You are on page 1of 17

COURT FILE NUMBER:

1903 05s16

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL CENTRE OF EDMONTON PLAINTIFF: TRAVIS EDWARD VADER

DEFENDANTS: MICHELLE DOYLE, WILLIAM WISTER, ROBERT W. DODDS, MARK SLOAN, AL PROULX, STACEY TALBOT, DAVID BRINK, STEVE SHOTT, HEIDI VAN STEELANDT, PATRICK LESSARD, S./SGT. CAMPBELL, CPL. ROHATYN, CST. MCQUEEN, CST. LAVALLEE, KEVIN QUAIL, JASON REEVES, ANDY OLFERT, SHAWN LEMAY, PETER HOURIHAN, TIM TANIGUCHI, PATRICK WEBB, GRANT GOULET, JOHN DOE #1, JOHN DOE #2, JOHN DOE #3, JOHN DOE #4, JOHN DOE #5, JOHN DOE #6, JOHN DOE #7, JOHN DOE #8, JOHN DOE #9 AND JOHN DOE #10, G. WINTER, FRANK WILSON, BRUCE SCHLEGEL, ROMAN ZUB, M. BEAUCHEMIN, N. ANTHONY, DUSTIN YURDIGA, C. BARKER, J. RICHARDS, SEAN NICHOLSON, KOREY CLELAND, WES MANCHESTER, ED LAUZON, GLENN SIMMS, CPO REID, BRAD PIERSON, CPO FAWCETT, JANICE GIBSON, SHARLA HEISTAD, WAYNE REDDON, ROMESH PERSAUD, CHRISTOPHER CHAMBERS, MICHAEL ARSENEAULT, HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ALBERTA, THOMAS BERUBE AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA STATEMENT OF CLAIM ADDRESS FOR SERVICE AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF PARTY FILING THIS DOCUMENT: ENGEL LAW OFFICE Barristers and Solicitors #200, 10209 97 Street Edmonton, AB T5J oL6 Phone (780) 448-3639 Fax: (780) 448-4924 Attention: Erika Norheim File No: 4592 EDN NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS You are being sued. You are a defendant. Go to the end of this document to see what you can do and when you must do it.

Statement of facts relied on:


Stntemera of Clain/ (RCNIP2) / 22-Apr-14

2 1. The Plaintiff Travis Edward Vader is presently an inmate of the Edmonton Remand Centre (the "ERC"), and ordinarily resides in Niton Junction, in the Province of Alberta. For much of the time that the Plaintiff was incarcerated at the ERC, he was an untried prisoner and presumed innocent.
2.

At all material times: (a) Robert W. Dodds, Mark Sloan, Al Proulx, Stacey Talbot, David Brink, Steve Shott, Heidi Van Steelandt, Patrick Lessard, S./Sgt. Campbell, Cpl. Rohatyn, Cst. McQueen, Cst. Lavallee, Kevin Quail, Jason Reeves, Andy Olfert, Shawn LeMay, Peter Hourihan, Tim Taniguchi, Patrick Webb, Grant Goulet, John Doe #1, John Doe #2, John Doe #3, John Doe #4 and John Doe #5 (collectively, the "RCMP Members") were members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (the "RCMP") and purported to be acting in the course and scope of their duties as police officers; Michelle Doyle ("Doyle") and William Wister ("Wister") were members of the Law Society of Alberta and were servants and agents of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta (the "Crown") (all of which defendants shall be referred to herein collectively as the "Crown Defendants"). These defendants were responsible for the proper and fair administration and operation of the criminal justice system, and for ensuring that the Plaintiffs rights as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the "Charter") were respected; Wayne Reddon ("Reddon") and Romesh Persaud ("Persaud"), or either of them, were the Directors of the ERC and responsible for the operation of the ERC, and were servants of the Crown; G. Winter ("Winter"), Frank Wilson ("Wilson"), Roman Zub ("Zub"), Bruce Schlegel ("Schlegel"), M. Beauchemin ("Beauchemin"), N. Anthony ("Anthony"), Dustin Yurdiga ("Yurdiga"), C. Barker ("Barker"), J. Richards ("Richards"), Wes Manchester ("Manchester"), Sean Nicholson ("Nicholson"), Korey Cleland ("Cleland"), Ed Lauzon ("Lauzon"), Glenn Simms ("Simms"), CPO Reid ("Reid"), Brad Pierson ("Pierson"), CPO Fawcett ("Fawcett"), Janice Gibson ("Gibson"), Sharla Heistad ("Heistad"), John Doe #6, John Doe #7, John Doe #8, John Doe #9 and John Doe #10 (collectively, the "Correctional Officers") were employed by the Crown as correctional officers and were purportedly acting in the course and scope of their employment duties; Christopher Chambers ("Chambers") and Michael Arseneault ("Arseneault") were employed by the Crown as Sheriffs and were purportedly acting in the course and scope of their employment duties; and Reddon, Persaud, Zub and Simms or any one or more of them were responsible for the placement of inmates within the ERC.
Statement or Claim (RCAIP2)/ 22-Apr- I 4

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f) 3.

