The Rodgers Brief: Recent Episodes
Adam Rodgers
This podcast features analysis of the Nova Scotia Mass Casualty Inquiry proceedings, arising out of the tragic events of April 18-19, 2020 in Portapique and other locations throughout Central Nova Scotia. Adam Rodgers has been a leading Nova Scotian litigation and criminal defense lawyer, as well as a business and political advisor, for 15 years. He has represented clients on many ground-breaking and prominent cases, including his most recent responsibilities with the Desmond Fatality Inquiry. He has guided many businesses and public institutions though successful times.
This week, I review the controversy around the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians report on foreign interference, and the allegation that some MP's are witting participants in such interference. Also, I examine the government's Charter Statement on the proposed Online Harms Act, the Supreme Court's view on 'secret trials' in Canada, the NS justice minister's announcement that 1200 cases in Nova Scotia are at risk of being dismissed because of delays in the system, the (related) ongoing complaints of Judge Rickola Brinton about her refusal to take the Covid vaccine, Judge Perry Borden's use of an Impact of Race and Cultural Assessment in sentencing an 18 year old on gun and cocaine charges, and Justice Arnold's decision on the Chief Electoral Officer's decision to sanction on signage in the Preston by-election last summer. Finally, I review the decision this week on cannabis dispensaries on Mi'kmaq reserves in NS, and whether they represent a treaty right.
This week I focus on two NS Court of Appeal decisions. One relates to the delay in Judge Rickola Brinton's decision in the sexual interference and exploitation trial of Brandon McNeil (who now goes by the name Brynn Milner), and the plentiful blame that can be laid at the feet of Judge Brinton, as well as former Provincial Court Chief Judge Pam Williams.The other is the successful appeal of a 2nd Degree Murder charge by Gregory Purvis. The Court of Appeal found that his rights were violated through improper instructions by the trial judge to the jury deciding his case. I review those errors, and the allegation of ineffective counsel.Also covered are the appointment of former Lieutenant Governor Myra Freeman to chair the Mass Casualty Commission implementation committee, the Trump verdict (with some commentary on the performances of the two main lawyers on the case), the lawsuit filed by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador's Justice Minister John Hogan against the Federal Government regarding equalization, along with some comments on the death of Robert Pickton and the decision to drop all charges against world #1 golfer Scott Scheffler.
This week, I start with a look down south to the charges against world #1 golfer, Scott Scheffler, before the second round of the PGA Championship. I also examine the cross examination of former personal lawyer to Donald Trump, Michael Cohen, in the trial against the former President. In Canadian stories, I discuss the McGill University injunction application, seeking to end the student protests. I also review the case of the Nova Scotia government versus the Federal government over the needed upgrades to the Chignecto Isthmus. Also covered are the conviction of Colin Tweedy in his retrial over the death of 10-year old Talia Forrest, the not-guilty pleas and seeking of bail in the death of Halifax teen Ahmad Al Marrach, and the retirement of Ron MacDonald, former Anitgonish prosecutor, head of SiRT, and for the past seven years the head of the BC equivalent. Ron had some wise parting words, which other like organizations should heed.
This week, I review two major reports, the Nova Scotia Mass Casualty Commission Progress Monitoring Committee report and the Foreign Interference Commission interim report. Before that, I discuss the lack of a Charter Statement for the new Online Harms Act, the irony of the government critiquing the opposition for alluding to the Notwithstanding Clause, the rejected injunction application for the McGill campus protests, the police paraphernalia guilty plea in Sydney, and the failed Provincial Court application by Diagalon founder Jeremy MacKenzie.
This week, I cover the appointment of the new NS Justice Minister and SiRT Director, the Toronto Police Chief's Comments in the Zameer acquittal, former President Trump's claim to criminal immunity at the US Supreme Court, and how Harvey Weinstein's successful appeal would have played out in Canada.Before that, I discuss the Pierre Poilievre well-received visit to eastern Nova Scotia and Cape Breton, and his controversial stop at the NS/NB border.
This week, I examine several cases involving juries, Jeremy MacKenzie's efforts to have his NS charges dismissed, the expanding scope of video testimony, and justice spending in the new federal budget.First, on the 4th anniversary of the Portapique shootings, the NS Minister of Justice has resigned after his comments on domestic violence not being an 'epidemic'. I discuss those comments, as well as the lack of apparent effort on the Government's part to make the changes to domestic violence policy that the MCC recommended.I also briefly discuss the first dog to be subject to a custody order (in BC), and a Saskatchewan father convicted of violating a custody order when he tried to keep his daughter from getting the Covid-19 vaccine.
This week, the Foreign Interference Inquiry heard interesting testimony from Han Dong and Erin O'Toole. I discuss that testimony, the benefits of the inquiry process versus the Special Rappatour option the government wanted, and reforms needed to the Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections Task Force.The Justice Minister was interviewed by Althia Raj regarding the proposed Online Harms Act. The Minister was on the defensive throughout, and did little to ease fears that this government is overreaching on the restrictions to free speech contained in the Bill.A case out of Calgary is showing how courts will handle Medical Assistance in Dying cases on the margins. Here, the person asking to die is 27 years old, has Autism, and evidence from her father raises questions as to whether she is indeed suffering significant physical ailments. Finally, I look to the Mass Casualty Commission report one year on. The RCMP have provided an update on their efforts to implement the report recommendations, and the Province of Nova Scotia has provided a brief update as well.
Lots to cover this week after no show last weekend. The big, but underreported, story is the Federal Government appealing a decision of the Federal Court on the country-wide shortage of judges. The Chief Justice wrote to the Prime Minister about the issue, which generated a declaration from the Federal Court that the government should speed up the appointment process. Now, the government is saying that the letter from the Chief Justice is heresay, and not evidence that should have been relied upon. Quite a thing to say about the CJ. I also cover the lack of a Charter statement on the new Online Harms Act, an attempt to restructure how junior hockey players are assigned to teams, the closing of the elver fishery, a Michigan father convicted of manslaughter for his son's school shooting, a not guilty plea in the Shelburne forest fire, the failed attempt to keep the Alehouse Liquor Control Act hearing secret, and the Bedford teen who was charged with attempted murder in a school stabbing incident at C.P. Allen High School.
As we get into March Break, there are some important legal stories to cover. This week, I start with some celebrity legal news from the US - the armorer on the set of the Alec Baldwin movie, Rust, has been convicted by a jury of mishandling the ammunition that lead to the death of the cinemetographer of that movie. There was controversy in the Iditarod, when a moose encounter lead to a two hour penalty to one of the top drivers. Also, the US Supreme Court has ruled that former President Trump cannot be barred from being on the ballot by individual States.The big Canadian legal news this week was the introduction of the Online Harms Act, the latest attempt by this government to regulate the internet. This legislation has some good elements when it comes to child protection, but goes too far in creating a new bureaucracy to monitor online speech.I also review the news that the government has not made changes to the Emergencies Act, as recommended by the Rouleau Commission Report.In Nova Scotia legal news, Cassandra Desmond has been found not guilty of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon in an incident that took place on the fifth anniversary of the Desmond family tragedy. There was video of the entire incident, which Justice Hoskins said clearly showed Ms. Desmond was acting defensively the entire time. She should never have been charged.There is a class action coming regarding jail lockdowns in NS, which seems likely to be certified. Finally, there are two developing areas of law that emerged this week. One is a magic mushroom dispensary in Vancouver which has been granted a license to operate. This is similar to how cannabis legalization began to take root. Also, in Quebec, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is helping on an appeal regarding suspicionless police stops ... which happen every day all over Canada, but which are also at risk of engendering racial profiling.
This week I start with some Nova Scotia news - four judges have been named to new positions within the NS judiciary, the Bar Society issued a "clarification" on media coverage of Lyle Howe's Court of Appeal victory, and former Better Business Bureau President Peter Moorehouse was sentenced for child pornography offences.Nationally, several stories caught my attention. Cameron Ortis has appealed his conviction for sharing secrets with targets of Canadian intelligence investigations, Nathanial Veltman's sentencing concluded with a declaration that he engaged in "terrorism" in killing four members of a Muslim family with his truck in 2021, Trucker Convoy personality Chris Barber is suing the federal government over his accounts being frozen, and two human rights groups have dropped out of the Foreign Interference Inquiry over fears that other participants' access to information may put them in danger.I conclude with a story about pets rights in separations or divorce. British Columbia has enacted a law describing how such matters should be decided by courts when called upon to do so. This is the first law of its kind in Canada, and one that I can see being replicated in other jurisdictions.
This week I review how the Election Interference Inquiry is going to address evidence where there are national security concerns by the government. This has been dealt with by the Arar and Air India inquiries, and has the potential to delay or undermine an inquiry, if not handled properly.There were three Nova Scotia cases in the news this week. Kayla Borden's claim that her arrest by Halifax Regional Police in 2020 was racially motivated was rejected by the NS Supreme Court. Fenwick MacIntosh's effort to sue the victims of his sexual assaults for defamation was rejected by the Court of Appeal. Also, the Halifax Regional Police have laid a charge of 'personation' against the person that former PC candidate (and later advisor to the Minister of Immigration) Nargis DeMolitor claimed to have posted to her twitter account. This anti-Semitic post lead to Ms. DeMolitor being fired by the government.Finally, I review the unusual decision in Saskatchewan to allow a Charter claim to continue, despite the government's invocation of the notwithstanding clause.
This week saw the first court appearance of the five 2018 Canadian Junior hockey team players accused of sexual assault. I review their first appearance, and explain how the situation is being manipulated by the London Police and/or Crown, and what that means for the outlook of the case against the players.Cameron Ortis, the former Director General of the RCMP National Intelligence Coordination Centre, was sentenced to 14 years in jail after being convicted of passing on secret information to targets of Canadian intelligence officials.In Michigan, the mother of a 15-year old school shooter has been convicted of four counts of involuntary manslaughter. I discuss how that can happen, and whether that could take place in Canada.Finally, I review the Court of Appeal win for disbarred Nova Scotia lawyer Lyle Howe. Mr. Howe, a talented young lawyer, is alleging that the Bar Society engaged in malicious prosecution against him, and the Court of Appeal is allowing him to make that claim after it had been dismissed by a motions judge last year.I finish off with my pick for the Super Bowl, which should be a great game!
This week saw the release of the long-awaited Desmond Inquiry report. As one of the lawyers involved in the inquiry, I provide my perspective on the final report of Judge Paul Scovil. I discuss the four main themes of the recommendations, the transition from military to civilian life, intimate partner violence, health services for African Nova Scotians, and gaps in firearms licensing. I discuss the impact of the highly unusual decision to replace Judge Warren Zimmer after the hearings had been completed, and while he was in the midst writing his final report. There was a missed opportunity to draw attention to PTSD with dissociative episodes. There was considerable evidence that Cpl. Desmond had dissociative episodes, and that he may have been in the midst of one at the time of the tragic deaths.Finally, I gauge the reactions from the provincial and federal governments, and assess the likelihood that the recommendations will be implemented.
This week, I focus on two stories. First, five players from the 2018 Canadian junior hockey team are set to be charged this week with sexual assault. I review some of the evidence, and possible outcomes. Also, the Federal Court has declared that the government was unreasonable in invoking the Emergencies Act to combat the trucker convoy/freedom protests in Ottawa. I dive into the decision, including possible lines of appeal or legislative amendment. To start, I note that the final report of the Desmond Inquiry will be released this week, and I discuss a visit I had this week to the Mi'kmaq Friendship Centre in Halifax.
This week, I focus on some Nova Scotia-based cases, as well as the Supreme Court decision on a Quebec police officer, Jordan Peterson's rejected appeal, and the upcoming Parliament.In Nova Scotia, a 22-year old has been charged with setting the Shelburne fires, former political staffer and candidate Nargis DeMolitor has sued the Premier for wrongful dismissal and defamation after she was fired for an anti-semantic tweet, and a judge has declared that the rampant lockdowns in NS jails are illegal. Following up on some cases discussed in earlier videos, Ernest MacEvoy has been sentenced for aggravated assault after shooting his brother in the leg with a shotgun, and a Bedford teenager is seeking to have his attempted murder charge tossed due to Charter violations. The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the conviction of a Quebec police officer who was on long term medical leave, and was convicted of fraud over $5000 for minimizing his ability to work while on leave. This will reverberate through employment law circles.Jordan Peterson has lost his bid to have the Ontario Court of Appeal hear his appeal of a requirement by the Ontario College of Psychologists to have him take mandatory social media training.Finally, I look ahead to the upcoming session of the House of Commons, which will include debates on legislation dealing with cross-border device privacy, offshore energy development, and RCMP oversight, along with the public inquiry into election interference.
This week, I start by reviewing the Cameron Ortis sentencing hearing, including the intervention of Michael Kovrig, who wrote a letter in support of Ortis that brought to mind the movie 'Catch Me If You Can'. I explain why the Crown and Defense positions can sometimes be so far apart from one another.Next, I discuss the RCMP's failure to meet their year end deadline to submit a response to the recommendations of the Mass Casualty Commission.Also, I review the stalled efforts to have the wrongful conviction of Glen Assoun investigated, and what SiRT should do next. The Prime Minister took another Christmas vacation to Jamaica, and is now the subject of another complaint to the Ethics Commissioner. There have been conflicting statements from the PMO and the office of the Commissioner. I review the Conflict of Interest Code to try to provide clarification.Then, I look internationally to the case brought before the International Court of Justice by the South African government, accusing Israel of genocide, looking at the merits and the politics of the allegations.Finally, I comment on the difference between Canada and the United States when it comes to elected judges (wherein I work in a Bob Dylan quote), and how that is manifesting itself in the various cases involving Donald Trump.
Happy New Year! I hope everyone had a restful and enjoyable break. This week, I start with a few words about the 7th anniversary of the deaths that lead to the establishment of the Desmond Inquiry, and where that process currently stands. I congratulate Dr. Margo Watt on her new book on forensic psychology, and encourage non-academic readers to give it a look.Dennis Edney, long time lawyer for Omar Khadr, died this week at age 77. I remember Mr. Edney, an award winning lawyer for his pro bono work.The RCMP has closed it's case on the fires that raged on the outskirts of Halifax last summer. Residents are upset with the manner in which they found out this information.A teacher from the Annapolis Valley has been cleared of sexual assault charges which arose in 2019. Judging by the court decision, the case never should have gone on for as long as it did.Bill C-48, the bail reform legislation, is in force, and has brought some significant changes to how bail hearings will unfold for those charged with weapons or intimate partner violence offences.The Conservative Party has been denied full standing for a second time in the Foreign Interference Inquiry. I discuss what that means, and what we can expect from the Inquiry.Finally, I look south to the machinations involving former President Trump. The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that he is not eligible to be on the Presidential ballot in that State. I summarize why they have said that, and what I expect will happen when the case reaches the Supreme Court of the United States.
For my final Rodgers Brief of 2023, I cover this week's extremely vague and unhelpful update from former Justice Linda Oland on the progress of implementation of the MCC recommendations, after two days of meetings with the 16-member implementation committee.Related to the MCC, I also discuss the controversial sale of decommissioned Cape Breton Regional Police vehicles, some of which still had police markings on them.Also, I discuss a case out of Sydney where three daughters were arguing over where their mother's ashes should be buried. This is the first such case in Canada where such a dispute has made it to court.Next, I review a case in New Minas were a man accused of accessory after the fact and criminal negligence causing death made a confession and agreed to a reenactment after 6 hours of police questioning, while not being told that a senior Legal Aid lawyer was willing to meet with him in person.Finally I turn my gaze south to the ongoing Special Prosecution of former President Trump by Jack Smith. The US Supreme Court has agreed to an unusual application to hear arguments on the question of whether a President is immune from criminal prosecution while in office. I give my prediction for what they will decide.Thanks to everyone for watching and listening this year, and I will see you early in 2024!
This week, I review the reason for, and impact of, the inquiry on foreign interference decision on standing, which limited political parties' participation. Also, newly appointed Chief Judge Perry Borden has initiated a complaint against Judge Al Begin, over a decision I covered last week where the Court of Appeal overturned a decision of Judge Begin.Finally, the citizens group challenging the Antigonish Town and County councils over their approach to consolidation were dealt a setback with a decision from Justice Gabriel about the validity of the motions the two councils adopted, which asked the Provincial government to enact special legislation to consolidate the two municipal units.
This week in law, the Serious Incident Response Team's interim director is busy revisiting cases - the Onslow-Belmont shooting during the NS Mass Shooting, and the wrongful conviction of Glen Assoun.The NS Court of Appeal had harsh words for Provincial Court Judge Alain Begin after Judge Begin made remarks about an accused before closing arguments, and then tried to have those comments removed from the record that would go to the Court of Appeal.After the Randy Riley not guilty verdict, the Witness Protection Plan tried to have a publication ban made retroactive, but were rightly turned down by Justice Arnold.Finally, I discuss the housing crisis, and how courts are likely to treat any efforts to remove tent encampments from public property.Also discussed in this episode, the UK hockey manslaughter charge, President Trump's efforts to be declared immune from criminal prosecution, and the Cameron Ortis guilty verdict.
This week in law, we have seen a very unusual charge out of the United Kingdom. A hockey player has died as a result of a collision on the ice, where the skate from the opposing player hit him in the neck and ultimately led to his death. Prosecutors in the UK have charged Matt Petgrave, the other player, with manslaughter. I describe what manslaughter is supposed to mean, and how it might apply in this case.Other cases being covered this week are the closing of the Cameron Ortis trial, the Nathanial Veltman terrorism verdict, the verdict in the murder trial of U.S. cyclist Moriah Wilson, the Supreme Court of Canada's rejection of the Crown appeal of former IWK CEO Tracy Kitch, and a DUI case out of Truro where the issue of whether police can knock on a door and ask questions of the occupants. Finally, I examine the remarks of Karim Khan, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, who visited the southern border of the Gaza Strip. His main purpose was to put participants on notice that the ICC was watching matters closely, and were actively investigating the actions of Hamas that started the conflict.
This week saw the end of the fall sitting of the NS Legislature, with long sitting days, and a few pieces of legislation passed, as the PC government passes the halfway point of its mandate. The trial of Cameron Ortis, the former Director of the RCMP Operations Research group, a high level intelligence unit, brings to mind what would happen if Ethan Hunt or James Bond were brought to trial. Ortis is alleged to have shared secret information with money launderers, while he claims to have been trying to root out moles in the upper echelons of the RCMP.At the same time, the National Security and Intelligence Committee is looking to change the way the RCMP is structured. It is not clear that anyone with the power to make those changes is paying attention.In BC, a husband in a highly acrimonious divorce was convicted of voyeurism after his wife found a hidden camera in their bedroom.In NS, two cases involving large amounts of money stolen - in one, former investment advisor Quinton Sponagle is at risk of going to jail if he does not pay back $1.1 million stolen. In another, Dawn Ellis-Abbot is found to have stolen $3.2 million from Millbrook First Nation. Finally, I look to the appeal of the stay of proceedings involving Dr. Fashoranti, a doctor in Amherst who had been accused of sexual assault against three patients. This case raises serious question about the conduct of the crown prosecutors on the case.
First, a look at the big political story of the week - the government announcing a carve out of the new carbon tax for those heating with oil. This announcement has been criticized from all sides, and may be the biggest political blunder of this government. Notably, it appears to have been spearheaded by the NS MP's, lead by Atlantic Caucus Chair, Kody Blois, who briefly practiced law before being elected.Other national stories I discuss include the recommendation that responsibility for correctional services for Indigenous offenders be devolved to those communities, as overrepresentation of Indigenous offenders in federal prisons has climbed again in the last ten years from 25% to 32%. I also review the Foreign Interference Inquiry, which is going to look into interference into the 2019 and 2021 elections.In Nova Scotia legal news, William Sandeson has been denied bail by our Court of Appeal, new Judge Bronwyn Duffy was critical of police for not ensuring there was strong identification evidence in an prowling/arson trial, and Judge Del Atwood assisted a self represented accused on a resisting arrest charge.Finally, I review the tragic death of Hollie Boland this week in Cole Harbour, and the questions it raises about the bail system in Nova Scotia. The questions are fair, though I am concerned with some of the comments coming from the President of the Crown Prosecutors Association of NS about the incident, and discuss why.
This week in law, I examine why Crown Prosecutors in Nova Scotia are speaking out about the frailties of the NS justice system. I compare some of the early information from the Lewiston, Maine shootings to the NS Mass Shooting and lessons learned through the MCC. There is a new Supreme Court of Canada Justice - I cover the suspect reasons for the vacancy, and the process for appointing a SCC Justice. John Carpay and Randal Cameron, the lawyers behind the effort to follow a judge around with a private investigator during the covid lockdowns, have been banned from practicing law in Canada for three years as part of a plea deal. I examine that situation.Finally, I cover two NS cases that were published this week - one a sad story of a missed diagnosis on a newborn, and the other an unusual case of the Crown applying to have a defense lawyer removed from a homicide trial.
This week, I review a Dalhousie Law School graduate who challenged the Alberta Law Society's requirement to swear allegiance to the Queen, the Federal Crown asking the court to impose a retroactive publication ban (and then threatening to charge the Halifax Examiner with violating that publication ban) after an embarrassing display from a witness protection program witness, indigenous fishers charged in 54 cases in Nova Scotia, and a warning from the Supreme Court of NS about lawyers using artificial intelligence in their legal arguments. Before getting into the big stories, I mention the Trump lawyers who plead guilty this week to election interference charges, the Saskatchewan Parents' Bill of Rights passing, and the five year anniversary of the legalization of cannabis in Canada.
This week I look at some prominent cases brewing in Nova Scotia, along with a few situations of national scope. In NS, Provincial Court Judge Rickola Brinton is suing the Provincial Court and the former Chief Judge over trying to get her to declare her vaccination status back in 2021. Judge Brinton is looking to stay on long term disability and be paid out until she is age 65 over the issue.The federal crown is threatening to charge the Halifax Examiner, over their coverage of the Randy Riley trial, particularly their publication of details of a witness who appears to have been abusing the witness protection program.Colin MacDonald, one of the wealthiest Nova Scotians, is being accused of sexual misconduct by a former IWK Foundation fundraiser. I examine what his defenses might be.Nationally, the Supreme Court of Canada struck down environmental assessment legislation brought in by the federal Liberals in 2019, whereby 'special projects', such as pipelines, would be subjected to a special procedure.I also discuss the gender/pronoun/parental rights situation in Saskatchewan, and the Ottawa trucker convoy trial.
Happy Thanksgiving weekend! This week, I examine the Randy Riley not-guilty verdict and the unnecessarily long path to justice that was involved in his case. I also look at the Occupational Health and Safety case against Nova Scotia Power and Brunswick Engineering, which had closing arguments this week. Finally, I look at the trial of Pat King, one of the Freedom Convoy organizers. Mr. King is attempting to move his trial from Ottawa, due to his notoriety in the city.
This week in NS and Canadian law, there were reviews announced, reports released, new judges named, and a progress monitoring committee meeting. The two new NS Provincial Court judges are Alonzo Wright and Mark Heerema. Judge Wright was most recently the Director of the Serious Incident Response Team, which investigates potential misbehaviour among police officers in NS. He was new to that position, and now SIRT is in the hands of an interim Director. Judge Heerema was a Provincial Prosecutor, who had recently been defending the government's secretive approach to releasing information on the NS mass shooting.The Mass Casualty Commission Progress Monitoring Committee met this week, and released very little information afterwards. It has now been six months since the release of the MCC final report, and few (if any) of the recommendations have been implemented.One recommendation had been to conduct a review of policing in NS. The government announced this week that there would be a review, with the report expected in about a year and a half from now, just before the next election. The same timing is applicable to the other review announced this week, that of the Freedom of Information system in NS.There was news out of the Cape Breton Regional Municipality, where the fire chief, Michael Seth, resigned. It was then revealed that Chief Seth had made a harrassment complaint against four councilors regarding comments made about changes to celebrations planned for July 1st. A report from an employment lawyer found that harassment had taken place. I take a critical view of that report.Finally, the Saskatchewan Supreme Court has granted an injunction against the government implementing an education policy aimed at ensuring parental consent before any student under age 16 can use their choice of pronouns or names in school. Premier Moe has indicated the government will use the notwithstanding clause of the Charter to ensure the policy is followed. I examine the decision, and predict how the issue will play out in courts and legislatures in the months to come.
