, B.C.

The address of the registry is:

800 Smithe Street
Vancouver, British Columbia

V6Z 2E1

Date: 13/MAR/2018
"Signature of Lawyer for the Plaintiff
Lawyer; C. Michelle Tribe

This NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM is prepared by C. Michelle Tribe of the firm of Fraser Litigation Group whose place of
business is 1100-570 Granville Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6C 1P3 (Direct #: 604.343.3110, Fax #:

604.343.3119, Email: mtribe@fraserlitigation.com) (File #: 60311-001).

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,
(a) prepare a list of documents in Form 22 that lists
(i) all documents that are or have been in the party's 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
(b) serve the list on all parties of record.

{FLG-0025906S;2}

 23

Form 11 (Rule 4-5 (2))
ENDORSEMENT ON ORIGINATING PLEADING OR PETITION
FOR SERVICE OUTSIDE BRITISH COLUMBIA .
The Plaintiff, Ryan Letnes, claims the right to serve this pleading/petition on the Defendants, The
Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General of Alberta/ Anthony Hamori, Troy Switzer, Scott
Sheppard, Rene Bernard, Scott Beck, Damon Poole, Michael Coady, Dennis Esayenko and John Doe
1-20, outside British Columbia on the ground that it concerns a tort committed in British Columbia,

(FL6-00259065;2)

 24

APPENDIX
[The following information is provided for data collection purposes only and is of no legal effect.]

Part 1: CONCISE SUMMARY OF NATURE OF CLAIM:
Workplace harassment.

Part 2: THIS CLAIM ARISES FROM THE FOLLOWING:
[Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case.]

A personal injury arising out of:
II a motor vehicle accident

[I medical malpractice
another cause

A dispute concerning:
contaminated sites
construction defects

II real property (real estate)
personal property
the provision of goods or services or other general commercial matters

m investment losses
the lending of money
an employment relationship
II a will or other issues con.cerning the probate of an estate
II a matter not listed here

(FLG-00259065;2}

 25

Part 3: THIS CLAIM INVOLVES:
[Check all boxes below that apply to this case]

]I a class action

II maritime law
Q aboriginal law
constitutional law

II conflict of laws
(X] none of the above
II do not know
Part 4:
[If an enactment is being relied on, specify. Do not list more than 3 enactments.]

Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-50
Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, C. L-2
RCMP Act/ R.S.C. 1985, c. R-10

(FLG-00259065;2)