The actual identities of John Doe #1, John Doe #2, John Doe #3, John Doe #4,

-3-

John Doe #5, John Doe #6, John Doe #7, John Doe #8, John Doe #9 and John Doe #10 are presently unknown to the Plaintiff. 4. On July 5, 2010, a motorhome belonging to Lyle and Marie McCann was found burning near Edson, Alberta by one or more of the RCMP Members. The RCMP Members failed to reasonably investigate this occurrence or take appropriate action. On July 10, 2010, Lyle and Marie McCann were reported missing by family members. Members of the public provided tips about the investigation in the disappearance of Lyle and Marie McCann (the "McCann Investigation"), but some of the RCMP Members failed to take appropriate action with respect to the information provided. The RCMP as an organization, as well as some of the RCMP Members, were subjected to public criticism as result of the unreasonable conduct of the McCann investigation and were highly motivated to restore public confidence in the competence of the RCMP. As a result, some of the RCMP Members became intent upon publicly identifying and charging a suspect in order to restore public confidence without having proper regard as to whether or not the correct suspect had been identified or charged. Some of the RCMP Members had a long standing animus toward the Plaintiff, which pre-dated the disappearance of the McCanns, and which had previously manifested in the abuse of their authority as police officers toward the Plaintiff. As a result of this animosity, the RCMP Members or any of them quickly focused their attention on the Plaintiff as a suspect in the McCann Investigation, and permitted the investigation to become tainted by tunnel vision. The RCMP Members or any of them maliciously embarked upon a concerted campaign to imprison the Plaintiff and to persuade members of the public that he was a dangerous individual who was responsible for the disappearance and homicides of Lyle and Marie McCann. In furtherance of this campaign, the RCMP Members or any of them initiated a 6. prosecution of the Plaintiff in connection with a series of crimes that occurred in the Barrhead area on or about June 15, 2010 (the "Barrhead Charges"), notwithstanding that the RCMP had apprehended the actual individuals who were known to have committed those crimes. On July 16, 2010, some of the RCMP Members issued a press release and other 7. promotional materials (the "July 16, 2010 Press Release") which: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) identified the Plaintiff as a "person of interest" in connection with the disappearance of Lyle and Marie McCann; described the Plaintiff as "dangerous", a "violent escape risk" and a "known drug user"; published the Plaintiffs photograph and date of birth; revealed information about unrelated court proceedings involving the Plaintiff; claimed that Lyle and Marie McCann had last been seen on July 3, 2014; and was intended to deflect scrutiny of the RCMP for its handling of the
Statement of Claim (RCNIP2) / 22-Apr-1-1

-4investigation into the disappearance of Lyle and Marie McCann. 8. The July 16, 2010 Press Release was calculated to cause reasonable minded members of the public to believe that the Plaintiff was responsible for the disappearance of Lyle and Marie McCann, Thereafter, in furtherance of their campaign against the Plaintiff, the RCMP 9. Members or any of them relentlessly harassed family members, friends and acquaintances of the Plaintiff, and lied to them, in order to convince them that the Plaintiff was responsible for the disappearance of Lyle and Marie McCann. -to. On July 19, 2010, the Plaintiff was arrested by some of the RCMP Members, and incarcerated at the holding cells at the RCMP Detachment in Edson, Alberta. On July 20, 2010, legal counsel for the Plaintiff attended the Edson RCMP detachment in order to meet with the Plaintiff. In breach of the RCMP Members duties to the Plaintiff, Rohatyn, McQueen and Campbell, or any one or more of them, insisted on remaining in the room with the Plaintiff and his legal counsel thereby depriving the Plaintiff of his right to consult with legal counsel in private. The Plaintiff repeatedly requested that the RCMP Members leave and permit him to speak with his legal counsel in private, which requests were refused. Further, one or more of Rohatyn, McQueen and Campbell intentionally recorded conversations between the Plaintiff and his legal counsel. Rohatyn, McQueen and Campbell all knew that their actions were unlawful and intended to violate the Plaintiff's Charter rights. 11. The Plaintiff was admitted to the ERC on or about July 21, 2010 after being remanded on the Barrhead Charges and other outstanding criminal charges. By virtue of having imprisoned the Plaintiff, the Crown assumed certain obligations and responsibilities, and owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff, including a fiduciary duty, which duty included the following obligations: (a) to ensure that any deprivations of the Plaintiffs liberty beyond those deprivations necessarily arising from the fact of the Plaintiffs incarceration were in accordance with principles of fundamental justice and taken only in accordance with due process; to refrain from inflicting corporal or other punishment on the Plaintiff; to keep all the personal articles of an inmate that an inmate is not permitted to retain in a safe place; to ensure that the Plaintiff is kept safe both in mind and body and treated in a humane and reasonable manner; to provide reasonable and appropriate housing for the Plaintiff; to protect the Plaintiff from violence on the part of staff; to ensure that the Plaintiff has access to media, entertainment, reading materials of his choosing, recreational activities, exercise facilities, fresh air and clean clothing and bedding;
SloIcoloot of Clairo (RCA4P2)122-Apr-I4

(b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)

(h)

-5to protect the Plaintiffs rights pursuant to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms including without limitation: A. 13. C. the protection of his inherent human dignity; the right to privacy; and the freedom from interference with fundamental personal choices;

(i)

to permit the Plaintiff to actively participate in his defence of any pending criminal and institutional charges, and to permit the Plaintiff to have reasonable access to any materials required for such purpose; to facilitate solicitor client communication on a timely basis; to provide timely and appropriate medical care for the Plaintiff; and to reasonably investigate and take appropriate action where complaints of staff misconduct are brought to the Crown's attention.

