OPP to probe senior Ottawa police officers, counsel
Provincial force to look into complaint stemming from tactical training exercise
Ontario Provincial Police will investigate allegations of obstruction of justice and evidence manipulation by senior Ottawa police employees involved in the SIU’s probe of a botched tactical training exercise.
On Tuesday, OPP Commissioner Vince Hawkes agreed to a request from Ottawa Police Chief Charles Bordeleau to have the provincial force investigate.
Bordeleau requested the probe Monday after Ottawa lawyer Michael Edelson sent letters to Bordeleau and two Ontario cabinet ministers outlining allegations against two senior Ottawa police officers and a lawyer in the force’s legal department.
Bordeleau told the Citizen on Tuesday that he will not reassign or suspend any of those employees, as well as any others named in complaints about the tactical explosion he previously made, igniting outrage from rank-and-file officers once again screaming “double standard.”
Police union president Matt Skof said there is “significant frustration” coming to the union from lower-ranking officers who are questioning why employees who report directly to Bordeleau are being spared the reprimand and outing they believe they would receive in a similar situation.
Officers are also questioning how a force lawyer, being investigated for criminal conduct allegations, can continue to carry out the duties of that job.
“We have seen (rank-and-file) officers suspended or reassigned for far less of an accusation,” Skof said.
Skof said he doesn’t believe any officers being investigated should ever be named because “it always adds prejudice to the file” but he said that since suspended rankand-file officers are outed in general orders issued to all officers by the chief, there appears to be a discrepancy when it comes to naming or suspending senior officers being criminally investigated.
The letter that prompted the OPP probe, detailed legal disclosure the lawyer received while defending then-acting Staff Sgt. Marty Rukavina, who — along with constables Serge Clement and Carl Grimard — had been charged by the Special Investigations Unit after a tactical training explosion in Kanata that injured two officers and three paramedics in the summer of 2014.
The charges against Rukavina and the other officers were ultimately stayed, but disclosure of evidence provided to Edelson and two other lawyers is alleged to have shown that evidence in the case was changed by the force’s legal counsel and also that some senior officers gave false statements during the SIU’s investigation.
The evidence pertained to the use of an explosive device during the training incident that was filled with windshield washer fluid rather than water.
The disclosure is alleged to have shown that evidence — a statement by an inspector saying that windshield washer fluid was used in similar training exercises before the explosion — was changed by the force’s lawyer to state that the fluid was never used, putting it at odds with the sworn evidence of other officers.
The alleged evidence manipulation could have mitigated the force’s civil and labour liability, suggesting instead that rogue officers on the day of the explosion weren’t following force policy or previous practices. But as a criminal investigation was underway, it could have also made sacrificial lambs of the accused tactical officers.
The statement, both prior to and after being changed, was attributed to an inspector, and was alleged to have been changed by a lawyer and then overseen by a superintendent.
The three involved employees have not responded to Citizen requests for comments on the allegations against them.