This week in NS and Canadian law involved stories on the Nova Scotia government deciding not to ban non-disclosure agreements in sexual assault or harassment cases. This decision was heavily criticized, but in my view, not well understood. I try to explain the factors at play, and why the PEI legislation on the topic is not as helpful as some may think.In NS this week, the Court of Appeal rejected MLA Elizabeth Smith-McCrossin's attempt to gain intervenor status in the case dealing with whether the federal or provincial governments have jurisdictional responsibility to ensure the Chignecto Isthmus is safe from rising sea waters.The last of the 12 convicted Burnside Jail attackers was sentenced this week. Matthew Lambert was in jail already on drug charges, which were a factor in this sentencing.In Saskatchewan, a group called UR Pride is taking the government to court over 'parental rights' educational policies, and is seeking an injunction on the enforcement of the policy pending the outcome. Tamara Lich and Chris Barber's trials continued this week in Ottawa. I look back at the Rouleau Commission's comments on the two, and how that may affect the criminal trial outcome.Finally, I discuss international law context of the recent killing of Sikh leader Hardeep Singh Nijar, and the Canadian government's accusation against India. When (if ever) are countries allowed to kill someone in another State?
The Rodgers Brief is back after a summer hiatus. In this episode, I discuss some of the political developments from the federal and provincial cabinet shuffles, as well as my reflections on the Conservative Party national convention in Quebec City, a place that is truly a national treasure as a city. I discuss the Halifax Alehouse attempt to make a Liquor Control Act hearing confidential, with two of their bouncers being charged criminally. On the more national scale, I review the first week of the Tamara Lich/Chris Barber 'trucker convoy' trial, and also the Canadian Civil Liberties Association lawsuit against the New Brunswick Department of Education regarding the changes to a policy that would require schools to obtain parents' consent before using the chosen name of a transgender/nonbinary student.
This is going to be the last video prior to a summer break for the Rodgers Brief. If any major stories arise, I will be back with videos, and regular scheduled weekly analysis will return in September. This week, I review the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Basque, where the Court made a major change to how driving prohibitions are done following convictions for driving while impaired. Now, pre-conviction driving prohibition time will count towards a sentence. Also this week, the NS Civil Liberties Association was denied standing to argue that the highway blockade bans in NS in January and February 2022 were unjustified, a decision granting a mother's move to Ottawa with her child was overturned by the Court of Appeal, and a man who was convicted of shooting his brother was found not guilty of intent to endanger his brother's life. Finally, I review the decision of the US Supreme Court to strike down the affirmative action admission programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina
Link to buy the book; https://www.amazon.ca/Post-Atheist-21st-Century-Democratic-Governance/dp/1778104223
This week in law, I examine the writ of mandamus application by an Ontario lawyer to force the Federal Government to name judges, the new Federal 'Action Plan' re: the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the NS MLA suing the government over a resolution aimed at expelling her from the Legislature, an estate case where a dying beneficiary asked her mother to give her share to her husband, a sexual assault trial where the admissibility of Tinder messages was discussed, and a dispute between Sipekne’katik First Nation and Mi'kmaq Family and Children's Services over the value of a building on the Reserve after MFCS was told to vacate the property.
Happy Father's Day! This week in law, I cover the controversy over the shortage of Judges in NS's Provincial Court, the Crown cross-appeal of the William Sandeson verdict, the rejected claim for $170,000 compensation for illegally caught lobster, the 15 year old accused C.P. Allen student's plea on attempted murder by stabbing allegations, the tragic life and death of the wrongfully convicted Glen Assoun, the Canadian Civil Liberties' complaints about Bill C-20, the Supreme Court of Canada's verdict on the Safe 3rd Country legislation, the early and controversial retirement of Supreme Court Justice Russel Brown, and finally the use of former President Donald Trump's lawyer's notes in forming the case against him.
This week in law, I discuss the proposal to move notorious killer and rapist Paul Bernardo to a medium security prison, the likely reasons behind the request, and what changes could be made to parole reviews in order to avoid this kind of situation. In addition, I cover the failed attempt to certify a class action lawsuit against a suspended Halifax dentist, Dr. Errol Gaum, and also the sentencing of former Better Business Bureau CEO Peter Moorhouse's co-accused. Internationally, there is the new indictment against former President Trump, and a decision from the International Criminal Court regarding an alleged war criminal from Rwanda. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association issued a critique of the Hamilton Police usage of drones in the investigations. I discuss the privacy implications, and how drones may have a chilling effect on protests and freedom of expression. Finally, I review an article from the Economist on the predicted effects of artificial intelligence on the practice of law.
This week in law, I review the appointment of retired Court of Appeal Justice Linda Oland as temporary chair of the Mass Casualty Commission implementation committee, the not-guilty verdict of former RCMP officer Kevin O'Brien on an allegation of sexual assault by a former colleague, the Crown application to have Brian Marriott declared a Dangerous Offender, the slip and fall claim by Garnet MacPherson against the Strait Regional Centre for Education, the novel property division in the case of Nadeau v. LaKing, and finally the non-quota tobacco issue in Membertou.
This week, I cover the recommendation from former Governor General David Johnston that there not be an inquiry into allegations of foreign interference in our elections. One of his concerns was how an inquiry would deal with top secret documents, and I have some suggestions for that.This week saw the first "State of the Courts" event in Nova Scotia, where the chief justices of the court of appeal, supreme court, and provincial courts all spoke about the issues facing the NS court system, including Covid backlogs, a shortage of judges, and new technology being utilized. The court also reaffirmed its independence, in remarks aimed at the general public.In caselaw this week, I discuss the legal fees paid by a Newfoundland school board for a failed defense on a human rights case, a Deputy Sheriff being charged with breaching a publication ban in the CP Allen stabbing case, the delay in former Better Business Bureau CEO Peter Moorhouse's child luring case, and the not guilty verdict in the Carrie Low sexual assault case.
This week in law, I remember my late client, Barbara Reddick, who was so much more than people know from the chase-the-ace case that put her in the spotlight. I then discuss new federal legislation on bail reform, as well as the just-passed firearms legislation C-21. Then, in caselaw this week, I discuss a small claims court decision on collectable cars and action figures that was appealed from the Residential Tenancies Board to the Small Claims Court, and how the landlord inadvertently helped the tenant make their case, increasing their damages by ten times.A Truro man was sentenced for threatening Provincial Court Judge Begin, a process which required a New Brunswick Judge to be brought in.In R. v. MacEvoy, two brothers who had not spoke in 20 years had an argument that lead to one shooting the other with a 12 gauge shotgun. He claimed self-defense in a case heard by Judge Ross.Finally, I review the CBC story about a Police Review Board decision on the allegations of racism made by Kayla Borden. I comment on the decision, and whether Ms. Borden would be wise to proceed to judicial review, as her lawyer has indicated she is considering doing.
This week in law, I review the CBC reporting on police oversight boards in Nova Scotia and how it does not align with the advice from the Mass Casualty Commission. I also review the case of R. v. Minugh, where an aspiring law student is sentenced for vile harrassment and comments directed towards Cst. Nick Dorrington, who was highly regarded for his actions and testimony in the MCC. After that, I cover two family law cases. One involved parents who disagreed over whether their 11 year old daughter should receive the Covid-19 vaccine. The other, from the Supreme Court of Canada, significantly strengthens the validity of separation agreements made without legal advice, which have been clouded in uncertainty over the past several years.
This week in Nova Scotia legal stories includes analysis of a decision involving a dramatic theft of an RCMP cruiser and the brave efforts of the officer to stop and arrest the thief. The case is R. v. Pike, and is a decision of Justice Hunt.The 'R' in caselaw is changing with the coronation of King Charles III. Instead of R representing the Queen, it is now the King, and all court clerks and document drafters need to get accustomed to the habit of saying and writing King when opening and closing court, or drafting court documents.In the news this week were the second lawsuit against former King's College professor, and Anglican minister, Wayne Hankey. King's has acknowledged their liability, and so I suspect this suit being filed is an indication that the two sides are far apart in valuing the claim.William Sandeson has filed another appeal of his conviction. This appeal was hand-written and done by Sandeson himself, which is a good indication of its chances of success.Just after the 11 minute mark, I review the Road Trails Act, a new piece of legislation in NS that allows parts of roads to be designated for use by ATV's and other off-road vehicles. There are many rules about how those roads must be used once designated, and I review how that is all designed to work.
To start the podcast, I give a preview of my forthcoming book of legal and political philosophy, "The Post-Atheist 21st Century - An Evolution in Democratic Governance and Personal Meaning", which will be available in the coming week on Amazon. It is aimed at intelligent and curious regular (that is, non-academic) readers, and attempts to describe a trend in governing ideology that is free from ideologies. It then talks about how to live while understanding that our existence is temporary, and there is no foundational ideology.This is a different project than people may be used to seeing from me, but also takes many of the same approaches to explaining complex ideas in a way that can be more easily digested.Now, back to the regular Rodgers Brief content ... In what should be an embarrassing turn of events for the Liberal Government, the Nova Scotia Federal Boundaries Commission has emphatically rejected suggestions from three NS Liberal MP's who sought to interfere with the independent setting of riding boundary lines. Starting just after the 10:30 mark of this video, I review the 25 page decision from the Commission, which systematically and thoroughly addressed each argument put forth by MP's Jaime Battiste, Lena Diab, and Minister Sean Fraser. The PROC parliamentary committee, chaired and dominated by Liberal MP's, had voted in favour of their colleagues' objections, which meant the Commission had to take a second look at their own work in light of those objections. The Commission, chaired by Court of Appeal Justice Cindy Bourgeois, was particularly critical of Mr. Battiste, using phrases like "fundamental misunderstanding on his part", "his failure", "questionable relevance", and "simply incorrect". They also note his reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, which was passed by the Federal gov't, and that this legislation contemplated an implementation plan being in place within two years. They point out that we are beyond two years, and there is no such plan in place, and certainly nothing that addresses electoral boundaries.I also discuss C-11, the controversial online streaming legislation, as well as new justice legislation aimed at providing a means for lifting publication bans and also changing the way the sex offender registry operates. Finally, I talk about this week's released caselaw from the Courts of Nova Scotia, with some emphasis on a cocaine sentencing case which demonstrates how careless criminals can be in the course of their work.
This week in law, I look at prominent cases in the United States and Nova Scotia. The charges against Alec Baldwin, arising from the shooting on the Rust movie set, have been dropped by special prosecutors brought in to handle the matter. My Pillow founder, and prominent election denier/conspiracy theorist, Mike Lindell, has been ordered to pay $5 million to a software forensics expert who won a contest to "Prove Mike Wrong". This case reminds me of one of the first contracts cases every law student learns, the Carbolic Smoke Ball case from 1892.Fox News and Dominion Voting Systems have settled DVS's defamation claim against Fox for $787 million. I compare that to the most famous Canadian defamation case, Hill v. Church of Scientology.In Nova Scotia, the Court broadcast the parole eligibility hearing of William Sandeson, the almost med student who was recently convicted of killing a fellow Dal student. Also in NS, the 15 year old student from CP Allen High School in Bedford who is accused of attempted murder after bringing a knife to school, has been found fit to stand trial. I review what I see as several problems with the way this case is unfolding. Finally, I review the appeal decision on my former colleague, Donn Fraser, who was found not guilty at trial of criminal harassment of another former colleague. The appeal has little to do with the lawyers allegedly involved in the dispute, but rather focuses on the Judge who acquitted Mr. Fraser. Justice Gabriel of the Supreme Court of NS was highly critical of Judge Begin of the Provincial Court for his interactions with Crown Prosecutor Darcy MacPherson. I disagree with some of Justice Gabriel's conclusions, and in doing so discuss the relationships between judges and lawyers, the obligations of the judge to be free from bias, and how it is the job of the lawyer to understand and be respectful of the judge before whom they are appearing.
This week in law, a final update from the Mass Casualty Commission, where they urge everyone to work on their recommendations, and note that they will not longer monitor their social media or emails. The spring sitting of the Nova Scotia Legislature has ended after 14 days. There were very few mentions of the MCC in the legislature after the final report was issued. I review some of the legislation that passed during this session.The 15 year old who was arrested for a knife incident was back in court, where the judge ordered a psychological assessment. I discuss what that might mean.The Supreme Court of Canada issued two decisions this week. In one, they say that for a DUI breath demand, the officer must have the approved screening device on hand, or be able to have immediate access to it. In the other, the Court confirmed the right of Quebec to restrict people from growing cannabis, even though it is legal by federal law.The Prairie Premiers and the Federal Justice Minister had words over comments from Minister Lametti about potentially revisiting the 1930 agreement that gave Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba the same authority over natural resources that other provinces already enjoyed. I talk about who is right, and the question of how this all interacts with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Finally, a 'fun' case out of Australia of a self represented person in a prolonged foreclosure case who won out in the end, in what the judge called a 'comedy of errors'.
This week in law, I review the historic indictment against former President Trump, and discuss how different that case would be here in Canada, and my assessment of the relative strength of the case. Included is a short digression of the only sitting U.S. President to be arrested - in that case, for speeding a horse.I gave been reading more of the Mass Casualty Commission report, and one piece that has not been covered in the media since the report's release is the criticisms contained in Volume 7, the final part of the report. In this section the Commissioners are very critical of the RCMP and Federal lawyers for the Attorney General in the way they handled disclosure issues. They were also quite critical of Patterson Law for representing clients in both the Inquiry and in civil claims, strongly suggesting this is a conflict of interest, and recommending that law societies study the question. Finally, the Commissioners criticize Premier Tim Houston for issuing a statement on the opening day of the MCC, though say nothing of Federal Minister Sean Fraser, who did the same thing, nor do they show the least bit of contrition for any possible mistakes they may have made that perhaps may have lead to the criticism.The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is taking the Federal Government to court over the invocation of the Emergencies Act. Though this has already been the subject of an Inquiry, the question of legality is still open for determination, as the findings of Justice Rouleau in the POEC are not binding on the Federal Court.To start the video, I mention a case out of the NS Small Claims Court that may be of interest - what happens when the price of lumber skyrockets during a pandemic when you have already agreed on the price to build a home? This case involved a claim for the maximum of $25,000 that the Small Claims Court can award.
Analysis of the MCC final report from the Nova Scotia lawyer who followed the Commission proceedings throughout. I have written my own report on the events and the public inquiry hearings, and compare my findings to those of the Commission.In the video, I discuss the findings on how policing should change, and how domestic/gender-based violence should be addressed much differently. I also cover the questions of political interference, whether the killer was an informant, whether he was involved in organized crime, recommended changes to gun laws, and improved public alerting in emergency situations.
This week in Canadian and Nova Scotian law stories involves a range of issues from the Mass Casualty Commission to treason allegations, a DUI Charter breach analyzed by the Supreme Court, and problems with the reaction to the knife incident this week at the C.P. Allen high school in Bedford.The Mass Casualty Commission may be trolling us. Their final report is being released next Thursday, and yet they are still releasing 'new' material, and being coy about how long their final report will be. A report on what should have been a major area of analysis of the MCC, cross border gun smuggling, was released yesterday - and the report was dated July 23, 2020. Also, the Commissioners are telling us that their final report will be between 2000-3000 pages. They may know the actual number by this time, but for some reason are still giving a very wide range.The NS Department of Justice has released it's business plan, as part of the Provincial budget. There is no mention of the MCC in the list of priority areas, or of police reform.The National Citizens Inquiry, which is a privately funded initiative looking into the government handling of the pandemic, was in Truro last week. This inquiry has been flying under the radar, though has big ambitions. Hopefully, a credible final report will emerge from the process.Liberal MP Han Dong has resigned from caucus after allegations emerged that he was undermining efforts to free Canadian hostages Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. Journalist Stephen Mahar wondered on twitter whether this could be considered Treason under our Criminal Code, and I examine that question.The Supreme Court of Canada rendered a decision this week on an impaired driving case. They ruled that, despite the accused being arbitrarily detained, the evidence against him should be admitted, and a conviction entered.In their Year in Review, the Supreme Court highlighted their independence from government, and included as their featured decision the Bissonette mosque shooter case where they determined the accused could not have consecutive periods of parole ineligibility. Finally, I look at this week's knife incident that shut down the C.P. Allen High School in Bedford. The Teacher's Union seems to be hinting they need more money for hallway supervision, and the Crown has (prematurely, and problematically) announced that they will be seeking an adult sentence for the 15-year old accused.
This week in Nova Scotian and Canadian law, I give a preview of the Mass Casualty Commission's final report, which is set to come out March 30th. The MCC stated this week that the report will be between 2000-3000 pages, a statement that seemed designed to ward off 'instant' reactions or critiques as being necessarily ill-considered. The final decision on the search warrants issued about Gabriel Wortman's properties was delivered last week. I take a look, and discuss how the police and governments can be more transparent.On government transparency, Parker Donham had a decision go against him regarding an application under freedom of information legislation. He was seeking information on the Seal Island Bridge, and opposed the granting of an extension of time for the government to provide the information.In a small claims court case released this week, a dog breeder successfully sued a couple who bought a White German Sheppard, and then had it neutered, in violation of their contract with the breeder.There was a decision released this week on riparian rights in Nova Scotia, which is the right of anyone who owns land adjacent to waterways to access navigable waters from their shoreline. This lawsuit arose when neighboring property owners built a wharf that interfered with the ability of the plaintiff to access waters from her property.Finally, I look to an open letter on the federal government's efforts to craft legislation on online safety, signed by a dozen or so civil liberties organizations.
This week in law, I discuss my day at the Applied Forensic Psychology Day at St. F.X., the successful appeal by former IWK CEO Tracy Kitch, how a Quebec Judge says giving 'the finger' is a god-given right, the Province of NS's defense to the Allison Holtoff lawsuit, the trial of retired RCMP officer Kevin O'Brien on an allegation from 29 years ago, and an erroneous video on the distracted driving laws. Finally, I review the Tim Horton's App case, and conclude that Tim's has more questions to answer and information to provide to contest 'winners' and the public, and how they should probably just go back to the physical rolling rims.
The big stories this week in Canadian law are the New Brunswick Court of Appeal decision on Justin Bourque, the killer of three RCMP officers in 2014, and the attempts by the Chinese government to influence the past two Canadian federal elections. There were also two big stories out of the United States. In one, South Carolina 'legal dynasty' heir Alex Murdaugh was found guilty of murdering his wife and son, in a case that could be a John Grisham novel. In the other, a Special Grand Jury foreperson in a claim against former President Trump has been giving interviews to whoever will have her on, a scenario that would be unheard of in Canada. In the video, I also cover the new Nova Scotia Supreme Court protocols on appearances by video or phone, as well as the news that retiring RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki was scheduled to speak on "Handling Mass Casualty Events" at the World Police Summit in Dubai next week. Soon after that news was discovered, it was announced that Commissioner Lucki would not go to the Summit, for 'personal reasons'.
This week in Nova Scotian and Canadian law, I start with an analysis of the Mass Casualty Commission announcement that they are releasing their final report on March 30th in Truro. Next, I review the strange case out of Musgrave, NF where a municipal councilor was re-instated by the Court after having been removed for violating the Town's vaccine mandate. Next, I review the William Sandeson jury verdict, where they found the Dal Med student guilty of 2nd degree murder. There was also this week an insightful decision on Sandeson involving a violation of rules at the Burnside Jail, where the Justice involved did not find Sandeson to be a credible witness. The family of Allison Holtoff is suing Nova Scotia Health, after Ms. Holtoff died in the hospital in Amherst after waiting over seven hours to be seen. Former MLA Hugh MacKay managed to avoid jail time in his second DUI conviction, after pleading guilty to drinking and driving in 2018. The details revealed at sentencing were troubling in several senses. Antigonish Town and County are pursuing amalgamation, but it is being delayed by a group of County citizens who are taking the municipality to court over the procedures adopted. A future court date has been set for July, making it unlikely that the Province will introduce legislation this spring effecting the amalgamation. The Ecology Action Centre has successfully appealed their denial of public interest standing in the re-alignment of the road around the proposed Pieridae LNG plant in Goldboro. I discuss what that means for the project. Finally, I go back to last week's report from Justice Rouleau following the Emergencies Act Inquiry.
The Public Order Emergencies Commission report was released this afternoon. I review the legal questions arising from the inquiry, and analyse the report from Justice Rouleau
This week in Nova Scotia and Canadian legal news, the biggest story is the early resignation of RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki. Commissioner Lucki was under fire for her performance during the Freedom Convoy, as revealed in the Emergencies Act Inquiry. As well, she was featured in some controversial moments in the Mass Casualty Commission in Nova Scotia. I argue that she was made a scapegoat in that scenario. The next Commissioner is going to have a difficult job to do, potentially being tasked with a re-imagining of the RCMP as an entity. The NS Court of Appeal released their decision on the Crown appeal of the acquittal of Colin Tweedie regarding the death of a young girl he struck with his car near Sydney. The Court said that the trial judge failed to apply the proper laws on impaired driving, and also failed to consider the issue of willful blindness as to whether he had struck a person rather than a deer, as he claimed. In Kentville, two Town Councilors were in court over a property deal on Main Street. One Councilor had bought the property to build apartments, but when constructions deadlines were not met, the Town voted to revert the property back to Town ownership. The Councilor who wanted to develop the property alleged that another Councilor who also owned apartments should not have voted. The NS Supreme Court disagreed. Finally, I review the closing arguments in the William Sandeson jury trial. As I recorded this, the judge was giving the jury instructions before the go off to deliberate. I analyze the closing submissions, and give some predictions for what the jury may decide.
I start this episode by discussing a visit I had with 4th year forensic psychology students at St. F.X., their thoughts on my Deficits of Trust report, and on the psychology of the killer, Gabriel Wortman. This week also saw the federal government file its defense to the lawsuit started by Wortman's spouse, Lisa Banfield. I discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the defense. The murder trial of William Sandeson took a dramatic turn this week, with Sandeson himself taking the stand and (for the first time) claiming that he shot Taylor Samson in self-defense. I go through he claims, and evaluate how the Crown's case is now looking, as well as what kind of special instruction the judge may now have to provide to the jury. This week in Canadian law, non-disclosure agreements and bail reform were under discussion at the Canadian Bar Association conference. Justice Minister Lametti suggested that the federal government will heed the calls from the opposition and the Premiers to make changes to our bail system for alleged offenses where guns are involved. I also review the change of plea for former MLA Hugh MacKay, the proposed class action lawsuit against the Canadian Hockey League, Dalhousie Law students claims of racism, and the Law Society of Alberta vote on mandatory education on indigenous legal culture and traditions.