(j) (k) (1) 12.

Throughout the time that the Plaintiff was in the custody of Alberta: (a) The Crown had, at all material times, no effective procedure for cleaning the tanks in A & D including Tank #3. Tank #3, which was commonly referred to by staff as the "Asshole Tank", was frequently used to confine problematic inmates as well as inmates who had been involved in violent altercations and, as a result, it was generally contaminated with body fluids including blood, saliva and urine. The tank's small size made it particularly uncomfortable for inmates housed for extended periods. There were no toilet facilities or running water in Tank #3 and, as such, inmates held in that tank were entirely dependent upon staff providing them with access to washroom facilities; Inmates, including the Plaintiff, being transported outside the institutions were confined inside cages in a motor vehicle (the "Cage Vans") which were unpadded, cramped and lacked sufficient headroom and space, and lacked seatbelts and grab handles. The seats were arranged sideways so that sudden movements would often cause inmates to collide with one another or be thrown around inside the cage. This mode of transportation was known by the Defendants to be unsafe and to present a risk of harm to inmates; The Plaintiff endured harassment and mistreatment by the Correctional Officers or any of them based on the Correctional Officers' belief that the Plaintiff was responsible for the disappearance of the McCanns (which belief was the result of the July 16, 2010 Press Release), including the Correctional Officers improperly and incorrectly informing other inmates that the Plaintiff "had killed the McCanns" and otherwise inciting inmates to be hostile toward the Plaintiff; the Plaintiff was, from time to time, forced to share a cell designed to accommodate a single inmate with two other inmates;
Statement of Claim (RCMP2) / 22-Apr-1-1

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e) (f)

-6the Plaintiff was subjected to excessive and unreasonable cell confinement, and lacked reasonable access to media and recreational activities; the Crown, the Directors and the Correctional Officers, or any of them, improperly took direction from or were otherwise influenced by the RCMP Members, or any of them, regarding the Plaintiffs placement within the correctional facilities operated by the Crown; The Correctional Officers or any of them endangered the Plaintiffs safety by requiring him to share a cell with an RCMP agent whom they knew was highly motivated to extract information from the Plaintiff and posed a threat to the Plaintiffs safety; The Crown and its employees repeatedly caused the Plaintiff to be transferred between correctional institutions when it was unnecessary for them to do so, knowing he would be transported in a Cage Van, for the purpose assisting the RCMP in planting listening and recording devices in the Plaintiffs cell; the Correctional Officers or any of them disclosed the Plaintiffs personal information and correspondence to the RCMP without a warrant or other lawful authority; and the Correctional Officers or any of them failed to provide the Plaintiff with all correspondence sent to him (including correspondence from his legal counsel and from the Legal Aid Society of Alberta), improperly seized correspondence received for him, failed to account to him for the correspondence that had been intercepted and misled him about the fact that his correspondence had been intercepted.

(g)

(h)

(i)

13. As a result of the July 16, 2010 Press Release, the Plaintiff was immediately placed on the disciplinary segregation unit, 5D, notwithstanding that he had not committed any breaches of the facility's rules. At the relevant time, Unit 5D housed those inmates which had established behavioural problems and demonstrated violent and other anti-social behavior, and was the most oppressive and restrictive unit within the ERC. The placement of the Plaintiff on Unit 5D was made without due consideration for the Plaintiffs residual liberty interests and was unreasonable and punitive. Further, the Defendants or any of them failed to conduct a reasonable review of the Plaintiffs placement and refused to transfer him to a less restrictive unit until approximately 6 months after he was admitted. At some point the Defendant Zub was appointed by Reddon to review the Plaintiffs placement but, in breach of his duties to the Plaintiff, Zub refused to discuss or consider a change to the Plaintiffs placement. 14. Throughout his detention on Unit 5D: (a) (b) the Plaintiff was locked in his cell with no access to a telephone, shower, cleaning supplies, or contact with other inmates for 23 hours per day; the Plaintiff had extremely limited access to fresh air, gym facilities, recreation and entertainment; and
Statement of Claim (RCMP2)/ 22-Apr-14

- 7(c)
each time the Plaintiff was scheduled to attend court he was held in Tank #3 in the admissions and discharge of the ERC ("A & D") and was routinely confined in Tank #3 for an unreasonable amount of time.

15. On August 31, 2010, the RCMP Members announced that the Plaintiff was a "suspect" in the disappearance of Lyle and Marie McCann. Such announcement was made in furtherance of the efforts on the part of some or all of the RCMP Members to persuade members of the public that the Plaintiff was responsible for the disappearance of Lyle and Marie McCann. 16. As a result of having been placed on Unit 5D with inmates who had demonstrated a pattern of disorderly behavior and violence towards other inmates, the Plaintiff was subject to three attacks involving the discharge of human waste into his cell and onto his person. The Plaintiff was required to clean up the human waste hurled into his cell himself without proper safety equipment and supplies, and continued to be housed in the cell notwithstanding that the carpet had not been cleaned. Despite having been subjected to these attacks, the Plaintiff remained on Unit 5D. 17. The restrictions on his liberty and the oppressive environment in which he was placed within the ERC were extremely damaging to the Plaintiffs psychological wellbeing, caused severe mental distress and constituted cruel and unusual treatment. 18. On October 26, 2010, the Plaintiff was scheduled to appear by CCTV for a bail hearing at 10:00 a.m. The Defendant Schlegel was the correctional officer responsible for supervising the staff on Unit 5D, including Winter. The Defendant Manchester was the shift manager for the ERC and therefore responsible for the supervision of all employees of the ERC. Shortly before 9:00 a.m., the Defendant Winter began yelling at the Plaintiff that he had to attend CCTV, which required the Plaintiff to exit Unit 5D and descend to the visits area. In order for the Plaintiff to do so, the door leading off Unit 5D had to be opened for him. There was a sign explicitly instructing inmates not to touch the door. Prior to the door to the Unit 5D having been opened for the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff walked to a mirror in the shower area a mere 10 feet away from the door and combed his hair so that he would look presentable at his hail appearance (there was no mirror in the Plaintiffs cell). The Defendants Winter and Wilson began yelling at the Plaintiff again and when the Plaintiff tried to explain to Winter that he was ready to leave the Unit as soon as the door was opened, the Defendant Winter, with the approval of the Defendant Wilson, physically assaulted the Plaintiff by in an area which was unmonitored by video cameras. Winter threw the Plaintiff against the wall and then caused him to fall face first onto the ground outside. The Defendant Wilson called a Code 44. Winter then manipulated the Plaintiffs arm in an upwards position so as to deliberately inflict pain while pinning the Plaintiffs face to the ground using his knee and delivered knee stuns to the Plaintiffs head. By that time, the Plaintiff had returned to within camera range and Winter, with the encouragement of Wilson, then deliberately removed the Plaintiff from the range of the cameras. The members of the Emergency Response Team including Beauchemin, Anthony, Yurdiga, Barker, Richards, Nicholson and Cleland then took over physical control of the Plaintiff, at which time they placed handcuffs and shackles on the Plaintiff and delivered numerous stuns, kicks and other acts of violence to the Plaintiffs body, including to his head and ribs. The Plaintiff did not at any time resist the Defendants' efforts to physically restrain him. All of the force used by the Defendants in restraining the Plaintiff was unnecessary and unreasonable, and was contrary to the Defendants' obligations under the Correctional
Statement of Claim (RCMP2) / 22-Apr- I 4

-8-

Institutional Regulation. The Plaintiff was then placed in Tank #3 in A & D, and was violently forced onto the ground. He was left in Tank #3 handcuffed and shackled. 19. As a result of the force used by the Defendants as set out in the preceding paragraph, the Plaintiff suffered personal injuries including long term numbing of his wrists and pain in his hands, the aggravation of a prior back injury, rug burn to his face and numerous contusions. The Defendants or any of them failed to provide reasonable and appropriate treatment for the Plaintiffs injuries notwithstanding several requests by the Plaintiff. 20. The Defendant Winter, with the approval of Schlegel and Manchester, then initiated charges under the Corrections Act against the Plaintiff of having disobeyed an order of the director or an employee and of having used disrespectful language. The Defendants lacked reasonable and probable grounds to believe that such offences had been committed, and initiated the charges maliciously and for an improper purpose. In furtherance of the prosecution of these charges, Winter wrote a report which failed to accurately set out the events leading to the use of force against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff was acquitted of the charges initiated by Winter on November 4, 2010 by an independent hearing adjudicator. The Plaintiff incurred expenses to defend himself against these charges. 21. Further, the Plaintiff made records with respect to the assault committed upon him on October 26, 2010 for the purpose of retaining and instructing counsel, which records were seized by Winter, with the approval of Manchester, without lawful authority. 22. On January 7, 2011, while the Plaintiff was housed on Unit 5D, staff members negligently left the door to the staff station open while they had entered onto another unit. Two inmates entered the staff station, after which an alarm was sounded and the emergency response team arrived on Unit 5D including John Doe #2, John Doe #3, John Doe #4 and John Doe #5. Notwithstanding that the Plaintiff was locked in his cell at the time of this occurrence and had absolutely no involvement in the entry into the staff station or other prejudicial behaviour, he was nevertheless subjected to abuse and punishment by members of the emergency response team. Those defendants assaulted the Plaintiff without provocation by forcing him against the ground, handcuffing him, violently twisting on his hands, lifting him up by the handcuffs and jabbing a baton into his ribs. The Plaintiff was further subjected to a strip search in the presence of a camera, and placed on the "Boss" machine. 23. In order to be transferred to a less restrictive unit, the Plaintiff was compelled to make a formal request for protective custody placement, notwithstanding that he did not want or require protective custody placement. Thereafter, the Plaintiff was transferred between provincial correctional facilities numerous times. On each occasion that the Plaintiff was transferred to ERC, the Plaintiff was held in unreasonable conditions until such time as he agreed to sign a form stating that he was requesting protective custody placement, and without being permitted to modify the form to accurately set out the circumstances under which he was agreeing to be placed in protective custody. 24. On June 27, 2011, the Plaintiff was arbitrarily transferred to the segregation unit without due process at the direction of Zub. At that time, John Doe, acting under the
Smicmcni of Claim (RCNIP2) / 22-Apr- 1 4