The NS Mass Casualty Commission issued an update this week on their progress, as we approach the March 31st (extended) deadline for their report. I review the update, and a talk with St. F.X. students I will be giving this week. Small Claims Court Adjudicator, Tuma Young K.C. issued a decision this week in the Mi'kmaw language. In doing so, he referenced the Mi'kmaw Language Act which was passed last year, and which enshrined Mi'kmaw as Nova Scotia's 'first' language. The devolved Scottish Parliament in Edinburg is attempting to pass gender recognition legislation that is generating major controversy and push-back in the UK. Canada has been cited as an example by the governing SNP of how such legislation might operate. British Columbia is starting a three-year pilot project, with the approval of the federal government, to legalize the possession of up to 2.5 grams of hard drugs, in an effort to treat the issue as one best primarily dealt with as a public health matter. I discuss how this is expected to work, and why it does not directly address the main cause of the thousands of deaths this policy is designed to prevent. Finally, I review two cases released by the Supreme Court of Canada last week dealing with Charter challenges to the validity of mandatory minimum sentences in cases involving gun violence. The defendants claimed that reasonable hypothetical situations showed that the mandatory minimum sentences amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. The Court agreed in one case but not in the other. I explain why, and why some may prefer Justice Cote's dissenting opinion in the one where the Court struck down the law.
This week in The Rodgers Brief, I review the pending dispute in the federal election boundaries in Cape Breton. One MP neglected to speak up when consultations were ongoing, and is now trying to claim that the boundary changes violate the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
In other NS cases, a man was convicted after confessing to a sexual assault and attempting to claim his diabetes may have affected his thinking when he made his confession.
William Sandeson's trial continued this week, with warnings from Justice Chipman for the jury to not be influenced by anything they read in the news. That would include the news reports from the original trial, and also the story this week about the Canada-wide arrest warrant issued for one of the Crown witnesses.
Finally, I review a case out of the NS Supreme Court of a woman who applied to be allowed to move with her four-year old to Ottawa, away from the child's father. Mobility cases can be a challenge, and this one provides some helpful guidance for those considering the same.
I also discuss the shortage of Judges in NS, and some national news stories involving repatriation of ISIS-involved Canadians, the Shaw/Rogers merger appeal decision, and the lack of evidence on allegations that the Alberta Premier interfered with the prosecution of Coutts, Alberta trucker/freedom protestors.
There were some interesting cases out of Nova Scotia this week, including the Crown's successful appeal of Colin Tweedy's acquittal on the death of 10 year old Talia Forrest, and the retrial of Dal Med student William Sanderson for the murder of fellow student Taylor Samson. There is a new Federal tax in place, which seem to be encroaching on Provincial jurisdiction. The Underused Housing Act targets residential properties that are owned by non-citizens or non-residents, and imposes an annual tax of 1% of the value. The big story of the week internationally is the announcement that Alec Baldwin would be arrested for involuntary manslaughter (the equivalent of Criminal Negligence Causing Death in the Canadian Criminal Code) following the shooting death of the cinematographer on the set of the film 'Rust' in 2021. Baldwin had a gun that was to be a prop in the film. The charges should not have been laid against Baldwin, and this seems to be an effort by the District Attorney to get her 15 minutes.
In this episode, the final of the series, I read from Deficits of Trust, Part 3, sections 15-16 The Future of Policing is Not Present; Ending Without Closing; Summary of Recommendations
In this episode, I read from Deficits of Trust, Part 3, sections 13-14 - Lisa Banfield Answers No Real Questions, Avoids Criminal Charges; The MCC Really Wants You to Know It Cares About Domestic Violence
In this video, I read from Deficits of Trust, Part 3, sections 11-12 Unnecessary Accommodations for Senior RCMP Officers Leads to Participant Boycotts; Critical Incident Experts Not Permitted to Criticize Incident
This week, I focus mainly on Nova Scotia cases, including the tragic death of 37-year old mother of three, Allison Holtoff, and the legal threats made by the Provincial Department of Justice to Independent MLA Elizabeth Smith-McCrossin. MLA Smith-McCrossin was speaking out on behalf of her constituent, alongside Ms. Holtoff's husband Gunter, after Ms. Holtoff died after a six-hour wait at the emergency room of the Cumberland Regional Health Centre. The executive director of legal services, Michelle Higgins, wrote the MLA, threatening her with legal action if she did not take down a letter which she had posted to Facebook about the incident.
Other Nova Scotia cases in the news include two decisions dealing with food, social, and ceremonial fishing licenses held by aboriginal fishers, a civilian review of an RCMP officer tasering an armed forces veteran, a delay of 49 months leading to a dangerous driving charge being stayed, and the re-trial of Dalhousie medical student William Sanderson on a murder charge.
Finally, I review the allegations against Jordan Peterson by the Ontario College of Psychologists, and the decision to make him take social media training.
In this video, I read from Deficits of Trust, Part 3, sections 9-11 - Disorienting, Not Trauma Informed, Approach to Evidence, Attending the MCC In Person - More Like a Seminar, Withholding Big Stop Videos
In this video, I read from Deficits of Trust, Part 3, sections 5-8 - Pausing Before Starting - Delay for Narrative Formation, Marginalization of MCC Participants, and Early Outlook for the MCC and Police Intelligence Questioning
This week's analysis starts with three cases out of Nova Scotia - a homicide on a home invasion in Halifax where the occupier of the home killed one of the intruders and was determined to be acting in self defense, a small claims court case involving a legal bill on a divorce where the adjudicator incorrectly agreed to keep the names of people involved anonymous, and the failed attempt by Ernest Fenwick MacIntosh to claim defamation against the victims of his historical sexual assaults. Then, I review the tragic death of OPP Cst. Pierzchala, and the calls by many, including CPC leader Pierre Poilievre, to strengthen Canada's bail regime for violent offenders. I analyze Bill C-75, which in 2019 made significant changes to the approach to bail. I review the arrest of the head of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Reforms, John Carpay, on a charge of intimidating a justice system participant, and his wrongful lengthy arrest procedure in Calgary. Finally, I discuss the Ontario College of Psychologists' attempt to discipline Jordan Peterson over social media postings. This seems to involve someone at the College trying to use Peterson's fame to draw attention to themselves. I do not expect this to go well for the College, and review how professional disciplinary matters can unfold, and how they can be appealed to the (more) legitimate court system.
In this video, I read from Deficits of Trust, Part 3, sections 1-4, Calls For an Inquiry, Inquiry is Political and Legal, The Commissioners, and Elasticity of “Trauma Informed”
Looking back on 2022 in Canadian Law means looking back at three public inquires that took place, some notable decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada, and some thoughts on pandemic-related litigation.
The Desmond Inquiry and the Mass Casualty Commission were based in Nova Scotia, but are national in scope, examining re-integration of our military members, and the way we are policed. The Public Order Emergency Commission is examining whether it was proper to invoke the Emergencies Act back in February during the trucker protests. Each of those inquiry reports are expected to be released in early 2023. The Supreme Court made decisions dealing with mandatory minimum sentencing, rights to counsel, and drug-induced automaton defenses.
In 2023, we will see the reports from the various inquires, and will potentially see a privately funded inquiry examining the governments' response to the pandemic. I will also be watching to see whether there is any development in the Federal Department of Fisheries towards establishing a regulated, Marshall decision-based aboriginal fishery on the east coast, which might help put an end to violent confrontations on the wharves and waters in our fishing communities.
The Big Stop, Post-takedown Misinformation and Political Calculations, Manipulating, Then Overprotecting, Lisa Banfield
In this section, I will outline and review what we know about the events of April 18-19, 2020. Much of this information comes from the MCC investigations, but there are other important sources as well. I have attempted to organize the details in a cohesive narrative, covering what happened, and what could have happened instead, if police had made better decisions as events unfolded.
This reading is of the sections 15-17 of that part of the Rodgers Brief report
This week, the focus is on two Nova Scotia Court of Appeal decisions, the Federal government attempting to override the independent Electoral Boundaries Commission, and how to have a legal Christmas party.
In R. v. Mitchell, the NSCA called out an RCMP Corporal for deliberately violating the Charter rights of an accused by kicking down his door and attempting to arrest him without a warrant inside his house. The Appeal Court agreed with the lower Court ruling that the behaviour of the police was so serious as to justify a stay of proceedings on the charges for which Mitchell was being arrested.
In another NSCA decision, the wealthiest man in Nova Scotia lost an appeal over his divorce agreement. John Risley claimed to have paid the $10 million he owed his former spouse, but the Court of Appeal stated that he had not even presented a genuine issue, and dismissed his appeal. They said that his "baldly stated opinion" was not evidence, and was contradicted by emails he had sent discussing the very issue that was under appeal.
The politically independent Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission has adjusted the electoral map for Nova Scotia, and now a member of the Liberal government is threatening to override the resulting report for political purposes.
I start this video with some advice on Christmas parties. I briefly discuss host liability, and also found support for those who might not want to go to the office Christmas party, but are worried that there will be employment consequences. A French court has sided with an employee who did not wish to attend an office function, calling it the "right to be boring".
In this section, I will outline and review what we know about the events of April 18-19, 2020. Much of this information comes from the MCC investigations, but there are other important sources as well. I have attempted to organize the details in a cohesive narrative, covering what happened, and what could have happened instead, if police had made better decisions as events unfolded.
This reading is of the sections 11-14 of that part of the Rodgers Brief report
Revelations at Dawn – Still No Warnings, Communications Analysis Paralysis, 2nd Escape, and Two More Dead, (Neither) Alert (Nor Quite) Ready, Plains Road and Plain Language
In this section, I will outline and review what we know about the events of April 18-19, 2020. Much of this information comes from the MCC investigations, but there are other important sources as well. I have attempted to organize the details in a cohesive narrative, covering what happened, and what could have happened instead, if police had made better decisions as events unfolded.
In this week's Rodgers Brief, I cover law-based stories from NS and across Canada. Included this week are;
-
Comment on the Supreme Court decision on admissibility of confessions after two Calgary tenants killed their landlord, but had their Charter rights violated by the police
-
The Supreme Court of NS approved a $10million settlement involving the Diocese of Halifax/Yarmouth.
-
The Nighttime Podcast series on the death of 7 year old Sia Van Wyck, and the quest for criminal charges against the farmer who killed her.
-
The Quebec Human Rights Commission dropping 200 cases following the SCC decision re: comedian Mike Ward
-
The NS Crown is asking the SCC to hear an appeal from the NS Court of Appeal decision ordering a new trial for Leslie Greenwood, who successfully appealed his murder conviction for the second time.
-
The NS Court of Appeal broadcast the appeal hearing involving the Goldboro LNG plant in Guysborough County, where environmental groups were appealing a decision rejecting their application for standing to oppose an environmental approval.
-
A group of citizens in Antigonish County is suing their municipality for passing a motion asking the Province to consolidate it with the Town of Antigonish.
-
Bill C-21 was in committee this week, and the Liberal government added amendments that would make many hunting and antique firearms illegal in Canada. I review the unusual way these amendments were introduced by the government.
What (Really) Happened - Wortman Escapes Portapique, Specialized Resources Un/Misused, Critical Incident Command Unstructured, and Overnight Confusion
In this section, I will outline and review what we know about the events of April 18-19, 2020. Much of this information comes from the MCC investigations, but there are other important sources as well. I have attempted to organize the details in a cohesive narrative, covering what happened, and what could have happened instead, if police had made better decisions as events unfolded.
This reading is of the sections 3-6 of that part of the Rodgers Brief report, which is also available as an ebook through the following retailers;
Smashwords - https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/ARodg19
Apple Books - https://books.apple.com/.../deficits-of.../id6444015396
Kobo - https://store.kobobooks.com/en-us/Search?Query=9781778104206
Barnes & Noble - https://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/2940165954481
Scribd - https://www.scribd.com/search?query=9781778104206&language=0
Alberta and Saskatchewan have each introduced legislation that aims to assert their respective Provincial jurisdictions in the face of what they say are ongoing and frequent Federal intrusions. Neither Province is explicitly trying to change the wording of the divisions of powers sections of the Canadian Constitution, yet each in their own way is trying to take power over key resource development decisions.
Alberta's approach is less formal, with an emphasis on acting quickly. Saskatchewan is looking to set up a new quasi-judicial body, the credibility of which would perhaps give its findings similar weight to that of a court order. Such findings would then form the basis of jurisdictional (and financial) negotiations with the Federal government.
These new Bills are coming in the aftermath of (and are in part a reaction to) a significant Supreme Court of Canada decision on just these issues. Three Provincial Courts of Appeal had weighed in on the Federal government's carbon pricing legislation, with Saskatchewan and Ontario upholding it, and Alberta finding it unconstitutional The Supreme Court upheld the legislation, saying that the environment was national in scope, and a minimum standard pricing mechanism was consistent with Canadian federalism.
What (Really) Happened - Lisa Banfield's Account of the Early Moments, and MCC Evidence of Portapique Killings In this section, I will outline and review what we know about the events of April 18-19, 2020. Much of this information comes from the MCC investigations, but there are other important sources as well. I have attempted to organize the details in a cohesive narrative, covering what happened, and what could have happened instead, if police had made better decisions as events unfolded.
This reading is of the first two sections of that part of the Rodgers Brief report, which is also available as an ebook through the following retailers;
Smashwords - https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/ARodg19
Apple Books - https://books.apple.com/.../deficits-of.../id6444015396
Kobo - https://store.kobobooks.com/en-us/Search?Query=9781778104206
Barnes & Noble - https://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/2940165954481
Scribd - https://www.scribd.com/search?query=9781778104206&language=0
In Part 1 of The Rodgers Brief Report on the April 18-19, 2020 Nova Scotia Mass Shooting and the Commission of Inquiry That Followed, I review what we know about the killer, from his abusive upbringing, to his criminal and violent past, and his wealth accumulation. I discuss some of the psychological evidence raised in the MCC, and some from other sources.
In this podcast, I begin something of an audiobook version of my report on the events of April 18-19, 2020 in Portapique and other areas of central Nova Scotia, and the Mass Casualty Commission that followed. 'Deficits of Trust' is available as an e-book through these retailers;
Smashwords - https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/ARodg19
Apple Books - https://books.apple.com/.../deficits-of.../id6444015396
Kobo - https://store.kobobooks.com/en-us/Search?Query=9781778104206
Barnes & Noble - https://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/2940165954481
Scribd - https://www.scribd.com/search?query=9781778104206&language=0
This week, I provide a legal analysis of the appearances of federal cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister at the Emergencies Act Inquiry. The participants had been trying all week to figure out the legal advice the government had been given about the EA, but all cabinet ministers, including the Justice Minister, had refused to say what that advice had been, citing solicitor-client privilege. In last week's video, I speculated on what that advice may have been, and my views were effectively confirmed by the Prime Minister on Friday in his testimony. I discuss how that will be viewed by Justice Rouleau as he makes his determinations as to whether the extraordinary powers under the Act were justifiably invoked.
In this podcast, I also discuss the Nova Scotia Mass Casualty Commission closing submissions, dealing with policing recommendations and the important recommendations for changes to the legal structures around domestic violence complaints.
Two other stories I briefly cover are a child protection decision out of NS where the Justice laments that Courts cannot order contact with biological parents when a permanent care order is made, and the Scottish government's failed attempt to convince the Supreme Court there that they alone (rather than the UK Parliament) can authorize a referendum on independence. This latter decision will have an impact on independence movements in other countries as well, including any Canadian province which might be considering such a move.
This week, I discuss some reconciliation videos being filmed, including one I did with Chief Stephen Augustine on the legacy of Donald Marshall Jr., the most impactful individual litigant in Canadian history, in my view. In the news this week, the NS Mass Casualty Commission continues to release new information, even though proceedings have concluded. This week featured a memo regarding the Onslow Belmont Fire Hall shootings, which was quite critical of the officers who did the shooting, and SiRT for clearing them of liability. The NS Court of Appeal wrote an unusual letter to the NS Bar Society complaining about the large number of appeal hearings being adjourned in recent months. A doctor from Amherst has had three sexual assault charges stayed, as the court tries to sort out whether a Crown prosecutor who had previously represented a potential victim in a civil suit against the doctor is in conflict. NS Power has extortionary legal authority by virtue of the NS Power Privatization Act. One is an insulation against liability for power outages. I discuss how that might change. Finally, this week in the Emergencies Act Inquiry, the National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister sought to re-define how the Inquiry should interpret what it means to be a "public order emergency". I discuss why I do not find her submission persuasive.
This week in Canadian law, the Emergencies Act Inquiry looked at the protests that were taking place at the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, ON, as well as those at Coutts, Alta. In both cases, evidence presented seems to show that both protests were disruptive, but that the Emergencies Act was not necessary to deal with them. Also during the Inquiry, one of the lawyers collapsed in the middle of questioning a witness. I discuss how a lawyer needs to be physically ready for court in order to be mentally sharp when it matters. This week the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a mandatory minimum sentence for a woman convicted of importing nearly 2kg of cocaine through the Toronto Pearson Airport. This broke something of a trend of courts striking down Harper-era legislation on sentencing. The SCC said that it was up to Parliament to make changes to this legislation, as it did not offend the Charter as it was applied here, despite the accused being an Ojibwe woman and the issue of overincarceration of indigenous offenders. Next, I review C-11 and C-18, both of which deal with online content regulation in Canada. C-11 would allow the CRTC to regulate user-generated content, and C-18 would restrict how news articles are shared on social media. Combined, these Bills would restrict freedom of expression online, and are not an appropriate response to revenue issues in the traditional media landscape. Finally, I review a criminal case out of the NS Court of Appeal, where the Court reviewed how apologetic text messages sent after an alleged sexual assault may be used in a trial. It is not correct to have "repetition enhance credibility" but okay where the content amounts to an "admission".
This week on the Rodgers Brief, I analyze the major law-related news stories of the week. The main topics this episode are; 1. The Emergency Act Inquiry in Ottawa. This week the protest 'leaders' take the stand, seemingly to show themselves as disorganized and non-violent. 2. The Ontario government has announced that it will use the Notwithstanding Clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to stop a strike from happening in the school system. 3. A group of private citizens is trying to organize what they call the National Citizens Inquiry, which would look into the government response to the Covid-19 pandemic. A private inquiry does not have the legal legitimacy of a public inquiry, but may yet have some value. 4. Lisa Banfield has filed a lawsuit against the Federal and Nova Scotia governments for having charged and prosecuted her for supplying ammunition to her spouse, Gabriel Wortman. I assess the strength of the lawsuit, and identify some of its weaknesses.
Other stories I mention include the Luomba case out of Quebec, dealing with racial profiling during traffic stops, an announcement that an independent land claims process has been agreed upon by First Nations leaders and the Federal government, and C-18, the Online News Act, which is a pay for clicks piece of legislation which has the potential to infringe considerably on our freedom of expression rights.
I will be joining Jordan Bonaparte and Paul Palango tonight at 9:15 to discuss the Banfield lawsuit, and other Mass Casualty Commission issues. Here is the link for the Nighttime Podcast YouTube channel. https://www.youtube.com/c/NighttimePod
If you are interested in purchasing my alternate MCC report, Deficits of Trust, you can find it here;
Smashwords - https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/ARodg19
Apple Books - https://books.apple.com/.../deficits-of.../id6444015396
Kobo - https://store.kobobooks.com/en-us/Search?Query=9781778104206
Barnes & Noble - https://www.barnesandnoble.com/s/2940165954481
Scribd - https://www.scribd.com/search?query=9781778104206&language=0
This week I analyze the proceedings of the Emergency Act Inquiry (including Premier Ford's invocation of parliamentary privilege in refusing to testify), the Canadian Civil Liberties Association victory over NS Public Health at the NS Court of Appeal re: an injunction against protesting the Covid-19 restrictions, a BC Supreme Court case on mandatory vaccine policies in non-union workplaces (the first such decision in Canada), Dal Law's new course on African Nova Scotian legal history and Critical Race Theory, the Annapolis Group victory over Halifax at the Supreme Court of Canada re: lands in Birch Cove Lakes, and President Biden's pardoning of Americans with Federal marihuana convictions and how that compares to the Canadian approach. I will be joining Jordan Bonaparte on the Nighttime Podcast tonight (Sunday, Oct 30th) from 8:30-10pm to discuss my Mass Casualty Commission alternative report, which is published as an ebook, and is called "Deficits of Trust". I will be on the live YouTube show along with author Paul Palango. https://www.youtube.com/c/NighttimePod
You can find the book (and read 15% of it as a free sample) on the following links; https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/1174444 https://books.apple.com/ca/book/deficits-of-trust-the-rodgers-brief-report-on-the/id6444015396
Welcome to the new version of The Rodgers Brief. Instead of daily analysis of the NS Mass Casualty Commission, I will be doing weekly summaries of news stories with legal angles which are either underappreciated or which I think you will find interesting. This week, I examine; 1. Week 1 of the Emergencies Act Inquiry 2. Hockey Canada and the issue of non-disclosure agreements in sexual assault cases 3. Dalhousie Homecoming street parties 4. Antigonish Town and County consolidation votes 5. New recordings released by the Mass Casualty Commission of the RCMP conference call which generated national political controversy I hope you enjoy the new format. For those interested in my alternate report on the Mass Casualty Commission, you can follow the link below to check out the ebook. The first 15% is available as a free preview; https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/1174444
There were four presentations today, the final day of proceedings in the Mass Casualty Commission, followed by closing remarks from the three Commissioners. Ben Perryman from the BC Civil Liberties Association gave a clear and insightful closing, identifying the failures of policing, the hostile stance towards the inquiry taken by the RCMP, and the lack of oversight currently available for citizens when it comes to policing in NS. The NS Department of Justice made a very brief presentation, consistent with their near total absence from the MCC. They made no real recommendations, and spent most of their presentation summarizing the process and themes of the MCC without saying anything substantive about them. The National Police Federation spoke about the courage of the officers who responded to the initial call, and the difficulties they have had since the events in the face of public criticism. The Federal DOJ lawyer was emotional about some aspects of the events, but spent much of her presentation stressing how unprecedented this all was, and how the RCMP should be cut some slack. The Commissioners vapid final remarks gave no hint as to what they might be considering including in their recommendations. They simply listed the titles of the reports that were filed, thanked everyone, and urged the public to help implement whatever recommendations may emerge in their report.
The second last day of proceedings from the Mass Casualty Commission featured closing submissions and recommendations from Lisa Banfield's lawyer Jessica Zita, as well as those from LEAF/Avalon Sexual Assault Centre, Feminists Against Femicide, the RCMP Veterans Association of NS, the Truro Police, as well as firearms advocacy and opposition groups. Ms. Zita spoke about how Ms. Banfield (who, it appeared, was not present) was revictimized by the deceptive manner in which she was treated by the RCMP. She urged the MCC to accept what Ms. Banfield has claimed, and to agree that Ms. Banfield bore no responsibility for anything that her spouse did (despite, she did not add, her knowledge of him having a replica police car, illegal guns, and deteriorating mental health). Erin Breen rightly identified cross-border smuggling as a central issue, and noted how Wortman obtained a Nexus pass despite having a firearms complaint on the national police database at the time he applied for it. Neither Brian Carter for the RCMP Veterans nor Charles Thompson for the Truro Police explicitly called for the removal of the RCMP from NS, but that conclusion flowed naturally from both presentations. The Truro Police are hopeful that new RCMP leadership in NS is reason for optimism. The MCC will be back (weather depending) tomorrow for the final submissions by the BC Civil Liberties Association, the NS Dept. of Justice, National Police Federation, and the Federal Dept. of Justice.