-9direction and supervision of the Defendant, Lauzon and Reddon, ordered the Plaintiff to pack up all of his effects and leave them in the hallway and told the Plaintiff that they would be brought to the segregation unit for him. As a result, the Plaintiff assembled all of his belongings and placed them in a clear, plastic bag. The bag contained disclosure materials which he required in order to instruct counsel in defending the criminal charges against him, as well as personal correspondence, an address book, photos, and items purchased from the canteen. The Plaintiff specifically conveyed his concerns to John Doe that his possessions would disappear, and requested that they be kept in a secure location to ensure that they did not disappear. John Doe refused the Plaintiffs request to keep his possessions in a secure location, and insisted that the Plaintiffs possessions would not disappear and would be taken to the unit to which the Plaintiff was being moved. 25. The Plaintiff never received these possessions after having arrived on the new unit. The Defendants or any of them replaced his canteen items and, in exchange, attempted to extract a release of liability with respect to all of his personal property. After repeated requests for information as to the whereabouts of his personal possessions, the Director Wayne Reddon advised that the Plaintiffs personal possessions had been "unknowingly/inadvertently thrown out with the garbage", and thereby attempted to conceal the improper seizure or destruction of the Plaintiffs property. The Plaintiffs personal possessions had been either deliberately disposed of or provided to third parties, or both, by the Defendants or any of them without lawful authority. 26. On July 18, 2011, a Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench specifically ordered that the Plaintiff need not attend an arraignment scheduled for July 22, 2011 in Queen's Bench in Edmonton. Such order was, at all material times, known to the Crown and to John Doe #6 but the Plaintiff was nevertheless transferred to the ERC from the Red Deer Remand Centre at the direction of John Doe #6 and, as a result, the Plaintiff was forced to travel in a cage van which the Crown knew or ought to have known was unsafe. Upon his arrival at the ERC, the Plaintiff was placed in a "dry cell" in A & D for approximately to hours. The dry cell in which the Plaintiff was placed lacked running water and toilet facilities. Further, as a result of the lack of toilet facilities, the cells were generally unsanitary and contaminated by human waste. 27. Sometime prior to February 8, 2012, Thomas Berube ("Berube"), a known habitual criminal, liar and suspect in outstanding homicide investigations sought to exploit his acquaintance with the Plaintiff in an attempt to avoid imprisonment for his criminal activities. In furtherance of this objective, he persuaded the RCMP Members and the Crown Defendants, or any of them, to employ him as an agent in order to assist those defendants in their objective to blame the Plaintiff for the disappearance of the McCanns. The RCMP Members and the Crown Defendants knew at all material times that Berube was inherently untrustworthy and had improper motives. 28. Berube fraudulently created a letter of employment (the "Employment Letter") which he supplied to the Plaintiffs counsel with the specific intention that the Letter be presented to the Court on behalf of the Plaintiff in a judicial interim release hearing. The RCMP Members or any of them knew, prior to February 8, 2012, that the Letter was fraudulent, but took no steps to warn the Plaintiff or his counsel of the fraudulent nature of the Letter. Further, the RCMP Members counseled, encouraged or otherwise condoned Berube's deceptive and fraudulent action of supplying the Plaintiffs lawyer
Statement of Claim (RCMP2) / 22-Apr-14

- 10 with the Letter, notwithstanding that they knew that the Plaintiffs lawyer intended to rely on the Letter in a judicial interim release hearing. The Plaintiff had no knowledge that the Letter was fraudulent. The Letter was never presented to the Court. 29. Without undertaking a reasonable investigation, and despite the absence of reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the Plaintiff knew that the Letter was fraudulent, the RCMP Members and the Crown Defendants or any of them maliciously initiated criminal charges against the Plaintiff on February 10, 2012 which alleged that the Plaintiff had willfully attempted to obstruct the course of justice in a judicial proceeding by uttering a forged document and that he knowingly attempted to cause the Court of Queen's Bench to act upon a forged document (the "Original Employment Letter Charges"). 3o. On or about March 27, 2012, as a result of the actions of the RCMP Members and the Crown Defendants or any of them, the Plaintiff was transported from the Red Deer Remand Centre to the courthouse in Barrhead in connection with the Original Employment Letter Charges, notwithstanding that the Defendants knew or ought to have known that they were not proceeding with the Original Employment Letter Charges. The Defendants knew or ought to have known that the Plaintiff would be transported in a dangerous and uncomfortable cage van, in breach of the Plaintiffs s. 7 Charter rights. 31. On or about March 28, 2012, still without having undertaking a reasonable investigation, and despite the absence of reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the Plaintiff knew that the Employment Letter was fraudulent, the RCMP Members and the Crown Defendeants or any of them maliciously initiated further criminal charges which were identical in substance to the Original Employment Letter Charges (the "Subsequent Employment Letter Charges"). 32. The Original Employment Letter Charges were withdrawn by the Crown on April 11, 2012. 33. The Defendants or any of them did not actually intend that the Original Charges and the Subsequent Charges would be the subject of a trial, and initiated and continued the prosecution of the Charges for improper purposes, particulars of which include (without limitation): a. b. c. d. e. to damage the Plaintiffs reputation and credibility; to ensure that the Plaintiff was not released from custody; to undermine the Plaintiffs relationship with his counsel; to increase the mental distress being suffered by the Plaintiff; and to provide police with additional opportunities to gather evidence in connection with unrelated investigations.

34. The RCMP Members involved in the investigation and prosecution of both the Barrhead Charges and the Subsequent Employment Letter Charges either deliberately or negligently failed to provide the Crown Defendants with all relevant evidence relating those charges. The Crown Defendants knew or ought to have known that the RCMP Members had failed to provide complete disclosure, but failed to adequately consult with the RCMP Members for the purpose of ensuring that the Plaintiff was provided with the disclosure materials to which he was entitled. Further, the Crown Defendants
Statement of Claim (RCNIP2) / 22-Apr-11

- 11 did not provide the Plaintiff with all relevant disclosure in their possession in a timely manner or at all. 35. The trial of the Barrhead Charges took place on April 2-5, 2012, and the Plaintiff was convicted of eight of the fourteen Barrhead Charges. The RCMP Members and the Crown Defendants were worried that the Plaintiff would be released from custody and therefore took action as outlined below in order to prevent this from occurring. 36. On April 20, Wister appeared ex parte before a Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench seeking a court order authorizing the Plaintiff to be transported to the RCMP detachment in Sherwood Park for the purpose of interviewing the Plaintiff. The Justice who heard the application granted an order (the "Binder Order") expressly provided that the Binder Order would be without prejudice to the Plaintiffs Charter Rights. Further, the Binder Order required the Plaintiff to be brought before a Justice without unreasonable delay and, in any event, within 24 hours or as soon as possible thereafter if a justice is not available. 37. The Plaintiff was subsequently transferred by Quail and Reeves or either of them to the Sherwood Park RCMP Detachment, however the Plaintiff was not at any time provided with a copy of the Order authorizing such action. 38. Legal counsel for the Plaintiff repeatedly requested a copy of the Order authorizing the police actions, however the RCMP Members refused to comply with this request, thereby depriving the Plaintiff of the ability to obtain informed legal advice with respect to the circumstances of his detention. 39. The Plaintiff requested that Quail speak to his legal counsel to inform her of the authority with respect to his detention, however Quail refused stating that he doesn't speak to lawyers, or words to that effect. 40. The conditions of the Plaintiff's incarceration at the Sherwood Park RCMP detachment were inhumane. There was another person's vomit inside the cell in which the Plaintiff was housed, which the Plaintiff was required to clean without cleaning supplies. The mattress provided to the Plaintiff was inadequate, he was not given a pillow, and was only given a single blanket. The conditions of the Plaintiffs incarceration were designed to increase the Plaintiffs vulnerability and render him psychologically unstable. 41. The Plaintiff and his legal counsel repeatedly informed the RCMP Members that the Plaintiff was exercising his right to remain silent, yet the RCMP Members nevertheless attempted to exploit the Plaintiffs vulnerability for the purpose of extracting a statement from him, and thereby overcome his free will. At one point, when the Plaintiff refused to enter the interview room and attempted to return to his holding cell, one of the RCMP Members attempted to physically push the Plaintiff into the interview room. 42. In breach of the terms of the Binder Order, the RCMP Members failed to bring the Plaintiff before a Justice without unreasonable delay and within 24 hours from the time of his arrest. Even after the Plaintiff was brought before a Justice more than 24 hours after his arrest and was remanded on a Form 8, the RCMP Members continued to unlawfully detain the Plaintiff at the RCMP Detachment in Sherwood Park for
Statement of Claim (RCNIP2)/ 22-Apr- t 4

- 12 approximately 21 more hours before returning him to the Edmonton Remand Centre.

43. Further, on April 21, 2012, legal counsel attended the Sherwood Park detachment for the purpose of meeting with the Plaintiff, but was prevented from doing so by some of the RCMP Members. The RCMP Members failed to inform the Plaintiff that legal counsel had attended and requested to meet with him. 44. The RCMP Members and the Crown Defendants, or any of these defendants, initiated a prosecution of two charges of first degree murder against the Plaintiff in connection with the presumed deaths Lyle and Marie McCann (the "Homicide Charges"). The Homicide Charges were initiated by these defendants maliciously and without reasonable and probable grounds. These defendants knew that there was no reasonable likelihood of conviction of the Homicide Charges, yet nevertheless proceeded with the prosecution for one or more of the following improper purposes: (a) (b) (c) to bolster public confidence in the RCMP and the Crown Prosecutor's Office; to keep the Plaintiff imprisoned; to further their investigation into the disappearance of Lyle and Marie McCann.