There were four closing submission presentations today, by lawyers representing the brother of Scott MacLeod, the Gina Goulet family, the Oliver/Tuck family, and a lawyer representing Women's Shelter Canada, Transition House of NS, and Be the Peace Institute. The lawyer for Lisa Banfield was scheduled to speak, but had travel delays coming from Toronto, and will instead by speaking at 9am tomorrow. This was the last day for representations from lawyers representing family members lost in the shootings. Some of the issues covered were similar to those raised yesterday. Notably, none of the lawyers for the family have called for the removal of the RCMP as the policing agency for NS, and none of the family lawyers spoke at any length about domestic violence. Certainly, none placed it as a central issue. Jamie Goodwin, on behalf of the Women's Shelter/Transition House/Be the Peace group advocated for the criminalization of 'coercive control', though did not develop the idea to the extent that I think would be required to persuade the Commissioners. Perhaps the women's organizations that are lined up to speak tomorrow will give a more thorough and compelling reasoning for that, or other related recommendations. The MCC seems determined to make an impact on the prevalence of domestic and intimate partner violence in this province, but I discuss here how there has not yet been anything substantive proposed that would accomplish that laudable goal.
The final week of the Mass Casualty Commission proceedings will be used to hear closing submissions by the participants. After so many days of proceedings, with such a large volume of evidence, closing submissions are an opportunity for the parties to give their perspective on what has been heard, and to make recommendations. Notably, there is one participant that will not be making closing submissions, and that is the MCC itself. Normally, Commission Counsel would lead off the closing submissions, and speak to all relevant issues. The leading Canadian legal textbook on Inquiry Law says that Commission Counsel should make closing submissions, as they are supposed to act in the public interest and are therefore concerned with all outstanding issues. We should be told why they are not going to be speaking. Submissions were made today by Sandra McCulloch from Patterson Law, Josh Bryson from Windsor Law, MDW Law's Tara Miller, and self-represented participant Tara Long. I discuss their main points in the video, and the reactions (or lack thereof) from the Commissioners.
On the final day of hearings before the parties make closing submissions next week, the Mass Casualty Commission had a half day of proceedings featuring speakers from the BC Civil Liberties Association, the East Coast Prison Justice Society, and the NS Department of Justice. That was followed by a presentation by the Avalon Sexual Assault Centre on their findings from meetings held with marginalized individuals who knew Wortman from his denturist work. The justice organizations all had issues to discuss that were only marginally connected to the work of the MCC. This disconnect was partly reflected in the lack of moderation of the discussion. Speakers went on at great length, on tangential topics. There was some discussion of police oversight and police standards, including comment from the DOJ that police standards (which are currently 'under development') will be legally enforceable regulations when they are finalized. The revelations from the Avalon consultations showed how Wortman was able to obtain sexual favours from clients in exchange for denturist work, and how DCS really did not seem to provide much oversight for such private sector service providers.
The Mass Casualty Commission held its final research and policy roundtable today. This one was focused on civilian oversight advice for the Commissioners, and featured 19 speakers, in addition to the moderator. The biggest news of the day may have been the sudden announcement that Frank Magazine was not going to be publishing any more issues. Frank has been a unique and important source of investigative reporting on the MCC over the past two years, and on all things Nova Scotia for 35 years. There will be a large void to fill. The MCC learned today that much of the current civilian oversight of the RCMP is quite limited in its ability to hold the force to account, and very little of that oversight is local to Nova Scotia. There will be an afternoon session tomorrow, featuring a presentation from the Avalon Sexual Assault Centre and input from other "justice related" organizations. There are four days of proceedings on the calendar for next week, though there are no details available as to what will be taking place during those sessions.
The Mass Casualty Commission hosted two talking circles today, featuring indigenous persons from across Nova Scotia. The participants discussed their experiences of the morning of April 19, 2020, their views on the institutions serving Nova Scotians, and their views on policing. An interesting comparison was made with the lack of a trusting relationship between the police and indigenous communities, and the current lack of trust that Nova Scotians more broadly are feeling following the events of the mass casualty. The Commissioners were very respectful of the participants, perhaps to the point of being patronizing, but perhaps genuinely. The three Commissioners participated in the talking circle along with everyone else, and leaned less on scripted remarks than on other days. There were also some news articles that came out in the past few days dealing with other elements of the MCC. Seemingly in an attempt to rehabilitate his own reputation, former Justice Minister Mark Furey (who was an RCMP Staff Sergeant prior to running for office) has claimed in an affidavit that it was the RCMP's failure to accept his 2012 recommendation to adopt emergency alerts that lead to his early retirement. This is difficult to swallow from the very person who may have been best positioned in years that followed to have implemented an emergency alert system for active shooter situations. I also discuss the election of Pierre Poilievre as leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, and what impact that may have on potential adoption of MCC recommendations.
The second in command RCMP officer in Canada, Dep. Commissioner Brian Brennan, testified today at the Mass Casualty Commission. He discussed the relationship between the NS RCMP and the national leadership, the difficulties being experienced by the top RCMP officers in NS, and operational issues like emergency alerts and decommissioned vehicle sales. DC Brennan also mentioned the lessons he felt were learned by the RCMP, which were applied in Saskatchewan last week. There, the police did issue emergency alerts, and had air support. They have not learned, however, to be forthcoming with operational details, and their refusal to discuss the death of the main culprit in the stabbings has echoes of the RCMP press conferences in NS following the April 18-19, 2020 shootings. There were examples raised of DC Brennan being a force for secrecy within the RCMP, including his advice not to proactively reveal the existence of the 2011 Criminal Intelligence Bulletin regarding the killer wanting to "kill a cop".
The Mass Casualty Commission hosted a 'roundtable discussion' today on the structure of policing in NS. There were 20 participants, which made it difficult for any real discussion to take place. Rather, there was a series of vignettes from each participant. None of the lawyers for the parties were permitted to ask questions. The three main points from today's proceedings were that the Province does not seem to want to take on the responsibility for setting up a provincial police force, that the reputation of the police has been getting worse, and that there needs to be much more robust oversight of the police by us citizens.
There was an interesting discussion of a potential new model of policing today at the Mass Casualty Commission. Unfortunately, that discussion was mostly hidden among long, academic discussions that purposefully avoided discussing the events of the April 18-19, 2020. The new kind of policing is meant to take a broader look at community safety and wellness, rather than a narrow focus on such things as arrest rates and police budgets. The fact that the MCC held this discussion is significant in a way, as the recommendations one might pull from the discussions seem to run counter to the current experience of policing Nova Scotians are having with the RCMP. It may be that the MCC is seeking to foster public support for change by hosting this discussion, or it may simply be a way of placating the many participants who were part of today's discussions. The Commissioners expressed appreciation for the quality of the discussion, though did so in their usual rehearsed/formulaic manner, which makes it difficult to judge their sincerity. Tomorrow there is a further discussion on policing, this on the structure of policing in Nova Scotia.
The MCC heard from Cst. Greg Wiley, who was the officer who knew Gabriel Wortman as a community contact, and had approximately 15 interactions with him in the years before the mass shooting. Cst. Wiley was granted the most unusual of accommodations by the MCC, so that the video or audio from his testimony cannot be broadcast, under threat of criminal sanction should the order be violated. Cst. Wiley showed no obvious signs of requiring accommodation, and in an attack on the media at the end of his testimony that was dripping in irony, claimed to be speaking for the families in criticizing the media for making errors in reporting. He said that he could take it, but it was unfair to them. That was a bit rich, coming from someone who literally asked for accommodations because he could not 'take it'.
In another late Friday afternoon news release, the MCC has issued a decision to ban the publication of any audio or video of Cst. Greg Wiley's testimony on Tuesday. Cst. Wiley is a key witness, having visited Gabriel Wortman 16 times over the course of a few years. This decision is unsupported by any publicly available evidence. The Commissioners have threatened to have anyone who violates the order charged criminally under s.127 of the Criminal Code. I discuss that section and what it would take for a media organization to overcome the Order made by the Commissioners.
The second day of phase three of the Mass Casualty Commission proceedings featured presentations and discussions on how gender based violence can be addressed. I discuss how it may not be through the MCC that such issues are best addressed, as it has not yet been compellingly argued that domestic violence is the best lens through which to assess what happened. The RCMP 'psychological autopsy' suggested that the killings were Wortman's way of humiliating his spouse, but it seems just as likely, if not more so, that his target was the RCMP itself.
The Mass Casualty Commission started Phase 3 of their work, which is to be focused on parsing through potential recommendations from participants, and determining which might form part of the final report. That report, which was expected to be delivered November 1st, is going to be five months late, after the MCC received permission from the Provincial and Federal governments to do so. I discuss the reasons given for this significant delay. Today, there was a presentation from MCC lawyer Jennifer Cox on the many previous inquiries and commissions which have made recommendations on subjects being covered by the MCC. This was done to avoid duplication, and also as a warning of sorts to avoid making recommendations that do not lead to action. Finally, there were presentations from victim advocacy groups, with their recommendations. This involved lots of victim advocacy lingo and pleas for more resources, but not much connecting of the recommendations to the actual events of the mass casualty. There are no proceedings tomorrow. Wednesday the MCC is back, and will be hearing from gender-based organizations.
The Mass Casualty Commission heard today from Halifax Regional Police Chief Dan Kinsella today. Chief Kinsella was brought in to discuss the HRP role in the events of April 18-19, 2020, as well as the structure of policing in Nova Scotia. HRP and the RCMP each cover different areas of Halifax Regional Municipality, and so confront issues of interoperability on a regular basis. There are two things I would like to note before getting to the substance of Chief Kinsella’s testimony. First, it appears that I was far from the only person curious as to why Commissioner Brenda Lucki and the other RCMP officers who have testified at the MCC have not been wearing their uniforms. The reason the officers are testifying in civilian clothing is as a result of a request from the MCC to do so, so as to avoid triggering anyone watching the proceedings who might be sensitive to the uniform as a result of the killer’s employment of it in his rampage. Chief Kinsella was also not wearing a police uniform, presumably for the same reason. The second issue is the point I raised yesterday about Commissioner Michael MacDonald’s comment to Commissioner Lucki at the end of her testimony where he urged her to be a champion of the MCC’s forthcoming recommendations. I said that this seemed to be a sign that the MCC was not going to recommend the removal of the RCMP as a police force in Nova Scotia in favour of another model. It has been pointed out to me, and I agree, that it could also be interpreted as a call for her to support a transition to another model of policing if that were to be recommended. In either case, Commissioner Lucki has committed to supporting and acting on the recommendations. Chief Kinsella testified that the HRP was ready to assist the RCMP as events unfolded, and gave evidence about the relationship between HRP and the RCMP more generally. On the events of the mass casualty, Chief Kinsella noted that HRP did everything that was asked of them, and was ready for Wortman had he made it to their jurisdiction.
In my piece yesterday, I noted how Comm. Lucki was able to answer questions at length, and with reference to specific details, in contrast to the answers of the RCMP’s NS Commanding Officer Lee Bergerman. Today we saw a different version of that kind of answer from Comm. Lucki. She was still answering at length, but was more often unable to provide details on elements of the RCMP operations, which are all ultimately under her command. Many of the questions were relating to operational details of the RCMP response to the events of the mass casualty, as well as the RCMP’s ability to adopt recommendations made by previous outside reviews from third parties. Comm. Lucki seemed less aware than one might expect from the leader of the RCMP about the progress of recommendations from the review of the death of Colten Boushie, and the MacNeil Report from the Justin Bourque shootings in Moncton. This is all important for two reasons. One is simply that the MCC is going to be making a series of recommendations, and the RCMP will no doubt be the subject of many of those. So, it is helpful for the Commissioners to know whether the RCMP has a good or bad track record of incorporating recommendations, and if the track record is bad, what oversight protections must be in place to ensure that the forthcoming recommendations will be implemented in a timely fashion. The second reason is to examine the culture of the RCMP itself to determine whether it is an organization that is capable of contrition and change, and thus can be trusted to regain the trust of Nova Scotians and remain as the de facto provincial police force. There was a mixed bag of examples from Comm. Lucki’s testimony today that leave the answers to those questions unclear. At the end of her testimony, Comm. Lucki did apologize on behalf of the RCMP, for the force not being all that the public expected and needed. This was not an emotional apology from the Commissioner, but (in part because it was not emotionally driven) struck me as sincere. The MCC Commissioners had a few questions for Comm. Lucki. Commissioner Fitch asked about how it was possible to change the RCMP without changing the culture, to which Comm. Lucki said that the culture is changing, and that change is being measured in detail through such things as detailed annual member surveys, code of conduct case analysis, and exit interviews with departing members. Commissioner Stanton asked about the structure of contract policing, and noted that there have been reports, such as the 2007 Brown Report, as well as more recent efforts in BC and Alberta to reassess their contract relationship with the RCMP. Comm. Lucki was quite interested in this area of questioning, and was naturally determined to persuade us that contract policing was sustainable, with some reform. The biggest news of the day may have come in the final moments, when Chief Commissioner MacDonald implored Commissioner Lucki to be a courageous champion for whatever recommendations emerge from the MCC process. One might see this as a sign that the MCC is not going to recommend that the province form their own police force and end the contract with the RCMP. That may be reading too much into the remarks, but that is how they sounded to me. The MCC will be back tomorrow with Halifax Regional Police Chief Dan Kinsella. He will be testifying starting at 2pm.
The MCC proceedings continued to focus today on the leadership of the RCMP, featuring continuing testimony from the now-retired former Commanding Officer for the RCMP in Nova Scotia, Lee Bergerman, and the current national Commissioner of the RCMP, Brenda Lucki. The contrast in leadership style and competence between the two was on stark display, and it was not a contrast that favoured Ms. Bergerman. Some of the same questions that were asked of Ms. Bergerman yesterday about RCMP culture, ability to change, and her knowledge and understanding of the events of the mass casualty were also asked of Comm. Lucki. Where Ms. Bergerman gave short, vaguely worded answers, and claimed time and time again not to have asked questions or been informed about the RCMP’s operational response to the active shooter, Comm. Lucki gave long, detailed, and specific answers, and appeared to be engaged in the details of operational and policy shortcomings.
After a three-week summer break, the Mass Casualty Commission resumed proceedings today, with testimony from retired Assistant Commissioner Lee Bergerman. Asst. Comm. Bergerman was the head of the RCMP in Nova Scotia at the time of the events of the mass casualty. She retired from the RCMP just before the MCC proceedings were set to start last October. The timing of Asst. Comm. Bergerman’s retirement naturally raised suspicions. Leaving an organization just before a major review of that organization’s performance is the opposite of leadership, like a head coach quitting before the playoffs. It may ultimately benefit the team, but does the coach no credit. The MCC lawyer only examined Asst. Comm. Bergerman, the head of the RCMP in Nova Scotia in April 2020, for two hours. She was not asked, in her direct evidence, about her role in the press conferences after the events, her awareness of any operational details during the events, or the RCMP’s failure to issue an emergency alert. Viewing news reports from this morning (from reporters who have been given access to Asst. Comm. Bergerman’s statement transcript) it seems that those topics were covered in her interview with the MCC. In cross examination, Asst. Comm. Bergerman was asked whether she has been following the MCC proceedings. She says she has not been, and cited poor internet service wherever she has been spending her time, which she says was somewhere out of the country. She also refused to answer questions about operational command leadership decisions, saying that she did not review the file materials in the aftermath of the shootings. All of this is very unsatisfactory for the families, and, I suspect, the public. Here is the Commanding Officer for the police force under scrutiny of a public inquiry, and she has diligently avoided learning anything detailed about the events under review.
After a 3-week hiatus, the Mass Casualty Commission will be holding proceedings again starting Monday August 22nd. There are proceedings scheduled for the following four weeks as well, and then a break for the month of October, before the Commissioners release their report on November 1st. This week, we will be hearing from Assistant Commissioner Lee Bergerman, the head of the RCMP in Nova Scotia at the time of the events of April 18-19, 2020. We will also hear from national RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki. AC Bergerman will be asked about her role in the highly critisized NS RCMP operational reaction and press conferences after the active shooter situation was brought to an end. Both will be asked about the brewing political controversy about Comm. Lucki's complaint that the NS RCMP did not release details about the particular firearms the killer used. In this post, I discuss those topics, and consider what the MCC might do with the four weeks of scheduled hearings remaining. So far, details are not yet available as to witnesses or what experts the MCC might bring back to have discuss potential recommendations.
The final day of Mass Casualty Commission proceedings before a three week break featured some revelations, expressions of regret, and careful answers from Chief Superintendent Chris Leather, who was the second ranking RCMP officer in Nova Scotia at the time of the events of the April 18-19, 2020 mass shooting. These all emerged from cross examination by lawyers for the family participants, though I noticed that in her introduction to the day, Commissioner Fitch did not say the words “cross examination” but rather stated that MCC lawyer Rachel Young would facilitate questions from participants’ counsel. Nothing really turned on that characterization, but it is another subtle example of participants’ lawyers being marginalized by the MCC. All Ms. Young was called upon to do was state the order in which the other lawyers would be speaking, and rough time estimates for them to do so. Michael Scott from Patterson Law was the first lawyer to question C/Sup. Leather. He started by picking up on a comment that C/Sup. Leather made yesterday that he did not want to answer a question without speaking to legal counsel. It seemed yesterday that Ms. Young should have followed up on that statement, but she did not. Today, C/Sup. Leather was prepared to speak further, and it was a significant exchange. Perhaps most striking from C/Sup. Leather’s testimony was his refusal to agree that, if the same circumstances happened today, an emergency alert would be issued. Leather vacillated on his answer, and would only go so far as to say that it would be something for the Critical Incident Commander to consider. I suspect C/Sup. Leather was conscious of the civil case against the RCMP when he gave this answer. If he were to explicitly say that an alert would definitely be issued, that would be used against the RCMP in the class action by the families to show that the RCMP’s response to the mass casualty events fell below the expected standard.
The Mass Casualty Commission continued to hear from senior NS-based RCMP commanders today, with testimony from Chief Superintendent Chris Leather. C/Sup Leather was the second ranking officer in Nova Scotia at the time of the events of the mass casualty. He was in Halifax after having testified Monday in Ottawa before the Federal Public Safety and National Security Subcommittee. Among the observations I was able to make from being at the Harbourside Marriot in person were that there were many empty seats (there were about 25 people watching, in addition to the lawyers, MCC staff, and media), perhaps a reflection of the choice to have these key witnesses appear during one of the hottest, nicest, weeks of the Nova Scotia summer. Speaking with people during breaks, I was able to learn (to my complete lack of surprise) that the lawyers for participants are getting increasingly frustrated that they are being marginalized as they have been. The MCC choices have made it very difficult for these lawyers to properly represent their clients, by cutting off any real opportunity for questioning witnesses. Also, I learned that Superintendent Darren Campbell’s acknowledgement at the end of his testimony yesterday of mistakes that the RCMP made, and his apology to the families, made an impact. Sup. Campbell spent 45 minutes speaking with one of the family members after he testified, and was reportedly quite genuine in his remarks. C/Sup. Leather seemed to be quite subdued in his demeanor. Perhaps this is his natural personality presentation, but he was certainly a low-energy witness. One of the first topics he discussed was emergency alerting, and the training for that. He seemed to be advocating for a limited group of supervisors to have access to the system, noting that you had to take care to properly craft an emergency message. This seems likely to reinforce the problem of messages getting out too slowly, which is all contrary to the expert advice the MCC received on emergency alerts. In discussing the main topic of his testimony, the press conferences that he lead, C/Sup. Leather did express some regret and contrition, while also deflecting blame to communications staff. He suggested that he had very little training in press conferences, or time to prepare for questions. It may be fair to argue that less training, rather than more, is appropriate for police communications with the media. Such training seems designed to help the officer conceal information from the public, rather than properly and fulsomely reveal it.
After providing his direct testimony yesterday, Superintendent Darren Campbell was cross examined by lawyers for the participants today. Sup. Campbell was the third ranking RCMP officer in Nova Scotia at the time of the April 18-19, 2020 mass shooting, and is the first of the senior ranking RCMP officers to testify at the Mass Casualty Commission. Before Sup. Campbell’s testimony began, we learned that the criminal charges against Lisa Banfield of supplying ammunition to Gabriel Wortman were withdrawn by a Crown lawyer for the NS Public Prosecution Service. The families have not been told what conditions may have been attached to Ms. Banfield’s restorative justice process, which lead to the charges being dropped, but given the timing of the withdrawal, it seems clear that her appearance before the MCC must have been the main, or perhaps only, condition. I have been told that the families have been told by a lawyer for the MCC that this was not the case. It strikes me that this answer lacks credibility. It is often the case that when a matter returns to Court to be withdrawn after the completion of restorative justice, there is mention of what was done outside of the Court process as part of the RJ agreement. That should be done here, given the high profile and high stakes of this particular matter.
It was a busy day for those following the analysis of actions of senior RCMP officers during the events of the mass shooting of April 18-19, 2020 and the press conferences which were held in the aftermath. Superintendent Darren Campbell, who was the third ranking officer in NS at the time of the mass shooting, was testifying in Halifax in the Mass Casualty Commission proceedings. At the same time, Federal Public Safety Minister Bill Blair, RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki, and Chief Superintendent Chris Leather were all appearing before the Public Safety and National Security Committee. I was watching both proceedings during the early afternoon when there was an overlap of a few hours. There was a time when Commissioner Lucki was in Ottawa talking about how she wanted to be open and transparent, while at the same time in Halifax, Sup. Campbell was saying the same thing. Meanwhile the evidence was showing that Commissioner Lucki had quashed an idea to participate in a CBC Fifth Estate documentary, and Sup. Campbell had withheld information on firearms during a press conference. It was more than a little disorienting. The officers seem to recognize that their collective performance has received a failing grade, and are now trying to deflect blame from themselves to others in the senior roles in Nova Scotia and nationally, while at the same time protecting the reputation of the RCMP itself.
Two experts in forensic psychology have conducted an assessment of the RCMP's Psychological Autopsy of Gabriel Wortman, and were called upon to explain their conclusions. They were highly critical of the report, which does not adhere to the standards they would expect from a forensic psychological assessment. The RCMP's assessment is not available to view. Instead, the MCC has posted a summary. This summary does not include details on each case, but rather only the broader conclusions on the killer himself. The RCMP categorized each killing as either grievance-based, reactive, incidental, or displacement-based. They also claim that the killer's motivation was to humiliate his spouse. It may in fact have been his goal to humiliate the RCMP. The RCMP would not consider such a conclusion, however, given their vested interest in the outcome. I discuss why I think the MCC should publish the full RCMP report, commission their own assessment, and could have retained local expertise from Saint Mary's University, rather than flying in experts from Australia and Arizona.
The MCC today featured a panel discussion on “IPV, GBV and Family Violence: Personal and Community Responses”, and featured Pamela Cross, Legal Director, Luke's Place Support and Resource Centre, Dr. Deborah Doherty, former Executive Director of the Public Legal Education and Information Service of New Brunswick, Emma Halpern, Executive Director, Elizabeth Fry Society of Mainland NS, Professor Janet Mosher from Osgoode Hall Law School, Lorraine Whitman, President of the Native Women Association of Canada, and Dr. Rachel Zellars, Associate Professor, Saint Mary's University. This represented the eighth MCC discussion focused on domestic violence. Several of the panelists referenced the previous panel discussions, stating that they supported the submissions made so far. It is noteworthy that this panel, like every other IPV/GPV discussion held so far, was made up entirely of women. Those who have been watching the MCC proceedings will have noted that the Commissioners start each day with a land acknowledgment. Today, there was an additional solemn and/or ceremonial prayer-like introduction, which was lead by Ms. Whitman. Everyone in the room stood for this. Another thing that stood out in the ‘presentation’ element of what the MCC was hosting today was the highly visible sticker on the back of Ms. Cross’ laptop. The sticker was for “Thelma & Louise Live”, which is a play based on the 1991 movie. Those two items foretold the tone and content of the discussion, which was emotional (for the speakers) at times as they described many stories of abuse suffered by women in a wide range of circumstances. Discussions covered women suffering abuse who were also struggling with racism, their precarious immigration status, drug additions, sex work, and rural living.