45. On April 23, 2012, the RCMP issued a press release announcing that the Homicide Charges had been initiated against the Plaintiff. Lemay committed to the public being informed as to "what happened to the McCanns" in court knowing that there would be no trial and that the RCMP did not in fact know what had happened to the McCanns. This media release was a continuation of the RCMP's public relations campaign designed to convince reasonable minded members of the community as to the Plaintiffs guilt without due process. 46. A court appearance in connection with the Homicide Charges was scheduled to take place on May 15, 2012. On May 14, 2012, Chambers and Arseneault took custody of the Plaintiff for the purpose of transporting him to the RCMP Detachment in Edson. Upon taking custody of the Plaintiff, Chambers grabbed and squeezed the Plaintiff s genitals very hard and said "how do you like that you piece of shit?" and "I should break your neck". Chambers then placed the Plaintiff in shackles and, despite the Plaintiff being fully compliant with this process, Chambers ordered him to "quit resisting" and threatened to put the Plaintiff onto the ground. Chambers repeatedly made harassing comments to the Plaintiff including stating that he "should just save everybody a bunch of time and money by breaking (the Plaintiffs) neck" and referring to the Plaintiff as a "piece of shit". Arseneault repeatedly attempted to provoke the Plaintiff into a physical fight and stated "you're a coward that kills old people". Chambers and Arsenault forced the Plaintiff into a very small compartment in the back of a Cage Van, notwithstanding that there were other larger and more comfortable compartments available in which the Plaintiff could have been placed for the transport. As a result of the confined space, the Plaintiff suffered discomfort and pain to his legs and neck. Upon the Plaintiffs arrival at the Edson RCMP Detachment, Chambers removed the Plaintiffs shackles and handcuffs, but in the process of doing so intentionally twisted the handcuffs and shackles in such a way as to intentionally cause pain to the Plaintiff. While doing so, both Sheriffs continued to taunt and threaten the Plaintiff. Chambers and Arseneault
Statement of Claim (RCMP2) 22-Apr- I 4

- 13 transported the Plaintiff from the Edson Detachment back to the ERC on May 16, 2012, during which time they continued to harass and mistreat the Plaintiff in the same manner as they had on May 14, 2012. 47. The disclosure materials provided by the Crown in connection with the Homicide Charges were so voluminous that the materials were put onto a laptop by the RCMP Members and the Crown Defendants or any of them (the "Laptop"). The Crown had a duty to permit the Plaintiff to have as much access to the Laptop as he reasonably required in order to properly defend himself against the Homicide Charges. In breach of that duty, the Defendants Fawcett, Pierson, Reid and Lauzon arbitrarily and unreasonably hindered the Plaintiffs access to the Laptop and his ability to review his disclosure materials and therefore defend himself against the Homicide Charges. Particulars of the conduct which hindered the Plaintiffs ability to review his disclosure materials include without limitation: (a) On or about July 19, 2012, Fawcett arbitrarily elected to limit the time during which the Plaintiff would be permitted to have access to the Laptop to two hours per day; On July 20, 2012, Fawcett arbitrarily refused to permit the Plaintiff to have access to the Laptop; Lauzon instructed the correctional officers under his supervision, including Reid and Pierson, that the Plaintiff would not be permitted to review his disclosure unless visits staff initiated the process; and On July 20, 2012, Lauzon elected to punish the Plaintiff by refusing him access to the Laptop as a result of the Plaintiff questioning Lauzon's refusal to allow him access to the Laptop before being called by visits.

(b) (c)

(d)

48. Fawcett, Lauzon, Reid and Pierson were acting without authority when they refused to permit the Plaintiff access to the Laptop. Their actions were reported to Persaud, who failed to take appropriate action with respect to their misconduct. 49. As a result of the unreasonable refusal of Lauzon, Fawcett, Pierson and Ried to facilitate the Plaintiffs access to his disclosure materials and the verbal arguments that resulted from such staff misconduct, the Plaintiff was confined in Tank #3 for an unreasonable length of time without being provided access to washroom facilities. The Plaintiff was then placed on Unit 5D without due process, where he remained for an unreasonable length of time. 5o. On February 28, 2013, the Plaintiff was transferred from the RDRC to the ERC notwithstanding that the Defendants or any of them knew that the Plaintiff was not required in court on March 1, 2013 as previously scheduled. The Plaintiff brought with him some of his disclosure materials and other confidential legal papers during the transport. Upon arrival at the ERC, the Plaintiff was held for an extended period in a tank in A & D, during which time ERC staff withheld his disclosure materials despite the Plaintiffs protests. Initially, the Plaintiff was informed that the disclosure materials would remain within the Plaintiffs view. However, upon the instruction of the DDO, whose identity is presently unknown to the Plaintiff, the disclosure materials were removed from the Plaintiffs sight. The Plaintiff attempted to speak to the DDO about
Slatcmcnt of Chin (RCIAP2) / 22-Apr-1 1

- 14 -

the removal of his disclosure materials, however the DDO responded by saying "fuck off Vader" and laughed. Some of the correctional officers read through the confidential legal papers. This caused the Plaintiff significant mental distress. The Defendants or any of them refused to return the Plaintiffs confidential legal papers and instead said that they were going to send them to RDRC. The Plaintiff asked for their names, which they refused to provide. They were not wearing nametags. The Plaintiff was then told he could go to a unit but could not take his confidential legal papers. Accordingly, the Plaintiff remained in a tank in A & D for several more hours before being permitted to take his confidential legal papers with him to a unit. 51. On March 1, 2013, a complaint was submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff with respect to the refusal of ERC staff to provide his disclosure materials to him while he was being held in a tank in A & D and the failure of the staff to wear their nametags. The complaint was immediately brought to the attention of the ERC staff, who taunted and harassed the Plaintiff about having made the complaint, and told him he would await transfer to the RDRC in the "asshole tank". One or more of the Correctional Officers again took away his disclosure materials as he was awaiting transfer back to RDRC. ERC staff then transported the Plaintiff to the Calgary Correctional Centre ("CCC") at the direction of Gibson instead of the RDRC notwithstanding that they knew that the Plaintiff was destined for RDRC and would not be housed at CCC. This was done to punish the Plaintiff for having complained about his disclosure materials having been taken away or some other improper purpose. Ultimately, the Plaintiff was transported from CCC to RDRC, but spent significant additional time travelling in the Cage Van which was extremely uncomfortable and unpleasant. 52.
53.

Upon returning to RDRC, staff refused to permit the Plaintiff access to the Laptop. During that time, some of the Correctional Officers tampered with the Laptop.
As a result of the disclosure materials provided in connection with the Homicide

Charges, the Plaintiff became aware that the Defendants or any of them had failed to provide him with full disclosure prior to the trial of the Barrhead Charges. This failure to provide full disclosure was intentional or, alternatively, negligent. As a result of the failure of some of the defendants failure to provide full disclosure, the Plaintiff successfully brought an application for a mistrial with respect to the proceedings which had resulted in his convictions. 54. A trial was scheduled to take place with respect to the Subsequent Employment Letter Charges for a period of three days beginning on January 23, 2013. The Subsequent Charges were stayed by the Crown on January 18, 2013. The Plaintiff incurred expenses in order to defend the Original Employment Letter Charges and the Subsequent Employment Letter Charges. 55. In the course of the prosecution of the Homicide Charges, the RCMP Members failed to provide the Crown Defendants with all relevant evidence and information in a timely manner. The Crown Defendants, or any of them, failed to provide the Plaintiffs legal counsel with complete and timely access to the relevant evidence and information within their possession. 56. The Defendants or any of them acted in concert with one another for the purpose of harming the Plaintiff or, in the alternative, by employing unlawful means with knowledge that harm was likely to result to the Plaintiff.
Statement of Clatin (RCMP2) / 22-Apr -1 4

-1557. The RCMP Members and the Crown Defendants or any of them deliberately prolonged the prosecution of the Homicide Charges despite the knowledge that there was no reasonable prospect of conviction. The Crown Defendants agreed to schedule a preliminary inquiry for six weeks beginning in September, 2013, then on the eve of the dates scheduled for the preliminary inquiry elected to proceed by way of direct indictment, thereby depriving the Plaintiff of the preliminary inquiry after having delayed the prosecution for this express purpose. The decision to proceed by direct indictment on the eve of the dates scheduled for the preliminary inquiry was made in bad faith and with knowledge on the part of the Crown Defendants and the RCMP Members that there was no reasonable prospect for a conviction of the Homicide Charges at trial, and was done in order to prolong the prosecution of the Homicide Charges. 58. The Charges were stayed by the Crown Defendants, and thereby terminated in the Plaintiff's favour, on March 19, 2014, approximately one month before the trial of the Homicide Charges was scheduled to begin, after the Plaintiffs counsel brought an application for relief under the Charter as a result of breaches of the Plaintiffs Charter rights. 59. The Plaintiff incurred significant expenses and incurred indebtedness as a result of having to defend the Homicide Charges. 60. The conduct of the Defendants or any of them constituted an abuse of the criminal justice process and a flagrant abuse of their authority which was high-handed and malicious and warrants an award of aggravated and punitive damages. 61. The conduct described above violated the Plaintiffs rights pursuant to ss. 7, 8, 9, io(b), ii(d) and (e) and s. 12 of the Charter. 62. The Attorney-General of Canada is vicariously liable for the actions of the RCMP Members and Berube. 63. The Crown is vicariously liable for the actions of its servants and agents as outlined herein, including Doyle, Wister, Reddon, Persaud, Chambers, Arseneault and the Correctional Officers. 64. The Plaintiff proposes that the trial of this action be held in Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta. 65. days. The Plaintiff anticipates that the trial of this matter will not require more than 25

Remedy sought:
66. The Plaintiff claims: (a) Damages against the Defendants, including aggravated and punitive damages, in the amount of $1,000,000.00;
Statement of Claim (RC/41P2) / 22-Apr-4 4

- 16 (b) Such further or other relief as this Honourable Court considers appropriate and just to provide a meaningful remedy to the Plaintiff pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter; Costs of this action on a solicitor and own client basis; Interest pursuant to the Judgment Interest Act, R.S.A.
2000, C.

(c) (d) (e)

J-1; and

Such further or other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.

DATED at the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, this 22 nd day of April, 2014, AND DELIVERED BY ENGEL LAW OFFICE, solicitors for the Plaintiff, whose address for service is in care of their said solicitors at #200, 10209 97TH Street, Edmonton, Alberta T5J 0L6.

Statement of Claim (RCA1P2) / 22-Apr-14

-17NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANTS You only have a short time to do something to defend yourself against this claim: 20 days if you are served in Alberta 1 month if you are served outside Alberta but in Canada 2 months if you are served outside Canada. You can respond by filing a statement of defence or a demand for notice in the office of the clerk of the Court of Queen's Bench at Edmonton, Alberta, AND serving your statement of defence or a demand for notice on the plaintiffs address for service. WARNING If you do not file and serve a statement of defence or a demand for notice within your time period, you risk losing the law suit automatically. If you do not file, or do not serve, or are late in doing either of these things, a court may give a judgment to the plaintiff against you.

Statement of Claim (RCAIP2) / 22-Apr-I 4