The Mass Casualty Commission continued its focus on the various contextual elements of domestic, intimate partner, and family violence today with two further panel discussions. These represented the seventh and eighth sessions of the MCC which have focused on these topics, each of which provided ‘context’ rather than specific analysis of the April 18-19, 2020 Nova Scotia mass shooting. In her introduction to the first panel discussion, Krista Smith from the MCC noted that these discussions were designed to set up the discussions which are anticipated to take place in Phase 3 of the MCC proceedings, where potential recommendations will be formulated. This would seem to be hopeful sign that the many experts who have been retained by the MCC will actually discuss the events which have lead to the establishment of this inquiry, but that remains to be seen, and given what we have seen to date it would be unsafe to assume that will actually happen. Anyone who has been watching the MCC proceedings over the past two weeks may have noted that each of the experts who have been asked to contribute their thoughts have been female. The ten experts today were all women. I mentioned this last week as an observation, rather than a critique, but as we get further into these topics, it may be time to ask whether it may have been better to have a wider variety of expertise in terms of gender. I have stated elsewhere that I think there has been too much total expertise focused on these topics, but if we are going to have up to ten independent discussions on family or intimate partner violence, it might be good to hear from both genders.
The Mass Casualty Commission took a welcome break from academic discussion panels today to explore evidence about the finances of the killer, and to hear from an RCMP officer who dealt with the complaint from Brenda Forbes, which she described in her evidence last week. The financial misdealings Foundational Document gave a window into the degree of illegal activity in which Gabriel Wortman was engaged, while Cst. Troy Maxwell’s testimony forced us to choose between two starkly different versions of a key event.
After the drama of last week, which concluded with the (unsatisfactory) appearance of Lisa Banfield, the MCC has turned back to the monotony of further discussion panels for the week ahead, with an interlude tomorrow to hear from a police witness and examine Gabriel Wortman’s “financial misdealings”. The focus of today’s “roundtable” was “Mass Casualties, IPV, GBV and Family Violence: Exploring the Connections”. Most of what was discussed today has been covered in previous discussions on domestic, gender-based, and family violence. Generally, the panelists support treating this violence as a something akin to a public health response, as opposed to private matters. This leads to recommendations to have more resources dedicated to housing, counseling, and financial supports, as well as a shift in public attitudes towards victims of violence. As has been the case with other panel discussions and expert witnesses, a viewer who may have somehow stumbled upon this discussion would have had difficulty figuring out that it was being held in the context of an inquiry into a specific mass shooting. Certainly, there was no reference to Gabriel Wortman, Lisa Banfied, or any other individuals involved in the events of the April 18-19, 2020 mass casualty events.
Today, more than two years after the Nova Scotia mass shooting, the common law spouse of the killer has finally spoken in public, as she gave evidence in the Mass Casualty Commission proceedings. Lisa Banfield spent 19 years with Gabriel Wortman before he went on a rampage and killed 22 people over the course of 13 hours on April 18-19, 2020. It is difficult to know what to make of Ms. Banfield. She has had two years to prepare her answers, considerable preparation time and help from her high-profile lawyer, and the benefit of knowing everyone else’s versions of events before having to give evidence. On the other hand, multiple other witnesses have confirmed her accounts of having been the victim of domestic violence over an extended period of time. On yet another hand, she had no children to protect, and seemed to be enjoying a comfortable lifestyle built on criminal activity of which she must have been well aware, and now has a clear financial interest in denying knowledge of those criminal activities as she tries to retain entitlement to Gabriel Wortman’s estate.
The Mass Casualty Commission hosted two panel discussions today, which served as something of a reprieve, or calm before the storm, of a week focused on the evidence of the gunman’s spouse, Lisa Banfield. The panel discussions focused on (the futility of) predicting mass shootings and the psychology of mass killers. Ms. Banfield will be speaking tomorrow, and so in anticipation of Ms. Banfield’s appearance tomorrow, I have considered some questions that remain for her to answer.
This was a dramatic day of evidence in the Mass Casualty Commission. For the first time, we have heard the voice of Lisa Banfield, and were able to walk in her shoes, in a sense, as she did a re-enactment of her movements during the overnight hours of April 18-19, 2020. This was all in advance of her expected appearance on Friday, and seemed designed to remove all drama from that appearance. Before the presentation, we heard from two Australian experts on gender-based violence.
The Mass Casualty Commission today focused on Gabriel Wortman’s extensive history of violence with people other than his spouse. There was a presentation of a Foundational Document summarizing Wortman’s violent encounters with others, followed by a witness, Wortman’s former neighbour, Brenda Forbes. Ms. Forbes knew about some key incidents of violence, and had reported Wortman to the police. Wortman appears to have been a person who routinely used physical violence throughout his adult life. With men, he would either seek out or be easily provoked into violence. With women, he was sexually aggressive and persistent in his advances. He plead guilty to assaulting a teenage boy, but received a discharge (meaning he would not have a criminal record). He would break dentures and threaten customers who did not pay on time. Brenda Forbes’ testimony in part demonstrated how far people can go, and yet still not get in any trouble with the police. Ms. Forbes and her husband George both had long careers in the military, and were looking to settle down into retirement in Portapique. They built the home that they eventually sold to John Zahl and Joanne Thomas, who were killed by Wortman. He burned their home to the ground.
The Mass Casualty Commission focused its attention today on masculinity, past violence committed by Gabriel Wortman, and gender-based violence in rural Nova Scotia. Two California professors presented their research on how data in the US shows how men tend to be the perpetrators in mass shootings, there was a Foundational Document presentation on Wortman’s past violent behavior, and there was an expert on family and gender-based violence in Atlantic Canada. This agenda is the beginning of a week where the MCC will focus on family violence and gender-based violence more generally. The week will culminate with Wortman’s common-law spouse of 19 years, Lisa Banfield, speaking on Friday. The MCC would say that Ms. Banfield is “testifying” on Friday, but whereas she will not be cross-examined by any other lawyers, I prefer Patterson Law lawyer Michael Scott’s description – that we will be getting an oral version of a statement that was given behind closed doors. I took some time to review the statements that Ms. Banfield has provided to the MCC. You may have noted that MCC lawyer Emily Hill has been publicising that Ms. Banfield has sat down for five ‘lengthy’ interviews and has provided documents to the Commission. There is something slightly misleading about this statement. Listening to it, one might expect that Ms. Banfield has sat down for five sessions with Commission investigators in recent months, since having her criminal charge referred to restorative justice (which effectively means the charges have been dropped), but in fact four of those five interviews were done in the ten days following the events of the mass shooting back in April, 2020.
As part of their continuing effort to reduce the size of their viewing audience, the Mass Casualty Commission today featured a roundtable discussion on “Rurality and Community Well-Being”. The information on the MCC website suggested that the goal of the discussion was to address culture and attitudes of rural life in Nova Scotia, limited and differential service delivery in rural areas, and health and safety of those working in rural communities and how the rural context affects their working lives. The roundtable as facilitated by Dr. Emma Cunliffe, Research and Policy Director for the MCC, and featured Robin Campbell, PhD Candidate at Dalhousie University, Madonna Doucette, Director, Youth Project, Dr. Karen Foster, Associate Professor of Sociology in the Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology, Dalhousie University, Dr. Lesley Frank, Professor at Acadia University, and Dr. Marilyn MacDonald, Professor at Dalhousie University’s School of Nursing. It is difficult to understand what the MCC Commissioners think they are getting from these discussions, particularly considering the time and resources being expended in having ‘expert’ reports prepared and then scheduling days and days of hearing time to listen to them. Dr. Cunliffe and the research team seem to be fascinated by these academic discussions, but they are only marginally connected to the events of the mass casualty.
On the second day of proceedings this week before the Canada Day long weekend, there were three featured items on the MCC agenda. First, there was an announcement on a schedule of significant witnesses who have been subpoenaed to appear over the summer. Then, there were two roundtable discussions, one on mental health impacts on first responders, and one on policing rural communities. Commissioner MacDonald read from a statement that the MCC has released on their website this morning, regarding significant witnesses from whom the Commission will hear over the summer months. They include Lisa Banfield (July 15), Supt. Darren Campell (July 25-26), Chief Supt. Chris Leather (July 27-28), Assistant Commissioner Lee Bergerman (August 22-23), and Commissioner Brenda Lucki (August 23-24). We will also hear from Cst. Greg Wiley (who has stated that he visited with Wortman over 15 times), Cst. Troy Maxwell, and Wortman’s former Portapique neighbour Brenda Forbes, though the dates have not been published. Cpl. Rodney Peterson will not testify, but will rather submit a sworn affidavit. The most notable part of that announcement is with respect to Ms. Banfield. Officers who participated in press conferences are testifying for two days, while the person who lived with the killer for 19 years, and spent the day with him before he went on his killing spree is going to testify for only one. It does not bode well for an in-depth examination of their lives together, or any hope that we will get a thorough examination of what lead to Wortman killing 22 people. In the midst of approximately 7-8 hours of available time, there will be breaks for lunch, two lawyer meetings to discuss what further questions should be asked, and perhaps additional breaks for Ms. Banfield to gather her strength. Just as significantly (and perhaps more so), there will be no cross examination of Ms. Banfield by lawyers for other participants. Instead, questions will need to be submitted to Commission lawyers, who will decide what questions will be asked.
After a week of dramatic testimony and revelations which made national news, the MCC is looking to be much quieter as we end the month of June. Today, there was a seven-person roundtable discussion on the mental health needs of families and communities after a mass casualty incident. On Thursday, there will be a similar discussion, focused on the needs of first responders after a mass casualty. Part of the mandate for the Commission is to examine issues around supports offered to the families of victims, affected citizens, police personnel, and the community. That means that there is a requirement to try to understand what supports might have been seen to be effective in other cases, and to compare them to what has happened in Nova Scotia following the shootings. Like with other areas that are to be studied, the MCC has taken that requirement and adopted a very (and perhaps overly) thorough approach. There was no discussion of the specific events of the mass casualty of April 18-19, 2020 in Nova Scotia. Instead, the discussion (which lasted nearly five hours) was a broadly based one that brought in other examples of tragedies in other places, such as Norway, the 9/11 attacks in New York, and the Swiss Air crash of the coast of Nova Scotia. The discussion was lead by Dr. Emma Cunliffe, who is the Research and Policy Director for the MCC. There were seven panelists (or, rather, roundtable participants) for the discussion. They were Grete Dyb from the University of Oslo, Levant Alten from Victim Support Europe, Mary Fetchet from Voices Centre for Resilience (a 9/11 support group), Great Village resident and former Norther Zone Grief Coordinator Serena Lewis, Megan McElheran from Wayfound Mental Health Group, Terry Mitchell from Wilfred Laurier University, and University of New York Associate Professor Jaclyn Schildkraut. The introduction portion of the discussion took half an hour to complete.
On a day when the MCC proceedings included a technical roundtable on communications interoperability, followed by an expert witness presentation on supporting survivors, the main public focus turned to (or remained focused on) a brewing political controversy. The Commissioner of the RCMP, Brenda Lucki, has become the subject of heavy criticism following the revelation that she tried to compel senior NS-based RCMP officers into releasing the makes and models of the firearms used by Gabriel Wortman in the April 18-19, 2020 mass shootings during one of the initial press conferences. She is alleged to have done so at the direction of Prime Minister Trudeau and Federal Public Safety Minister Bill Blair. I think many people have things wrong when it comes to Commissioner Lucki.
On a day when the MCC proceedings included a technical roundtable on communications interoperability, followed by an expert witness presentation on supporting survivors, the main public focus turned to (or remained focused on) a brewing political controversy. The Commissioner of the RCMP, Brenda Lucki, has become the subject of heavy criticism following the revelation that she tried to compel senior NS-based RCMP officers into releasing the makes and models of the firearms used by Gabriel Wortman in the April 18-19, 2020 mass shootings during one of the initial press conferences. She is alleged to have done so at the direction of Prime Minister Trudeau and Federal Public Safety Minister Bill Blair. I think many people have things wrong when it comes to Commissioner Lucki.
The proceedings today focused on some of the after-effects of the shootings and the services made available to family members and others. There was a Foundational Document presentation on mental health supports offered, and then witness testimony from Cst. Wayne “Skipper” Bent, who was assigned to be the family liaison officer on behalf of the RCMP. The most explosive part of the evidence was left until the end of the day, when we were told about political pressure from the Prime Minister, through Commissioner Lucki, to use the shootings as support for the government’s gun control legislation.
The MCC proceedings featured two decisions from the Commissioners, on witness questioning and the release of the videos from the Big Stop. Commission lawyer Emily Hill presented evidence today on the chaotic and slow process of notifying next of kin about the deaths caused by the NS mass shooter, a process which angered many family members, and is at least partially responsible for the current state of animosity in the relationship. Cst. Nick Dorrington, an outspoken and highly competent officer, testified about his involvement in the containment efforts, his thoughts on being told not to go into the community in the early moments, and recommendations for improvements to how rural areas are policed.
The MCC’s short week of proceedings continued and concluded today with two further ‘small group’ sessions. The morning session featured service providers from Victim’s Services, the Medical Examiners office, and a funeral director. In the afternoon session, we heard from MLA Tom Taggart, and Mayor Christine Blair. It is in the mandate of the MCC to look at the services that were available and provided to victims, their families, and the community, and so it was necessary in a way to hear from these individuals. I suspect the audience numbers for today and yesterday’s sessions were considerably lower than for days where there were factual witnesses testifying about the events of the mass casualty itself. The morning session, in particular, was not exactly riveting television. The speakers, following the lead to the (two, for some reason) moderators, spoke slowly, and in low tones. Similar to the paramedics and 911 call takers from yesterday, these participants were trying to convey what it is like to be them, or to be in their role, during an event such as this. They were not called to provide factual narratives of what took place, but rather to give us a window into their worlds, and to comment on any changes that they may recommend.
The stage had been set for a hearing tomorrow morning on an application by Frank Magazine, supported by other media organizations, along with family participants, to have surveillance videos from the Enfield Big Stop be published as exhibits in the Mass Casualty Commission. The issue has been resolved, but how it played out has exposed what appears to be a rift between the MCC lawyers and the three Commissioners. David Hutt, a media lawyer at Burchells, has done excellent work leading the way on the application for Frank Magazine. The MCC was initially opposed to the videos being released, but now say that was all a big misunderstanding. The Federal DOJ had opposed the release as well, but once the MCC lawyers changed their minds, leaving the DOJ alone in opposition, they seem to have calculated that it would be worse to publicly state their untenable position and lose the application than to just let the videos be released. In the course of changing their minds, or at least their position, the MCC lawyers placed the blame squarely on the three Commissioners for the videos not being made public, and even went so far as to say they had not been told why that decision was made and could only presume what the Commissioners reasons may have been. This shot at the Commissioners by the MCC lawyers may be a response to the Commissioners' Interim Report, which reminded us all that they the Commissioners could only act on what was put before them by MCC lawyers, who they have instructed to be tenacious in their pursuit of the evidence. The message from the Commissioners seemed to be, if you have complaints about the MCC, don't blame us. We will hear what the Commissioners have to say about this in the morning. After that, and over the course of Monday and Tuesday, there will be "Small Group Sessions", which are apparently going to be different than "Roundtables" or "Panels" in some meaningful way that is not yet clear.
The Mass Casualty Commission is sitting for two days this week, during which there will be a series of “Small Group” sessions, which we are assured is different than a “Roundtable” or “Witness Panel”, despite their similar appearance. We had been expecting to hear about the resolution of an application to the Commissioners by Frank Magazine (and supported by many others) first thing Monday morning, but there was no mention of the videos at any point during the day, and they are still not posted to the MCC website. This would seem to be contrary to the expectations of the applicant, so something may be going on there. Whatever it is, the Commissioners evidently felt no compulsion to tell us anything about it. The first small group session involved paramedics Jeff Aucoin, Jesse Brine, Bruce Cox, and Melanie Lowe. Each of them responded to calls during the mass casualty events, with Mr. Aucoin, Mr. Brine, and Ms. Lowe among the first to arrive at Portapique. In the afternoon, two 911 call takers participated in a discussion. Both Bryan Green and Kirsten Baglee were in the Operational Communications Centre on the morning of April 19, 2020. They spoke of the sheer volume of calls and information they had to process, and gave a sense of a room where there was ‘controlled chaos’ taking place.
There were foundational documents presented today dealing with the (ultimately futile) helicopter efforts, assistance from the Halifax Police, and the 911 and radio systems in NS. The one RCMP helicopter that serves NS and NB was out of service for nearly two and a half months around the time of the mass shooting, and there was no backup plan in place. There were military helicopters in Greenwood and Halifax, but (despite also being federal agencies) they were not deployed. NS Department of Natural Resources has four helicopters, but they could only fly during the day, and when they did become involved were always a step or two behind the action. Helicopters could have been the most valuable response tool for the RCMP, but they were never involved in a helpful manner. Today also marks three months since Lisa Banfield was referred to restorative justice, rather than proceeding with her charge of supplying ammunition. There has been no update over that time on her cooperation with the MCC, or with the RJ process. On Monday, the Frank Magazine application to have the videos from the Big Stop released will be heard by the Commissioners. It is an application that should be supported by all parties, as it gives the best evidence available of those final moments, yet we can expect its release to be opposed by lawyers for the RCMP, and perhaps the MCC itself.
There were two witnesses today appearing before the Mass Casualty Commission, one civilian member, and one staff sergeant, each of whom had a role in public communications during the events of the mass casualty. In the morning Director of Strategic Communications, Lia Scanlan testified. In the afternoon, Staff Sergeant Addie MacCallum gave his account of the events of April 18-19, 2020. Both witnesses had strong emotional responses at times during their testimony.
One of the main complaints in the immediate aftermath of the April 18-19, 2020 mass casualty events was the use by the RCMP of social media posts to warn the public, rather than issuing an emergency alert to citizens’ cell phones, and then the low degree of accuracy of the content of those posts. Today, after a brief presentation by Commission lawyer Anna Mancini, three witnesses attempted to explain why Twitter was the primary communication platform chosen, and why accurate information was so seemingly difficult to provide to the public. By now, we know that key information such as the fact that the killer was in a fully marked replica RCMP car, his name, and that he had not been captured was known to at least some RCMP officers since before 11pm on the night of the 18th. At 11:32pm, a tweet was issued from the RCMP account noting that there was a firearm complaint in the Portapique area and that people should stay in their homes. Nothing else was sent out until 8:02am the next morning. Eleven further tweets were issued, but there were delays in issuing photos of the perpetrator and his replica car, and each time a tweet was sent, the information was delayed so much so as to be of little practical use. As a result, even those such as Kristen Beaton, who was tracking social media that morning, did not have information that was known to police, which they could have used to protect (and likely save) themselves. The witnesses today were retired Cpl. Jennifer Clarke, who people may recognize as a frequent spokesperson for the RCMP in Nova Scotia, Glenn Mason from EMO, and Superintendent Dustine Rodier. Cpl. Clarke was involved in the drafting and sending of the tweets. Mr. Mason was the EMO official who offered the RCMP use of the Alert Ready system. Spt. Rodier was in charge of the Operational Communications Centre, and has been a central focus of questions around the failure to use the Alert Ready system.
Just before being appointed as one of the three Commissioners of the NS Mass Casualty Commission, Toronto-based lawyer, Kim Stanton finished writing a book on Inquiries, called Reconciling Truths. There are several themes and lessons the MCC may draw from this work, which might help it fulfill its mandate, and increase the level of public trust in the Commission.
The focus of the MCC was on the Town of Truro today, with a Foundational Document and witness discussing the interaction between the RCMP and Truro Police as Gabriel Wortman made his way towards, and ultimately through, the Town of Truro. We have heard from Chief Dave MacNeil before today, as he has been interviewed about the Truro Police role in and knowledge of the killer’s movements through Truro, and the Truro Police relationship with the RCMP. Chief MacNeil has been critical of the RCMP’s response, their lack of information sharing with Truro Police during the mass shooting, and their efforts after the fact to keep important information from being made public.
This was the second day in a row where the Mass Casualty Commission had hosted experts from a wide range of locations to discuss approaches to critical incidents. Unfortunately, as was the case yesterday, there was no discussion whatsoever of the events of the April 18-19, 2020 mass casualty in Nova Scotia. There were two panel discussions. The first one in the morning dealt with issues around making decisions under stress. The afternoon session involved discussions on the societal context of policing, which included discussions on budgeting priorities, training, and use of force training. There was an interesting story from CTV news this morning about the ongoing boycott by participants, which could result in a pathway to ending the boycott. In the article, one of the lawyers for the participants, Tara Miller, noted that she is going to make an application to the MCC on her client’s behalf to ask the Commissioners to amend their Rules of Procedure. The amendment would be to section 52 of the Rules, which deals with questions to witnesses. It currently states in part that “Participants may have an opportunity to question the witnesses, to the extent of their interest as determined by the Commissioners.” The proposed amendment would change that “may” to “shall”. There would still remain discretion for the Commissioners to limit questions based on the degree of interest of a party, and they can also limit the “scope and manner of questioning” based on their discretion. The last restriction would be applied only to ensure that questions are relevant (scope) and that the questions are not being asked in a hectoring or otherwise uncivil manner.
There were two discussion panels held today by the Mass Casualty Commission, dealing with responses to critical incidents. The first one dealt with how best to prepare the police and other first responding stakeholders for a critical incident. The second session dealt with how to corporate civilians, 911 operators and others into the response package.
In video posted yesterday evening, retired Sergeant Andy O’Brien testified about his role in the response to the mass casualty events. Sgt. O’Brien oversaw operations for the Colchester County RCMP, but was off duty on April 18, 2020 when he was contacted about the initial reports out of Portapique. He has stated that he had 4-5 drinks of rum that night, and though he was initially reluctant to take on any role, he soon had a radio and was giving directions to officers on the scene from his home. Many of the participants in the MCC continued their boycott of proceedings, as a result of the accommodations granted to Sgt. O’Brien. The testimony was conducted by Zoom, and was not broadcast live. There was also no cross examination permitted, but rather the participants were to provide questions to Commission lawyers to ask. Nothing about Sgt. O’Brien’s presentation or demeanor would convince a neutral observer that he required any accommodations. He was treated very gently at first by Commission lawyer Anna Mancini, who initially tended to read out long paragraphs of Foundational Documents relating to Sgt. O’Brien’s previous experience, then his involvement, and then asked him whether he agreed or had anything to add.
Staff Sergeant Brian Rehill testified yesterday, by Zoom, and the video was released this morning. S/Sgt. Rehill had asked for accomodations to allow the testimony to not be broadcast live, and for him to not be cross examined. The MCC Commissioners granted his request, but should be having second thoughts after watching him testify without trouble for over five hours. S/Sgt. Rehill testified about miscommunications on the containment efforts in Portapique, the dynamic of having multiple commanders giving orders over the radio, and distinctions between his evidence and S/Sgt. Halliday's when it came to knowledge of the gunman's replica police car. MCC lawyer Roger Burrill asked the direct questions, and then asked some questions on behalf of the other participants. It is not clear why this procedure was considered less traumatic for the S/Sgt. than having another lawyer ask the same questions, though Burrill's gentle approach and lack of any follow-up may be the answer. In the video, I talk about what I think the Commissioners need to start doing in order to start fostering and establishing some confidence among the participants and the public. It is not more pre-written, vaguely phrased remarks about how difficult all this must be for everyone.
The Mass Casualty Proceedings continued today from Truro, with testimony from Staff Sgt. Al Carroll, who was the District Commander for Colchester County at the time of the shootings. Outside of the facility where the proceedings were taking place, family members and supporters were protesting the Commission’s decision-making on witness accommodation requests for RCMP supervisors. This was day two of the boycott of proceedings by many of the family participants. Some were protesting outside of the proceedings venue, calling for changes to the Commission procedures to allow more fulsome participation (and specifically cross-examination) by participants and their lawyers. Staff Sgt. Carroll, along with two other staff sergeants (none of whom had direct experience with violence or exposure to scenes of violence during the events of the mass casualty) have been given permission to testify by video, with limits on cross-examination. Those protesting are justified in their criticisms of the Commission’s approach. Today’s testimony was a good demonstration of why the accommodation requests need not have been granted. Staff Sgt. Carroll testified for 3 ½ hours in the morning, then another hour in the afternoon, with no unscheduled breaks being requested by him, and he displayed no obvious signs of discomfort, nor certainly trauma. He displayed little emotion of any kind, or much energy, in his answers. The National Police Federation has requested accommodations previously for lower ranking officers. These had been rejected, and the officers thereafter also testified with no obvious signs of discomfort or trauma. All of this serves to undermine the credibility of both the NPF and the Commission.
After operating out of three separate location (most prominently the Nova Centre) in Halifax, the Mass Casualty Commission has shifted their proceeding location to Truro. The decision appears to have been made primarily for scheduling purposes and in consideration of the availability of venues. There was also a decision released by the Commissioners, which has led to a dramatic boycott by lawyers representing the largest group of family participants.
We are learning more about the RCMP command structure as the Mass Casualty Commission proceedings continue. Today, two further recently retired staff sergeants testified. Staff Sgts. Jeff West and Kevin Surette testified together as a panel. They were working together in command of the mass casualty response for the bulk of the 13 hours over which it took place. Staff Sgt. West was in charge, with Staff Sgt. Surette in support. No reason was offered by Commission lawyer Roger Burrill in the introduction as to why these two witnesses should testify together, and certainly no compelling reason was obvious. Command decisions and structures within the RCMP are certainly a major focus of the Commission, and so it would have seemed sensible to me that these witnesses would have been examined separately. As it stood, there was a great deal of mutual support offered by each for the answers of the other witness, and this can have the effect of giving artificial credibility to answers that might otherwise leave the listener in doubt. Staff Sgt. West retired in July, 2021, and Staff Sgt. Surette retired in August, 2021. They are the latest in a growing line of RCMP supervisors who have retired since the mass casualty events. Such a mass exodus in the upper ranks of the force certainly fosters suspicion about the felt quality of decisions made at the time, though also may clear the ground, in a sense, for new leadership to take over. The staff sergeants today spoke about getting called into the situation, information they received, setting up the command posts at the Great Village Fire Hall, and then coordinating the response and deployment of resources. Though they are both retired, neither staff sergeant was seemingly prepared to acknowledge any errors made, or recognize the potential for meaningful improvement.
After having spent most of the proceeding time thus far hearing about what lower ranking officers saw and did, we finally had an opportunity today to hear from a more senior supervisor, Staff Sergeant Steve Halliday. S.Sgt. Halliday was in command of the efforts early on in the mass casualty and throughout the night, and was on the stand most of the day today describing how he directed resources, and exercised and delegated authority. Without saying so directly, the MCC seems to be responding to criticism in terms of their procedures. For the second day in a row, the Foundational Document presentation was very short, just over 20 minutes long today (regarding a document that is 321 pages), and the bulk of the day was used for witness testimony. Following his direct testimony, S.Sgt. Halliday was cross examined by three lawyers for the families (though, like yesterday, there were no questions from the federal Department of Justice lawyers). S.Sgt. Halliday has retired from the RCMP since the mass casualty, but unlike Cpl. Tim Mills yesterday, S.Sgt. Halliday did not seem motivated to bury the RCMP in any manner, though he also did not seem like he was trying to protect any individuals within the force. He answered questions directly, and was not making attempts to explain or justify the command actions of others, and at times expressed his disappointment with how things unfolded at times. On the other hand, his overall portrayal was of a police force that reacted as well as could be expected, given the unprecedented nature of what they were facing.
The level of preparation and response capacity of the RCMP faced significant criticism today from the leader of the RCMP’s Emergency Response Team (ERT). Cpl. Tim Mills, who has since left the Force, testified today, along with fellow ERT member, Cpl. Trent Milton. Their testimony was preceded by a very short (15 minutes) presentation of a 70-page Foundational Document on the ERT response. The ERT squad was called to Portapique the night of April 18, 2020, and spent some of that time overnight helping extract residents, including Clinton Ellison, from the community. They also investigated a suspicious sighting of a possible person with a flashlight across the river on the Five Houses side (which turned out to be house lights behind a tree blowing in the wind). Cpl. Mills described how technological issues and malfunctions limited their effectiveness and the speed at which they could operate. They did not have GPS capability in their vehicle, so could not be sent coordinates for specific scenes. Instead, they had to get directions over the phone from other officers. This lead to some confusion through the night. Crucially, the ERT squad was not able to use their Android Team Awareness Kit (ATAK), which is a system that connects each individual officer to a GPS, and then for the team leader to be able to track them in real time and direct members to the most appropriate locations. By knowing where everyone else is located, also allows for more officers to engage in a situation, and significantly decreases the risk of any officer-on-officer shootings. ATAK is known among officers as the leading technological tool for active shooter situations. In addition to his critiques of the RCMP’s lack of technological prowess, Cpl. Mills was also highly critical of their approach to mental health. He described how five of the thirteen dozen officers on the ERT squad are “part timers”, meaning they also do general duty shifts and are outside of his command to some extent. Cpl. Mills felt it was best to try to keep the whole squad together for a week or two, not in the field but rather doing reports and other administrative work. This would be (and was) consistent with mental health advice from psychiatrists. It is also consistent with what we learned in the Desmond Inquiry about soldiers coming back from being in battle. They need to stay together, keep busy, and be around like-minded people. This (seemingly reasonable) request was denied by Cpl. Mills’ supervisor. Cpl. Mills called the way they were treated “disgusting”, and it is the reason why he subsequently left the RCMP. Cpl. Milton said at least some of the ERT members were contacted by RCMP peer support people, but said they were mostly junior members who could not be of much real assistance. He felt the calls were just made so that the RCMP could ‘check a box’ and say they did something, without bothering to ensure that the intervention was effective. Cpl. Mills was very critical of the RCMP management as well, calling the assignment of two issues management officers to the MCC who are married to senior RCMP supervisors “corrupt”, and an attempt to cover up what had gone wrong.
Continuing the focus of the week on emergency alert systems, the mass casualty commission proceedings today included two roundtable discussion panels on how best to communicate emergency alerts to the public. We also learned today that the Commission is still refusing to disclose the videos from the scene at the Enfield Big Stop when the killing spree was brought to an end, with the police shooting of Gabriel Wortman. Thanks to Coltfoots Publishing’s efforts, the Commission is at least now prepared to hear an application regarding their use and disclosure.
After hearing yesterday about the capabilities of our emergency alert system, and the way it is organized and used in Nova Scotia, today we heard an international perspective on public safety on how such alerts are used in Australia and the UK. Michael Hallowes is an expert on the subject, who lead the development of the emergency alert system in Australia, after a career as a police officer in England. He testified today about his efforts to advise Canadian governments on emergency alert system developments. I then look back at the conflicting accounts of the RCMP officers who claim to have examined the scene of the Heather O'Brien shooting, and discuss how a judge might approach the evidence and attempt to resolve the conflicts. The extent to which the Commissioners may examine the details of the evidence is unclear, but if they do, there are some guideposts they may use.
The focus of today’s proceedings was the structure of the Alert Ready system in Nova Scotia at the time of the mass casualty in April, 2020, and some changes that have been incorporated since then. There were two brief Foundational Document presentations, followed by two witnesses from the NS Emergency Management Office (EMO). Though this was not obvious from the information provided on the MCC website, the presentations were not intended to cover what actually happened (or did not happen) on April 18-19, 2020, but rather simply what was available in terms of emergency alerts.
Today was an important day at the Mass Casualty Commission. Four RCMP officers whose actions had been the subject of many critical questions testified about their involvement in the effort to stop the active shooter. In the morning, Csts. Terry Brown and Dave Melanson testified together as a witness panel about the shooting at the Onslow Belmont Fire Hall. In the afternoon, Cst. Ian Fahie and Cpl. Duane Ivany testified individually about their involvement in the treatment of Heather O’Brien, after she was shot. The Union representing RCMP officers had objected to any of these officers testifying, suggesting that it would be too traumatic for them to do so. As expected, there was little evidence of any such trauma in the officers when they actually testified. They all answered the questions asked of them without difficulty or hesitation. The content of those answers, however, was less than satisfactory.
The proceedings today featured a single witness, speaking to police uniforms, and also submissions from lawyers for the participants on gaps they identified in the evidence that has been presented so far dealing with firearms. The focus of the Corps Sergeant Major’s testimony (lead by Commission lawyer Rachel Young) was the deliberations of a working group on RCMP uniforms, how they address requests from officers for new uniforms or to keep theirs after retirement. Another news item that caught my eye was a report from Paul Palango in Frank Magazine regarding the video of the killer’s final moments at the Big Stop which has not been disclosed or played publicly. The videos from the Big Stop which were provided to the media were done so on the condition they not be used, and that they be destroyed after viewing. It is absurd that the best possible evidence of a key moment is not being used, yet this is where we stand. David Hutt, a media lawyer acting for Frank Magazine, has made an application to the MCC to have standing to argue for the video to be disclosed. Given the comments in the MCC’s Interim Report about the lawyers for the Commission having roles equivalent or at least similar to those of Crown Prosecutors (that is to say they are obligated to seek justice, and not victories or convictions) we should be able to expect that these lawyers would support Frank Magazine’s application. The only possible reason for opposing the disclosure of this video is that it may undermine the heroic narrative that has been presented, and that should not be a consideration of the Commission. If the MCC feels the video is too traumatic to show publicly, that would not prevent them from disclosing it to the parties. One final piece of news broke in the afternoon, that James Banfield, brother to Lisa Banfield, has had his criminal charges referred to Restorative Justice. James Banfield had been charged, along with Ms. Banfield and Brian Brewster, with supplying ammunition to the perpetrator. James Banfield had already plead guilty to the charge, which is not a barrier to Restorative Justice, and it is entirely appropriate to have consistent treatment of those with the same charges. Back to the proceedings, the afternoon portion of the day was used to allow lawyers for the parties to critique and identify gaps in the firearms-related evidence. The parties are seeking further analysis of the expert reports, more details on the evidence of Brenda Forbes and Cst. Wiley, and reiterating the importance of hearing from Ms. Banfield.
Last week, the legislative committee studying policing in British Columbia recommended that a new provincial police force be created, and adopt modern approaches to citizen-police relations and community safety. Nova Scotia has a very similar police structure, and faces many of the same policing issues as are being experienced in BC, and could follow their example on widespread consultation and reform-mindedness. It is going to be a big week ahead for the MCC. First, they will release their interim report on Monday. On Tuesday there will be some reports and witnesses on firearm access and attempts in Canadian history to regulate firearms. On Thursday, key RCMP witnesses will testify. They will be examined regarding their roles in the Onslow-Belmont Fire Hall shootings, and the questions around the death of Heather O'Brien.
I read through the MCC Interim Report, which was released late today. It contains little by way of information or conclusions, but is rather mostly a further reminder of the plans the Commissioners have for the future, and the design of the MCC proceedings. This report could easily have been entirely written before the proceedings started. The Commissioners are taking full ownership of the proceedings. First they talk about how it is an Inquisitorial process, which they are directing. Then, they make the (slightly misleading) point that they are independent of government. Whatever emerges from this process, they will not be able to credit or blame anyone else after the strongly-worded section where they discussed their role. One of the main takeaways from the report was that the Commissioners did not react in any way to criticisms that have been publicly leveled at them. The two months of secret meetings prior to the proceedings, which were heavily critiqued by lawyer for the participants, are here called an "effective collaborative mechanism". No complaints about the trauma-informed mandate, or the disorienting approach to the presentation of evidence is even mentioned.
As we delve further into the Mass Casualty Commission proceedings, we are seeing a variety of formats for the conveying of information. Today, the MCC proceedings featured six individuals in what was called a ‘round table’ discussion, answering questions about police paraphernalia and those who impersonate police officers. (Information was conveyed, and questions were answered, but I am purposefully avoiding using the word ‘testimony’, as the witnesses were not sworn in, nor was there any suggestion that these individuals would potentially be subjected to cross examination.) Krista Smith from the MCC was the moderator, and the speakers were former Kentville Police Chief Julia Cecchetto, retired RCMP officer Brian Carter, retired Edmonton Police Inspector (and memorabilia collector) Phil Baily, self-described “settler lawyer” Meaghan Daniel from Montreal, and Oxford University Professor Ian Loader (speaking from Melbourne, Australia). Carter spoke about earning your uniform as an officer, and that the ceremonial uniform was an important possession for retired officers. Baily spoke about the community of collectors, and how collecting and exchanging memorabilia can be a social connector with other police officers. Cecchetto was less sentimentally attached to the police uniform or paraphernalia ,and suggested that if citizens are unsure of whether someone is an officer, they should call dispatch for confirmation or drive to the police station to have the status confirmed. The key points from the day came from Prof. Loader and Ms. Daniel. Prof. Loader noted how venerated and revered the RCMP brand has become, like the British police, and that it is difficult to have a sober conversation about reforming police structures and practices because of that status. Ms. Daniel added that for marginalized individuals, the brand is not a symbol of safety, but rather terror. She also made an important point when asked about the risk/benefit analysis of allowing police memorabilia to be possessed outside of actively serving officers. She said we should look at who bears the risk, and who gains the benefit when we ask that question. After the discussion concluded, Commissioner MacDonald spoke about a decision the Commissioners have made with respect to Cst. Vicki Colford. They are going to allow Cst. Colford, who was stationed at the head of Portapique Beach Road during the early hours of the killing spree, to answer questions in writing by sworn affidavit. This is certainly not the most effective way to get answers, but Cst. Colford must have presented compelling evidence of her mental health condition or concerns. The other note was from Commissioner Fitch, who confirmed that the MCC’s interim report would be released on May 1st, as scheduled, and that it would be posted to the MCC website. Expectations are quite low for this report, given that we have not completed the examination of witnesses for any portion of the killing spree. Commissioner Fitch said that there would be no recommendations contained in this initial report. The MCC is back then next Monday, May 2nd, when there will be presentations on firearms access and the laws surrounding the possession of certain guns. I am going to be reviewing the seven published reports that are now on the MCC website to see what, if any, wisdom may be gleaned from them.
Since I was in the city yesterday for the launch of Paul Palango’s book on the mass casualty, “22 Murders”, I decided to stay up and take in the MCC proceedings in-person again. This was my second time attending. Today’s proceedings were held at the Prince George Hotel, rather than the Nova Centre. It was a much more compact setting, which in part seemed to demonstrate that the Nova Centre may be unnecessarily large for what is required. The proceedings today focused on the killer’s collection of police paraphernalia and decommissioned vehicles. He had police uniforms, four decommissioned RCMP cars, and radio equipment, some of which he purchased online, and some from the government surplus operation. Today we met a further lawyer for the MCC, Amanda Byrd, who made two brief presentations dealing with the laws and procedures on police clothing and equipment. Roger Burrill presented briefly on the actual replica police cruiser the killer used. There was also a witness, Max Liberatore, from GC Surplus, the organization that sells off surplus government equipment. (Something I noted before, but have not written in these blogs, is that witnesses are not called to “the stand” as they are in court, but are rather invited to the “witness table”. Witnesses are sworn or affirmed, as they are in court. I think it is relevant to identify any distinctions between the MCC proceedings and a court process, and whether those difference have any effect. It may be that witnesses feel less gravity or solemnity being called to a table than to a stand. Another is, unlike with a Judge entering a courtroom, we do not “all rise” when the Commissioners enter, which is disconcerting for lawyers’ reflexes.) Much of what was presented was information that was already known about the decommissioned cruiser and the RCMP uniforms possessed by the killer. There were some new details, and new photographs, several of which caught my eye.
I attended the launch event for Paul Palango’s book on the NS Mass Shooting, entitled ’22 Murders’. The launch was held at the Old Triangle in downtown Halifax, the pub to which the statue of Joseph Howe points from it’s perch at Province House. Any journalist would be proud to be associated with Mr. Howe, and Palango is just such a fearless journalist that would have fit Howe’s hopes for the future. There was a good crowd for the launch, including many people who were previously known to me more by their usernames. Jordan Bonaparte, from Nighttime Podcast was there, as was Andrew Douglas from Frank Magazine. Many from the Portapique and Onslow-Belmont areas were on hand as well. Palango did not read extensively from the book, instead choosing to highlight a certain passage and then invite the subject of the note to come up to speak. This was my first opportunity to meet Palango in person. I have had a few chances to talk with him on the phone, and before that had taken in several of his podcast appearances on The Nighttime Podcast with Jordan Bonaparte. I have also kept up on his journalism since the early days after Gabriel Wortman’s killing spree. His reporting has been invaluable for me as an analyst, being detailed and specific about what he has been able to discover, and being unafraid to venture into potentially sensitive material. Knowing that I was going to be attending the launch, I finished the book itself a few days ahead of time, so I would have a chance to digest and reflect on what it contained, and of course so as to be able to converse about it at the event. Palango’s writing style is very engaging, drawing you into the story from a first-person narrative perspective. It follows the author’s own discovery journey to the facts, and also the perspectives of those he has interviewed, all of which helps give the reader a sense of how difficult it is to get straight answers from the RCMP. In that sense, it is also a good guide for those interested in pursuing journalism as a potential career option.
The final day of proceedings prior to the second anniversary of the tragic deaths featured joint testimony from the two officers who shot and killed Gabriel Wortman. They described their actions overnight and into the morning, why they went to the Big Stop, and their developing knowledge base throughout the ordeal. They answered questions well, giving thorough and coherent accounts of what took place. In their telling, the takedown has its elements of luck, but is also an example of how well prepared and competent people just seem to make their own luck. They were chasing someone, who, unknown to anyone, had very recently switched vehicles, and who was carrying five loaded firearms. They both needed gas, and stopped at the same pump. Cst. Hubley thought quickly and acted quickly, with Cst. MacLeod in support. In total, they fired 23 bullets, killing Wortman. In the early moments, Wortman turned his gun on himself and took one shot which Dr. Bowes stated would have killed him eventually as well. (This last part of information was newly released yesterday through Dr. Bowes’ testimony, and expanded upon today by the officers.) Anyone watching Cst. Craig Hubley and Cst. Ben MacLeod testify today might naturally be caught up in the intense and at times emotional atmosphere in which the officers found themselves. Cst. Hubley was emotional in describing finding the McCully family dog, and the vindictiveness it would take to shoot a 20lb animal that posed no threat. Both officers took their time recounting the final moments of the rampage by Gabriel Wortman when they shot him at the Big Stop in Enfield. Certainly, having these particular officers testify at this time, prior to a long weekend, as well as the two-year anniversary of the killings, was a deliberate choice by the Commission. One might ask why these officers have been called to testify about their quick-thinking heroics, rather than having officers from the earlier portions of the narrative who have yet to testify. There are still many of them. The other question I had yesterday, and have even more so today, is why the video from the Big Stop was not shown and discussed. It was not even publicly acknowledged that there is video in existence (which there is, and which I have watched) which covers the final confrontation from several angles. The MCC has not stated whether the Commissioners have made a particular decision about playing the video.
Today’s proceedings involved Foundational Document presentations about the death of Gina Goulet at her home on Highway 224, and then the final moments of the killer’s life when he was shot and killed by Cst. Craig Hubley and Cst. Ben MacLeod at the Irving Big Stop in Enfield. There was also witness testimony from NS Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Matthew Bowes, addressing both the post-mortem on Gabriel Wortman, and then later answering questions about the Fitbit data and time of death of Heather O’Brien, as well as submissions from lawyers regarding gaps in the Foundational Document presentations, and witnesses from whom they would like to hear.
I attended the MCC proceedings in person for the first time, and heard the Foundational Document presentations on the police shootings of the Onslow Belmont Fire Hall and the subsequent events in the Shubenacadie area. Those later events included the deaths of Cst. Heidi Stevenson, and Joey Webber. There was also a witness panel from the Fire Hall, which featured Chief Greg Muise, Deputy Chief Darrell Currie, and Richard Ellison. The presentation of the fire hall shooting discussed the mistaken shots fired by two RCMP officers at both a fellow officer and an EMO coordinator who the officers claim to have thought was the killer. Though this was not evident from listening to the presentation this morning, there are significant discrepancies in the accounts of the officers, as compared to other witnesses, including the suggestion that a warning was shouted to the mistaken targets. It was a very dangerous situation, which will no doubt be the subject of further witness examinations. The panel of witnesses revealed the terror felt by those inside the fire hall, who naturally thought the killer was the one firing at them, and the mental health struggles the memories have engendered. They also discussed how the terror was exacerbated by the fact that nobody told them things were safe, even once the misunderstanding was established. Instead, they had to wait nearly an hour to learn they were not in mortal danger. The Shubenacadie Foundational Document presentation laid out two confrontations the killer had with two individual RCMP officers, including the fatal encounter with Heidi Stevenson. Cst. Chad Morrison was able to drive away from the killer despite being shot. The killer pulled up along-side Cst. Morrison and shot, then rammed Cst. Stevenson head on in his mock police cruiser. Though she was able to fire 14 or 15 shots at him, she was killed in the firefight. Earlier that morning, Heidi Stevenson had suggested that an alert go out to the public about the active shooter situation. Had her advice been heeded, Joey Webber would likely still be alive. He was out running some errands, and happened upon the scene of the two officers. Being a good samaratin, he stopped to offer his help, and was also killed. The MCC is back on Wednesday.
Heather O'Brien's death was described by MCC lawyer Roger Burrill in yesterday's Foundational Document presentation. Very important details, however, were omitted, and these were described by Ms. O'Brien's daughter, Darcy Dobson, in a Facebook post yesterday evening. Included in the post was the FitBit data from Ms. O'Brien from April 19, 2020, which showed she had a heart beat until approximately 6pm, some eight hours after she was presumed dead by police. No EHS were permitted on site to treat Ms. O'Brien, or confirm her death, and family members were heartlessly prevented from having a moment with her. Fitness trackers are used in legal proceedings, including most prominately personal injury cases, and are sufficiently accurate and reliable for such purposes. The MCC has the FitBit data, but did not mention this yesterday in their presentation. The officers who declared that Ms. O'Brien was deceased have not provided follow-up reports or statements to the MCC, and their comments at the time suggested that there may have been mistakes made as they rushed through assessments with one eye down the road, worried that the shooter may be nearby. All of this is quite troubling, and it would seem that the MCC has once again mistakenly taken the position that such traumatic information is too much for the public to handle. This stance only serves the interests of the police, and is not appropriate for an inquiry that is seeking answers to difficult questions. The MCC should have experts evaluating the data to determine what it might mean, and provide an opportunity for the participants to question the officers at an early opportunity.
The Mass Casualty Commission proceedings today included two presentations on Foundational Documents by Commission lawyer, Roger Burrill. These presentations revealed several missed opportunities to stop the killer, a terrifying (seemingly impromptu) visit, and two tragic deaths. After killing Lillian Campbell while she was out walking, the killer proceeded south on Highway 4, which would have eventually led him back to the TransCanada Highway and Masstown. At 9:47 AM, Cpl. Rodney Peterson met the killer’s mock RCMP vehicle while Cpl. Peterson was traveling north on Highway 4. He immediately radioed that he thought he had encountered the perpetrator. Unfortunately, Cpl. Peterson did not immediately turn his vehicle around to follow the killer, but rather waited until he felt he had a safe spot to make a U-turn, which turned out to be 1.2 km beyond the meeting point. By the time he turned around to pursue the killer, he was out of sight. The Commission will have to confront the difficult issue of how aggressive police should be in active shooter situations. This meeting is one of several examples where it appears that more aggressive action would have been appropriate. Being aggressive is dangerous, of course, but police are supposed to protect citizens from danger, and so the Commission will need to think about what an appropriate level of personal risk for a police officer might be. Cpl. Peterson continued to drive south towards the TransCanada Highway, hoping to catch up. Meanwhile, the killer had turned into the driveway of Adam and Carole Fisher, a couple who were known to him, though not well. (The killer had asked Mr. Fisher to give him a quote on an excavating job some years prior, and had been to their home before.) Wortman drove up the driveway, parked his mock cruiser where it could not be seen from the road, and with gun in hand knocked on Fisher’s door. The Fishers did not answer the door, and in fact each of them had called 911 to alert the police of the killer’s presence. Adam Fisher had actually also called 911 earlier when he found out the name of the killer, to let the police know about the vehicles owned by Wortman. (The killer had told Fisher about his plans to assemble a mock RCMP vehicle some years earlier.) Unfortunately, because they were hiding out of sight in their home, the Fishers were not able to advise that the killer had left after just over two minutes in their yard. It would seem that the killer had only gone into this familiar location to elude Cpl. Peterson, as when he left he went north, rather than following Cpl. Peterson’s route south. Kristin Beaton was working that morning, traveling to clients’ homes as part of her work for the VON. She had pulled over to check her phone and text with her husband when the killer pulled over next to her, went to her window and shot her. Some passersby witnessed the interaction, though not the actual shooting. Heather O’Brien was also working for VON, though at the moment was going to visit her grandchildren for her weekly Sunday socially distanced visit. She was on the phone with her friend when she was pulled over by Wortman and killed not far away from Ms. Beaton. 911 calls alerted police that these further killings had taken place, and therefore the police knew to leave the Fisher residence. The killer drove south on MacElmond Road back towards Hwy 2/4 between Portapique and Truro, and headed east on Hwy 2/4, passing the Onslow Fire Hall some minutes later.
The Mass Casualty Commission started Day 10 of proceedings with a witness who was able to provide evidence regarding an access road between Cobequid Court, at the lower end of the Portapique subdivision, and then there were two further presentations of Foundational Documents by Commission lawyer, Roger Burrill. These presentations covered the three killings on Hunter Road, and the death of Lillian Campbell in Wentworth. The witness was Deborah Thibeault, who lived next to the access road. This road connects the lower part of Portapique to a blueberry field, where there is a road by which it was suspected the killer escaped the community. She was able to testify about a gate that covered the access road, and which she noticed had been knocked over when she returned to her property approximately a week after killings. The essential evidence that Ms. Thibeault provided was fairly brief, though her examination lasted close to two hours. At times the questioning by Commission lawyer, Jamie VanWart, was painfully slow, and would lead me to presume that the witness had not been prepared. Such lack of preparation can be harmful for a witness in some circumstances, as it can appear that they have a poor memory, when in fact they are just not ready for certain questions. After Ms. Thibeault’s evidence, there were the two Foundational Document presentations. Mr. Burrill did both presentations. The information in these presentations certainly drove home the point that had there been an emergency alert issued overnight or early in the morning of the 19th, that many lives would have been saved. The second Foundational Document presentation focused on Lillian Campbell, and how she was killed by Gabriel Wortman while out for her morning walk. The evidence suggests that the killer saw her walking, did a U-turn, and went to speak with her. He shot her from inside his replica RCMP vehicle. It would seem he was concerned he may have been known to be driving an RCMP replica, and so felt he needed to eliminate any witnesses. Again, had there been an emergency alert issue, it is highly unlikely that Ms. Campbell would have taken her morning walk, and so she would still likely be alive today. The Commission will resume hearings tomorrow with a further Foundational Document covering Highway 4, Glenholme, and Plains Road.
Today was a significant day at the Mass Casualty Commission, as it featured the first substantive witnesses, testified together in the unusual structure of a witness panel. It also featured our first look at how the Commissioners will address the issue of participants’ ability to cross-examine witnesses. The panel of witnesses included the three RCMP officers who initially responded to the original 911 calls, Constable Stuart Beselt, Constable Adam Merchant, and Constable Aaron Patton. Together, they described their reactions to getting the initial messages shortly after 10 PM on April 18, 2020, their first steps down Portapique Beach Road, and their mindset and actions over the next several hours as they dealt with the active shooter situation in the community. The testimony was quite compelling at times, and was certainly superior to having a presentation of a Foundational Document on the topic by Commission lawyers. One can imagine that maps and other graphics utilized by Commission lawyers during their presentations could be utilized in the course of direct examination to police witnesses and others who directly involved, rather than we have seen so far. The presentations could be dropped entirely, and replaced with these more compelling witness accounts. Our first look at cross-examination during the MCC was fairly brief. The lawyers evidently spoke over the lunch break about who would ask the questions, and Rob Pineo from Patterson Law was chosen. Mr. Pineo appeared by Zoom (for some reason that was not explained), and had a brief cross-examination. The GPS issue arose, and there were some questions about locations of fires and whether the officers had seen a white Ford F-150 truck at any point in their travels. This collaborative form of cross-examination may seem preferable where there are very few questions of substance to ask, but where interests of the parties diverge and collaboration is more difficult, or where there are just more questions to be asked, the Commission may need to show some flexibility in their approach. The Commission is back on Wednesday to hear from a witness, Deborah Tibbo, and to give a presentation on the Foundational Document for the Wentworth and Hunter Road portions of the mass shooting.
This week saw the final two days of evidentiary proceedings in the Desmond Fatality Inquiry, bringing to a partial close a process which opened May 21, 2019, and where hearings began in earnest in January, 2020. The stark contrasts between how the Desmond Inquiry has unfolded, and how the Mass Casualty Commission proceedings have started, brought me back to the opening remarks of Desmond Inquiry presiding Judge, Provincial Court Judge Warren Zimmer. In his remarks, Judge Zimmer touched on important legal distinctions between a fatality inquiry and a public inquiry, and some of those remarks are helpful for understanding what is now taking place in the MCC. In particular, these remarks can help us understand how the legal nature of the Commission not only allows for, but indeed invites, appropriate political interference. The Commission is entirely a creature of the federal and provincial cabinets, reports to them, and can be canceled by them at any time. And, unlike a sitting Judge, the Commissioners have no legal guarantees of their ultimate independence. In thinking about whether it may be appropriate for the government to intervene in the Commission, consider that the Commission was initiated by the previous provincial Liberal government, under the direction of then Justice Minister, Mark Furey, and then Liberal federal Public Safety Minister, Bill Blair. These Ministers initially wanted merely a “review” to take place, and only agreed to call an inquiry after being confronted with overwhelming public pressure to do so. So far, however, the presentation of evidence, and the tightly controlled access to information in the Commission process, gives it the look and sense of a review, rather than pure inquiry process. So far, we have only heard the Commission’s unchallenged version of events, and it is not clear that all available information has been disclosed to the parties. The Mass Casualty Commission has not been like the Desmond Inquiry, where all evidence was provided to the parties in advance, and relatively unfettered cross examination of witnesses has been routinely featured throughout. Should the new provincial government determine that the MCC is not fulfilling its mandate, or is misinterpreting the direction given in the Order in Council, it may appropriately feel compelled to intervene. Given the comments from Minister Fraser, it may be expected that the federal government would support such an intervention. There is nothing conceptually improper about doing so, should the Commission proceed in a manner that is not in the public interest.
As we listened to the Mass Casualty Commission lawyers present their version of key early events through audio/visual PowerPoint presentations, and read through what they call Foundational Documents, something has been missing. The question of motive, or any evidence that might reveal potential motives, has not been interwoven with Commission lawyers’ attempts at factual narratives. This is notable. In a way, not having this element of the individual scenarios included can detract from the overall narrative of the mass casualty, and make it seem like we are only getting part of the story. From media reporting, we know that in many of the fatalities, there was some connection between the killer and his victims that seems to align with theories on possible motives he may have had. The Commission has made a deliberate choice to separate “What Happened?” from why any of it may have happened. This separation serves a legitimate purpose, in the sense that it allows us for a time to focus on the police response, somewhat in isolation. If we do not yet know too much about the perpetrator involved, it gives us better imaginative access to what we think a reasonable police response should have been, both for individual officers and collectively as a force. So, in terms of the police response, questions of motive are less relevant. In another sense, however, motive is very important, and a discussion of the motives of the mass casualty perpetrator can serve as a reminder of the other policing issue Commission must address, one that people who have only been following the MCC since the commencement of proceedings may not know is as important that being police intelligence. It seems as thought the agency at the center of this discussion will be the Criminal Intelligence Service. This is a special policing entity in Nova Scotia that is tasked with fighting organized crime, and managing the exchange of information among police agencies. It is made up of officers from the RCMP, as well as municipal forces throughout Nova Scotia. (There is also a Criminal Intelligence Service of Canada, which seems likely to be closely related as an entity, though that is not obvious from publicly available information.)
There were three important happenings today relating to the Mass Casualty Commission. Two of the three took place within the Commission proceedings, while the third occurred across the harbour in the Dartmouth Provincial Court. In Dartmouth this morning, Crown Prosecutors advised the Court that they were referring Lisa Banfield’s criminal charges to restorative justice. She had been scheduled to go to trial later this month on charges of supplying ammunition to her spouse, Gabriel Wortman. That trial will now not take place. In the Commission proceedings itself, the day started off with a presentation from Commission Counsel, Roger Burrill, addressing the Commission’s findings on the perpetrator’s movements overnight, when he left Portapique and drove to Debert. Video surveillance from businesses along the route show that Wortman drove north into Debert, took a right down Ventura Boulevard, then drove into the Debert Business Park. It was there where he parked behind Brian MacDonald’s welding shop for nearly six hours. The next video evidence is of him driving west on Ventura Boulevard at 5:42 AM. The final matter of significance the proceedings today was a decision by the Commissioners with respect to witnesses who will be called to testify. To their credit, the Commissioners not only returned with a decision in a timely fashion, giving it now, rather than when the proceedings come back on at the end of March, and they also approved nearly every witness that was requested by the parties. That means that Lisa Banfield, the first responding officers, all of the involved Staff Sergeants and other supervisors, as well as the commanding officers for the Province and the head of the RCMP. This was the first clear indication from the Commissioners of what ‘trauma-informed’ means in the context of this inquiry. There will be witnesses, and they will be subjected to cross examination. This is a key moment not only for the families, but also for the public confidence in the MCC. The first witnesses will be called on March 28th, and they will be the three officers who were the first ones in Portapique after the initial 911 calls. Cst. Stuart Beselt, Cst. Adam Merchant, and Cst. Aaron Patton will testify together as a panel, and there will be other witnesses that week. The supervisors are expected to testify in late May, when the MCC takes a closer look at the command decisions that were made during the mass casualty.
There were less than two hours of proceedings on Day 7 of the Mass Casualty Commission. The process that was cut short by the winter weather last Thursday continued this morning, whereby lawyers for the various participants argued over whether, and if so when, certain officers might give testimony in the MCC. Today was dedicated mainly to discussing RCMP supervisors, including Staff Sergeants Halliday, MacCallum, Rehill, West, and O’Brien, along with Cpl. Mills, who was the supervisor for the Emergency Response Team (ERT). Each of the Staff Sergeants were involved in supervisory roles throughout the relevant timeframe, and the ERT squad (aka – the SWAT team) was called in to assist with the search for the killer. Unlike with the ‘regular’ members of the RCMP, Commissioner MacDonald stated that for these supervisors, the question was not whether they would testify, but when. He said that there is expected to be a further Foundational Document prepared which deals with the ‘RCMP Command Decision Narrative’, and that we can expect to hear from the officers who were calling the shots at that later (the exact time was not stated) time. Given the Commissioners’ rejection of the NPF’s expert last week, who was planning to argue for a blanket ‘trauma-informed’ exemption from testifying for all officers, it seems unlikely the MCC will be inclined to make many broad statements about trauma experiences among police officers. They seem inclined, rather, to look at each individual on a case-by-case basis. That said, it also does not seem illogical in any way to suggest that there are distinctions between trauma directly experienced, and that which results from supervising the experiences of others. The (somewhat-manufactured) offence from the federal lawyers is unlikely to persuade the Commissioners otherwise. These questions around witnesses are key decisions for the Commissioners to make, and though Chief Justice MacDonald said they would be making them as soon as possible, he tempered expectations somewhat as well, and so I do not necessarily expect those decisions to be made public on Wednesday when the MCC proceedings continue. Instead, the plan for Wednesday is to have Commission Counsel, Roger Burrill, continue his presentations of the Foundational Documents, this one dealing with the overnight movements of the perpetrator. We will also hear from lawyers for the parties who have questions arising from that Foundational Document, and will recommend particular witnesses to address any gaps they identify or other questions they may have.
We are now six days into the Mass Casualty Commission proceedings, and frustration is brewing. So far, the process designed by the Commissioners seems intended to sap as much dramatic interest as possible from the proceedings, as though that were synonymous with being “trauma-informed”. Witness statements and officer notes have been published in full, parties have been forced to beg for witnesses, lawyers have had to give advance warning of their lines of questioning, police have tried to exploit “trauma-informed” into a blanket exemption from testifying, and in all the talk about Portapique we have not yet heard a single word spoken from a person who was actually there. One thing that has become clear to anyone observing the first six days is that there are a variety of interests at play in the proceedings. Public interest in the Mass Casualty Commission is part of the field of battle among these various interests. It is in the interests of the families and community members, and all those who want to see changes emerge from the MCC for that interest to remain strong. The police and government interests, on the other hand, are served if interest drops off, or if at least the fallout from the bad publicity can be managed.
Today was occupied by requests from participants to have 18 various non-commissioned police officers brought before the MCC to provide testimony. This is a continuation, in a way, from yesterday’s proceedings, where parties were making similar requests regarding various civilian witnesses. As I noted yesterday, this entire procedure is unusual, whereby the default position adopted by the MCC seems to be that there will be no witnesses called, except as something of a last resort, and they need to be convinced otherwise. Mr. Scott spoke well about the need for witnesses from the broad perspective of the public interest, and Ms. Miller and Mr. Bryson were very effective in pointing out specific points that have not been covered by the existing statements, from the decisions by the first officers on scene to stay on foot, to the interactions with the children that had to wait two hours to be evacuated, to the discussions around containment options. In all cases, the lawyers for the police said the questions could be answered in writing, or that the details may come in later Foundational Documents. There are more police officers to be discussed. Two more ‘front line’ members, and six supervisors have been requested, but there was not time today to complete the submissions, and so that will continue on Monday next week. We can hope that the Commissioners will have a decision on at least some of the officers early next week. Their explanations for why they might allow certain witnesses to be called will be important to parse, to get a sense of how the months ahead will unfold.
Today represented the first opportunity at the Mass Casualty Commission for the non-Commission participants to be heard in a substantive manner. After four days of sitting and listening, the Commission finally allowed the participants to make submissions regarding any gaps they feel may be relevant with respect to the factual record, and any recommendations they may have for further witnesses and evidence that might fill in those gaps. This was their first real opportunity to openly challenge the Commission’s work, and they did so to various degrees. Some of the tension that has been taking place (mainly) behind the scenes was exposed in the first presentation from Patterson Law lawyer Sandra McCulloch. In her submission on behalf of the many family members that firm represents, she said that the families were disappointed with the proposed procedure, that they expected they would be speaking about any relevant gaps the had identified in the evidence presented to date (as per Justice McDonald’s opening comments), but were told by Commission Counsel that they would be limited to proposing individual witnesses and giving reasons for those individual proposals. Ms. McCulloch stated that the draft Foundational Documents that they had been provided by the Commission were significantly different from what was entered as exhibits this week. She said two of the three doubled in size while the other was reduced by half, and that they do not endorse these Documents as presented. At some stage (which they had hoped would be today) they want to be heard about their disputes with the narrative as presented so far. Chief Justice MacDonald said that time would come at the end of phase one of the MCC, which Ms. McCulloch correctly noted will mean the existing, apparently problematic, narrative will become unduly 'settled' within the minds of the public. The other major question of the day was whether any police officers below the rank of Staff Sergeant might be testifying. Nasha Nijhawan represents the National Police Federation, which is an organization representing all officers below the level of Staff Sergeant. That includes most of the officers involved in the MCC. Whether any officers would be testifying was the question that was to occupy most of the afternoon, but instead an issue arose regarding a potential expert report, and so the MCC adjourned until tomorrow to allow matters to proceed in a more logical order. All of this will really challenge the MCC to define more specifically what they mean by ‘trauma-informed’. It seems clear that Commission counsel will be advising against any meaningful witnesses, and there is disagreement among the other participants, so it will be up to the Commissioners to make a ruling that gives the parties, and the public, some clarity. This will go a long way to determining whether the public will have faith in the process. There will be submissions on the police witnesses tomorrow, and then the Commission will hopefully outline what we can expect for evidence next week.
The morning was occupied by a presentation by the commander of the Operational Communications Centre, Daryl Macdonald. Mr. Macdonald may technically be considered a witness of the MCC, but the evidence unfolded as a pre-scripted discussion between Commission counsel Jennifer Cox Q.C. (formerly of Dalhousie Legal Aid) and Mr. Macdonald. He talked about how the 911 system works in Nova Scotia. His testimony was heavy on technical detail, and in sum seemed to show that the system works very well and that things happen on a very timely basis. The more important part of the day, from an evidentiary standpoint, was the final few hours, with a presentation from Commission counsel, Roger Burrill. This presentation covered the initial hours in Portapique from the perspective of the police, reviewing what they knew and what they did. Tomorrow and Thursday, the Participants will have their opportunity to make submission to the Commission as to any gaps in the factual record, and any recommendations they may have for further witnesses and evidence that might fill in those gaps. This will be their first real opportunity to openly challenge the Commission’s work, and so will be a chance for everyone to show their stuff. I will be watching closely.
Today was the first day that the Mass Casualty Commission really engaged with the evidence that has been gathered regarding the tragic killings of April 18 - 19, 2020. Commission Counsel, senior legal aid lawyer, Roger Burrill, presented from the “Portapique April 18-19, 2020” Foundational Document. This is a 91-page summary prepared by the Commission that covers the first hour or so of the killing spree, up to the time when the shooter was able to escape Portapique. In terms of significant new evidence (or perhaps it would be better to say descriptions of evidence, since none of this was given as testimony, per se), the revelation that the killer was practically in sight of the RCMP officers as they were being told by one of the killers neighbors that he had just been shot, seems to be the most significant in terms of the mandate of the Commission. Also new is the mention that the DNA of Corrie Ellison was found on the killer’s boots. There had been some speculation that Mr. Ellison may have been accidentally shot by an officer in the confusion of the search, but this fact would certainly run counter to that theory. For those who had not previously heard, or read any of the reports of the 911 call made by the McCully and Blair children, who ranged in age from 8-12, the poise and courage which they displayed, while in close proximity to the killer, and under impossibly difficult circumstances, may have made the strongest impression of anything that was outlined by Mr. Burrill. We will find out more tomorrow what the police and other first responders may have known as events were unfolding. It is clear from the evidence unveiled today that they either knew, or should have known, by 11 PM on April 18, 2020, who the killer was, that he was disguised as a police officer, and that there was a chance he had escaped.
The second day of the Mass Casualty Commission proceedings consisted of two presentations. One was a panel on rural living, and the other was a presentation from one of the lawyers for the Commission on policing in Nova Scotia. Outside of the Commission proceedings, we have also heard from the lawyer for the gunman’s spouse, Lisa Banfield, on his advice to her about cooperation with the MCC. The first two days of the Commission seemed designed to very slowly ease into the topics that will ultimately be covered. The first specific findings will be released next Monday, in Foundational Documents and a presentation of the evidence by Roger Burrill, a lawyer for the Commission.
After months of delay, the Mass Casualty Commission (MCC) has begun their public proceedings. The Commissioners and parties were in Halifax at the new Convention Centre, while many family members watched from a viewing site in Truro. I was watching the livestream, which features closed captioning and French-English translation services. It was not a full day. There was about two and a half hours of Commission content in total. For the first hour of the Mass Casualty Commission proceedings, the Commissioners took turns making opening remarks. Notably, there were no opportunity provided to the other participants to make opening remarks, which is consistent with some of the criticism of the Commission that they are overly controlling of information, and of the proceedings more generally. In the afternoon, a spokesperson for the Commission walked everyone through the MCC website contents. The website is quite user-friendly, and so this presentation seemed superfluous. The other part of the afternoon involved a panel, which was called Human Impact. This was a discussion of the mental health impacts of the shootings on the people of the communities affected, as well as beyond that.
The Mass Casualty Commission begins their proceedings tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m. I will be watching the livestream and giving some live commentary on twitter (@adamrodgersNS) as things unfold. I will be very interested to watch the opening statement from the Commissioners, to see how, or indeed whether, they address any of the controversy that has been circulating in the media over the past few weeks. Since my last piece, which I posted before the weekend, and which was designed as an introductory setup piece to get people up to speed on the issues, there have been some new developments. There was a new article questioning the narrative on the gunman's spouse, we learned that one of the Commissioners has a book on inquiries coming out, family members continue to speak out, and the police want to ensure their trauma is taken into account.
We are less than two weeks away from the start of the “public proceedings” portion of the Mass Casualty Commission, and there is still confusion and uncertainty as to what those proceedings will involve. This week, we have heard from a daughter of one of the victims, who still does not know whether she will be testifying, or whether her lawyer will be able to question witnesses. There are two lines of questioning or topics that should be covered through Ms. Dobson’s testimony. One is simply for us to hear about her mother. Ms. O’Brien had eight children and 12 grandchildren, and was said to be the glue that held this large family together. She was a VON nurse who that morning had also called a fellow nurse, offering to do some of her visits. She sounds like a kind and wonderful person. Having this kind of context on the victims gives the MCC proceedings an emotional weight that helps ensure all participants dedicate their best efforts and energy to finding appropriate answers. The second reason that it is important to hear from Ms. Dobson is that she (as well as Ms. Beaton’s husband, Nick) can provide context for the key question of why the Alert Ready system was not engaged throughout this active shooter situation. Ms. Dobson and Mr. Beaton have already described to members of the media how things would have unfolded much differently that morning had there been an alert sent out to members of the public on their phones, as is possible with the Alert Ready system. The failure to do so was identified immediately as an issue, and is considered a major failure of the response to the shootings. It is inconceivable that this would not be addressed by the MCC.
A CTV news report from earlier this week revealed that the legislation designed to keep police clothing and gear out of the hands of criminals has not yet been enacted. The Police Identity Management Act was drafted in response to the Nova Scotia mass casualty of April 18-19, 2020, where the killer was disguised as a police officer, and driving a replica RCMP car. I have reviewed the legislation, and have a sense of why it has not yet been enacted. The normal course of legislation development, or how a bill becomes a law, starts with the legislation going through three readings in the Provincial Legislature (where it is introduced, studied, potentially amended, and then passed in its final form), followed by receiving Royal Assent (meaning it is signed by the Lieutenant Governor). After that, the legislation comes into force either on a date specified in the legislation itself, or else when the Provincial Cabinet proclaims it. The Police Identity Management Act has gone through all of those steps except for the final one, where Cabinet needs to meet and proclaim it. The legislation received Royal Assent in April, 2021, under the previous Provincial government, but neither that Cabinet nor the current one has yet proclaimed the legislation, and until that happens, it is of no force or effect. The legislation is sufficiently detailed in its current form such that it could be enacted at any time without the need for any supporting Regulations. I suspect what is really holding things up this the bureaucratic requirement that police agencies have these inventory management systems in place, as required by the legislation, prior to its enactment. Instead of waiting for that to happen, an alternate approach would be for the current government to remove those sections from the legislation itself, and allow the Minister to add the inventory management provisions as later Regulations, once consultations with the various police agencies have been conducted. Should the government take that route, they may also wish to review and improve the design of the parts of the legislation that allow a perpetrator to avoid all prosecution by simply forfeiting the articles in their possession. Those changes could take place in the spring sitting of the Legislature, if the government chose that option, and this important legislation could be in place within 2-3 months. In the meantime, we still have the Police Act and Criminal Code prohibitions should anyone be sufficiently foolish and insensitive so as to impersonate a police officer in Nova Scotia in our current climate.
The Mass Casualty Commission has issued an update today, January 31, 2022. In the update, they discuss the upcoming proceedings, the role of Participants, forthcoming reports, and unspecified alternate forms of public engagement. In my view, the real purpose of the update, however, was to manage (that is, lower) expectations as to what take place during the Proceedings. The main section of the release deals with the role of various Participants. The Commission notes that the “Participants” section of their website has been updated, but significantly, there is still no direct statement on whether parties will be entitled to cross-examine witnesses during the proceedings. We were reminded last week that the Commission has a very large staff, so we can presume that the words in this release chosen carefully, and that the failure to answer the question about cross-examination was a deliberate choice. Today’s statement does not explicitly tell us very much that is new. The real purpose behind the statement appears to be to soften the blow for when proceedings start, and instead of witnesses telling us what they did and saw and being challenged on cross-examination, we are presented only with someone reading in an agreed statement, or some form of prepackaged question-and-answer session between Commission Counsel and representative witnesses. Such an outcome would fall far below what I sense of the public’s expectations of this Commission, and be a further disappointment to those who have invested their time and energy in this important cause.
There are seven sections in the matching Federal and Provincial Orders in Council which established the Mass Casualty Commission and gave it a mandate. The Orders set out a list of issues to be explored, set deadlines, give the Commissioners power to enact procedures, and they also give direction that the whole enterprise be “guided by restorative principles in order to do no further harm, be trauma-informed, and be attentive to the needs of and impacts on those most directly affected and harmed”. For many, it may be unclear what, if any, legal effect those words may have. Trauma-informed court procedures, or at least the conscious development of them, is a relatively new phenomena in Canadian law, and western law generally. “Trauma-informed” has not been judicially considered, though there are some law journal articles which discuss its applicability. Essentially it means being aware of the specific ways in which people experience trauma, and developing policies and practices which reflect this understanding. It is impossible to have any meaningful discussion about the deaths of 22 people without getting into difficult emotional territory. Being trauma-informed is not meant to avoid difficult subjects if they are relevant to the core issues to be examined. It does, however, mean trying to not exacerbate anybody’s personal trauma experiences through specific, tailored steps designed to protect the person while still allowing them to participate in the MCC in a fulsome manner.
Patterson Law, the firm representing many of the families who lost loved ones during the shootings of April 18-19, 2020, has issued a statement calling for the Mass Casualty Commission to commit to a start date, and suggesting as well that there is a lack of clarity as to how the MCC hearings will operate. Most significantly, these lawyers, who are the main non-governmental participants, still do not know whether they will be able to cross examine witnesses during the MCC. This is very troubling news, especially at this advanced stage of hearing preparations. The Commission spokesperson responded to that point by saying “any additional questions participants may have will be addressed through the course of the proceedings”. That could be read two ways. One would be that if parties have questions after each witness is examined during the hearings by Commission legal counsel, they may be permitted to cross-examine. A more restrictive interpretation would suggest that the Commission feels they have already given each party a sufficient chance to ask questions during the closed-door sessions, and therefore any request for additional questions during the actual hearing might be met with resistance. We many wonder why Patterson would participate in the secretive foundational documents formation process without knowing that answer. Their statement yesterday suggests they are wondering that themselves. It appears that they did so reluctantly, as something of a show of good faith in the process. Now that they are speaking out in this manner, it would appear that they feel their good faith is being tested.
In criminal investigations and trials, it is not uncommon to see the involvement of confidential informants or police agents. Confidential informants, in particular, are commonly used as sources of information that can lead to search warrants being obtained by police for drug trafficking allegations. Police agents are most commonly used in organized crime investigations. Though any linkage has been denied, there are some emerging facts which are causing reasonable people to wonder whether the mass casualty gunman, Gabriel Wortman, had some relationship with the police, as either an informant or an agent. Wortman had a history of cross-border weapons and drug smuggling. His friend that made the RCMP decals for him has been linked with a Mexican drug cartel. While the killing spree was still ongoing, this same friend was reportedly evacuated from his home by the RCMP before children who were hiding in a basement were rescued. The RCMP called in other RCMP units rather than close by municipal police forces. Previous complaints to the RCMP about guns and domestic violence were seemingly ignored. In addition, Wortman withdrew a large amount of cash from a Brinks depot weeks prior to the shootings, in a manner that has been described as how undercover operators might behave. That has all lead some to speculate that he may indeed be an agent or informant, and that the police are just not telling us. If that is the case, the question becomes whether we will be able to find it out during the MCC hearings, or whether there is something that would allow the State to keep that a secret.
One of the issues that is going to dominate at least the early portions of the Mass Casualty Commission is the performance and decisions of the police officers and supervisors that were involved. Among the issues that have been identified is the myriad jurisdictional questions involved when criminal incidents reach a level where backup is required, which seem to exacerbate operational communication challenges.
The Constitution of Canada says that policing is a Provincial responsibility. The area around Portapique is policed by the federally established and operated RCMP. Two of the closest backup units to the local RCMP detachment are municipal police forces in Truro and Amherst. The killer had property in Dartmouth, and so the Halifax Regional Policebecame involved. The RCMP called other RCMP units before the municipal forces, even though they had to come from further away.
Who polices Nova Scotia? The Police Act is a provincial statue, which dictates how policing is supposed to be structured. The Provincial Minister of Justice is in charge, with wide ranging powers to direct police conduct and training, to deal with complaints against individual officers, and to review any aspect of policing. In a practical sense, however, it is not clear how much use is made of this authority.
The Mass Casualty Commission has announced a further delay in the start of public proceedings, pushing back the start date by a further month, to February 22, 2022, now four months beyond the original start date. That there would be a delay was not, in itself, a surprising development, but the reasoning was unexpected. Many Court matters in Nova Scotia, including in-person appearances and jury trials, had been delayed recently because of the surge in Covid-19 cases with the omicron variant, but the MCC did not offer this as their explanation. Rather, they said that they were continuing to work on Foundational Documents, and are dealing with further new evidence that has been emerging through discussions with the parties. There is a strong public interest in starting the hearings, and the more time taken behind closed doors to review and attempt to reach agreement on ‘what happened’ risks overstepping into contested evidentiary territory, and of turning the proceedings into more of a presentation than a hearing where witness accounts can be tested and challenged.
The person who might be expected to provide the most in-depth, insightful look at the life and motivations of the Nova Scotia mass shooter, and therefore the most anticipated witness for the Mass Casualty Commission (MCC) hearings, is his common-law partner of nearly 20 years, Lisa Banfield. Despite that status, there is considerable doubt as to whether she will actually testify, doubt which has been fostered in great part due to related criminal charges she herself is facing. In this piece, I look at the laws governing such situations, and explain why she is indeed a compellable witness for the MCC hearings.
The Mass Casualty Commission is being lead by three Commissioners, who have very important duties to fulfill. They have been directing the preparation work for the proceedings, will preside over the proceedings once they begin, and will write a report (including recommendations) once the hearings are complete.
It is unusual for there to be three Commissioners appointed for an Inquiry. As I covered in a previous post, other recent Nova Scotia examples, such as the Desmond Inquiry, the Hyde Inquiry, and the Nunn Commission, have all had only one Commissioner. Only in the Marshall Inquiry has there been more than one, though in other jurisdictions, and federally, there are other examples.
Previous Commissioners, including current Desmond Inquiry Commissioner, Judge Zimmer, have been sitting trial-level judges, who are used to dealing with conflicting evidence and resolving factual disputes. With former Chief Justice MacDonald, Chief Fitch, and Dr. Stanton, we may not have that skill set or comfort level.
SIRT has reviewed the final moments of NS Mass Shooter Gabriel Wortman’s killing spree, when he was shot dead by two RCMP officers at the Irving Big Stop in Enfield at 11:25am on April 19, 2020. To almost nobody’s surprise, SIRT has cleared the officers of any wrongdoing in the incident, which brought to an end a terrifying ordeal for the people of central Nova Scotia and beyond. Reviewing the SIRT report and further evidence uncovered since that time does not detract from the skill and mettle of these two officers in those critical moments, but does raise questions about what was known to SIRT when the report was written, and also about possible connections between Wortman and the police. The SIRT report notes that Wortman stopped for gas at the Big Stop, and that two Emergency Response Team officers coincidentally stopped at the same time, on the opposite side of the same pump. The report states that one officer saw that the man in the car was bleeding and recognized him as Wortman, exited his police vehicle “to begin refueling”, saw Wortman reach for a gun, and opened fire. It all sounds like something out a movie, but the vague language used by former Justice Cacchione may also have the effect of concealing some details we have come to know from other sources. Reliable sources have provided media with details of police radio traffic, and we have been able to see the actual video of the Big Stop shooting, as well as Wortman encountering the police just minutes prior to the Big Stop shooting at a gas station down the highway in Enfield. Collectively, these additional details significantly change the narrative of the final moments of Wortman’s killing spree. A mass shooter, who clearly intended to keep killing, was stopped with no further loss of life at a very public location. From that perspective, things could be said to have worked out very well at the Big Stop. The question is whether any planning took place in the 4-5 minutes Wortman took to get from the Petro-Canada to the Big Stop, and whether those plans or instructions included orders to kill on sight rather than risk trying anything else. What we have is an organized effort made to craft a story that does not seem to need crafting. That in itself lends credibility to the doubtful. The SIRT report covers the final moments of the NS Mass Casualty event, and perhaps because of the more narrow focus of SIRT, coupled with the fact that Wortman was the victim affected the conclusions. The Mass Casualty Commission should delve into these details so that we can learn how our police prepare for and deal with these scenarios, and why they have chosen to conceal or obfuscate some of the mass shooting’s final moments.
Just after 10am on April 19, 2020, with the Nova Scotia mass shooting killer still on the loose, having left Portapique 12 hours earlier and having committed further killings in the Wentworth area, two RCMP officers erroneously fired multiple shots at a fellow officer and a civilian emergency responder at the Fire Hall in Onslow. Such incidents draw investigations by the Serious Incident Response Team (SIRT), which is designed to review police shootings to see whether charges may be warranted against an officer. SIRT is civilian-led, and independent from the police or government. SIRT is now led by retired NS Supreme Court Justice Felix Cacchione, and has a team of investigators made up of former and current police officers.
The SIRT report states that two officers drove up to the Onslow Fire Hall in an unmarked Nissan Altima, saw a person they thought was Gabriel Wortman standing next to a marked RCMP car while wearing a high visibility orange and yellow vest, yelled to him to show his hands, and then shot when the person instead ducked behind the police car.
Credible eyewitness reports describe a situation where there was either a sudden, panicked (or at least not cool-headed) reaction to seeing someone who might be the killer, or else one where the officers were deliberately fooled into thinking it was Wortman standing outside the Fire Hall. If it was the former, these officers are in the wrong line of work, and the SIRT report is flawed. If it is the later, then there is potentially much more to uncover about Wortman’s relationship with the RCMP.
Last week, Northern Pulp filed a lawsuit against the Province of Nova Scotia, claiming for damages of $450 million on the allegation that the Province conspired to shut down “The Mill”, and in so doing cost Northern Pulp lost profits adding up to that amount. This was a predictable development, and there is a strategy behind what at first read may seem like an outrageous claim.
Many are now wondering how any kind of a lawsuit could even be possible. Northern Pulp was given a five-year legislated deadline to fix its effluent treatment system or else be shut down. It failed to build a new treatment system, the Province held fast to the deadline, and so the mill had to cease operations. It sounds simple, and if it were an interpersonal matter, and if the amount of money involved was less, perhaps that simplicity would be retained. This, however, is the world of corporations and shareholders, and so different principles apply.
Reports from Paul Palango and Jordan Bonaparte this week suggest that victims’ families are being told to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDA’s) regarding sensitive or damaging information, and are being offered substantial settlements from the RCMP. In this video, I discuss what that might mean for the upcoming Mass Casualty Commission (MCC) hearings. The NDA’s (or confidentiality agreements, as the MCC calls them) purportedly relate to information that will not be included in the Foundational Documents, which are supposed to be a summary of what happened, and are being developed now with all parties participating in closed-door sessions. It may make sense to have temporary confidentiality agreements that would be in effect until the hearings start, but that is not what the leaked documents suggest is the case. Compensation for victims’ families may be appropriate, but if it requires the parties to keep information confidential that would otherwise be exposed publicly during the MCC hearings, then the public will be shortchanged. The families are meant to be something of a proxy for the public interest during the hearings, but if their own interests conflict with the public interest when it comes to disclosure of information, this would not be a promising scenario for the MCC Commissioners, or the viewing public.
Thanks to the Covid-19 pandemic, we are in the midst of a very concentrated societal experiment of sorts regarding law making and the legitimacy of the rule of law. An issue that arose this week in Nova Scotia regarding the vaccination status of Judges is illustrative of some of the developing tensions.
The Mass Casualty Commission will be the seventh Inquiry held in Nova Scotia, including the ongoing Desmond Fatality Inquiry. There are some interesting commonalities and distinctions among these seven, with the flexible legal structure of inquiries also being on display. The list includes a wrongful conviction inquiry, three fatality inquiries, an investigative inquiry, and a restorative inquiry.
The Mass Casualty Commission has three Commissioners, like the Marshall Inquiry, and is something of a hybrid case in terms of how we might characterize the nature of the inquiry. There were 22 fatality victims, so like the Hyde Inquiry, the Nunn Commission, and the Desmond Inquiry, it will have some of the features of a fatality inquiry in that it will look for underlying causes of what happened, such as inter-generational and domestic violence.
It is also an investigative inquiry, like Westray, as there are factual issues to determine and also questions to be answered in terms of whether mistakes were made or police planning and emergency measures need to be improved when reacting to active shooter situations.
Being a relatively recent phenomena in relation to the legal history of Nova Scotia, the legal frameworks of inquiries in Nova Scotia are still developing, as we gain experience with different formats, and as the nuances of each new scenario are taken into account.
This procedural flexibility is a strength of the inquiry structure, and so even as more take place and lessons are learned as to what kinds of things work best, that core flexibility should remain, so that the structure can adapt to whatever future situation might call for the in-depth rigour of an inquiry process.
The Mass Casualty Commission issued an update this week, in which they invite citizens to participate in the process (and include a survey to allow people to answer how they would like to do so), remind us of the recently revised schedule, and indicate that progress is being made on the Foundational Documents. The process of creating these documents is a unique feature of this Commission compared to other Inquiries. It is a feature which has some appeal, but also some potential areas of concern, which I will review in this episode.
Much of the information that the public may be hoping to see examined during the Mass Casualty Commission hearings is already compiled and available, but is sealed by Court Order. The ongoing battle over the disclosure of this information can give us insight into potential serious difficulties with the upcoming Commission hearings.
When the police want to search any private property, they need to provide information to a Judge or Justice of the Peace that is sufficient to justify the search. This application document is called an Information to Obtain (ITO). The police are obligated to disclose all relevant information they have about the case when requesting the search, and the RCMP did just that when they applied for a warrant to search the various properties owned by Gabriel Wortman in the aftermath of the mass shootings.
While, by default, the public is entitled to know what information was submitted, there are exceptions. There is a concurrent process to the search warrant request that allows the police to request that the information be sealed from public view, and only disclosed upon a successful application to have it unsealed.
All of this is significant because of how it may translate into the Mass Casualty Commission proceedings. Members of the public may have presumed that all of this information, that is to say everything the RCMP did and observed during the shooting spree, would become public during the Commission proceedings.
It is reasonable, therefore, to question why the RCMP and Crown are fighting this disclosure if it is going to become public just a few months anyway during the Commission hearings.
The bigger concern is that it may also be the case that if the RCMP is fighting disclosure now, they may continue to do so. If this is indicative of their approach to disclosure, it may be very difficult for the Commission to get the answers the victims’ families and the public are all seeking.
The drive along Hwy #2 to the excellent hiking trails of Cape Chignecto is not unlike many secondary NS coastal roads. Portapique is one of a line of communities that takes up a small area along that road. When you drive past the Portapique Beach Road, it seems clear that there were possible escape routes for the gunman through fields behind the houses adjacent to the main road. What did the initial police responders know about the specific area? Also, Truro is the closest large centre yet that is not where the police response originated. How did long-standing jurisdictional issues affect the timeliness and effectiveness of the response?
A comment from Commission investigator, Barbara MacLean, in the CBC article on the Mass Casualty Commission open houses caught my attention, and may help us all understand some of what is going on with the Commission.
Ms. MacLean told a community member that it was important that community members remain engaged and involved after the final report is issued in November, 2022, as the recommendations from the Commission are not legally binding.
It was correct of Ms. MacLean to point this out to those attending the open house, and is something we should all keep in mind. In fact, it goes to the very nature of this public inquiry.
The Mass Casualty Commission is like a Supreme Court in many good and important ways. It can subpoena documents and witnesses, and can compel production just like a Justice in a civil trial could do.
The Commission is very unlike a Court in that it cannot make something happen in the final instance. Unlike a Court, it cannot order that its recommendations actually be put into action. A Court can order, for example, that ownership be declared in someone’s favour, or that money needs to be paid from one party to another, and then there are enforcement mechanisms that can be utilized to give teeth to those orders.
In the Inquiry setting, instead of orders there are recommendations, which can be either followed or ignored. Therefore, the real outcome of an Inquiry comes from sustained public pressure after the fact, after the final report is issued.
The Mass Casualty Commission has announced a four-month delay to the start of proceedings, citing the volume of disclosure and witness interviews as factors causing, or justifying, the delay. I believe there is more going on, and that it may indicate there are disputes happening that have not been made public.
For months now, the Commission has established October 26, 2021 as the start date for hearings, with the first phase going until December 10th. Now, they are saying that “public proceedings” will start in January and “hearings” in February. (That distinction in itself is significant. “Public proceedings” might mean open houses or roundtable discussions. The Commission made the distinction in it’s release, yet some media have noted the delay to be until late January.)
I suspect that behind the scenes there is a battle going on over disclosure, and that the police are resisting full disclosure. Four months would give the Commission time to hear whatever legal arguments may be warranted should the disagreement over content persist.
Knowing who is going to be taking part in the Mass Casualty Commission proceedings can give us important insight into what might unfold as those hearings begin later this month. The Commission has released a 22-page decision detailing who may participate, and to what degree each will be involved.
The decision also includes funding recommendations for many of the individuals and non-profit groups who have been granted the right to participate (also known as “standing”, in the more common legal phrasing). Those recommendations are not Orders per se, but do tend to carry great weight with government funding sources, as to reject such a recommendation would be tantamount to denying someone the right to participate when the Commission has said that they indeed have such a right. To deny that would undermine the Commission’s independence.
Those participating include families of the victims of the gunman (though, perhaps notably, not the family of Cst. Heidi Stevenson), three Canada-wide victim advocacy groups, health-related groups like the Nova Scotia Nurses Union, two firearms organizations, three justice advocacy groups (including Nova Scotia Legal Aid), numerous gender-based violence organizations, and several police-related organizations.
I want to talk to you about how we know what we already know, and how that may change (and perhaps dramatically change) as we approach the start of the Mass Casualty Commission hearings.
We learned some information thanks to media efforts to have our courts order that the RCMP produce documents. I am going to do a separate podcast on the process involved in unsealing these police documents, called Informations To Obtain, or ITO’s. These ITO’s allow the police to get a search warrant on a property. When such a warrant is requested, to justify it, the police need to tell the justice of the peace all they know about the case, and so often, too often I will say, they also request that the ITO be sealed so that the public cannot see it.
Media organizations have been chipping away at this sealed ITO through successful court applications, and so some information has been coming out through that process.
Another way has been the class action lawsuit filed by the families. This is where we learned, for example, that the only RCMP helicopter in the area was out on routine maintenance the weekend of the shootings. Technically speaking, the lawsuit is only a source of unproven allegations at this stage, but when drafting a statement of claim, a lawyer is incentivized to allege only what you can plausibly prove. Otherwise, you risk your client being hit with a costs award at the end of the trial.
The rest of the information we have so far comes from the Serious Incident Response Team reports on the RCMP use of firearms at the Onslow Fire Hall and the Big Stop, though questions are being raised about those reports, and I will talk about them on a future video as well.
The last source of information has been through sources within the police who have been leaking information to a gentleman named Paul Palango, who is an author of several books on the RCMP, and who has been doing an excellent job covering the story since the beginning.
In my view, having all of this information being released prior to the start of the Inquiry proceedings is a good thing from our perspective as members of the public. The last thing we want is for this process to be tightly controlled and have a narrow focus. Every time some plausible new story comes out, or some fresh allegation is made that looks like it might have some merit, it forces the Inquiry to add that to the spectrum of topics it will cover.
Discussing the political and legal evolution of the Mass Casualty Commission mandate from the early days when the families and public called for a full public inquiry, through the initial announcement that there would be only a limited review by the Commissioners and the public outcry over that decision, to the current structure where there is a full public inquiry with hearings, witnesses, and the ability for the Commissioners to issue subpoenas for documentary evidence and witness appearances.
With my work representing the Personal Representative to the late Cpl. Lionel Desmond in the Desmond Fatality Inquiry coming to an end, I have an announcement on my next project.
The Nova Scotia Mass Casualty Commission, which will examine the tragic events of April 18-19, 2020 in Portapique and other locations throughout Central Nova Scotia, is set to begin hearings on October 26, 2021, and conclude by November 2022. This is to be an independent public inquiry into the events, and is designed to let us know what happened, and make recommendations for changes wherever that may be appropriate.
As one of the very few active private practice lawyers in Nova Scotia with any experience in an Inquiry setting, I will use the skills and insight I have acquired over 15 years as a leading inquiry, litigation, and criminal defense lawyer in Nova Scotia to provide insider coverage and legal analysis for those following the Mass Casualty Commission. I have been following the developments out of the tragedy since the beginning, and already see many areas that would benefit from the scrutiny that can be provided by an Inquiry process.
I will watch the Inquiry proceedings and provide live analysis, along with short daily articles and video summaries of the proceedings. I will talk about the legal strategies of the various Parties, the relevance and quality of the evidence that is presented, the thinking that goes into specific lines of questioning, any political angles behind the scenes, and the media coverage of the proceedings.
I also happen to know many of the lawyers and police officers involved in the case, and so can provide those personal insights to the public as well.
My goal is to provide regular citizens with insight into what is really happening in the Inquiry and why it might matter to them. This is designed to be a public service, and so most of my content will be available to anyone free of charge. I will have an option for those who would enjoy some extra content, or else just feel like supporting the project, to make donations or become a subscriber.
As October 26th approaches, I will post some content to set some context for the inquiry, or as any announcements are made by the Commission. Regular posts will start as the opening of the Inquiry approaches. I hope that people will find this of use, and I look forward to your feedback throughout.