The Court of Appeal for British Columbia has turned down three Mounties involved in the Robert Dzienkanski case, who were seeking to quash Thomas R. Braidwood's Notices of Misconduct against them.
In the decision, issued Tuesday morning, the Honourable Madam Justice Saunders wrote:
This appeal concerns the jurisdiction of Thomas R. Braidwood, Q.C., Commissioner, to issue Notices of Misconduct to the appellants advising them he may make certain findings affecting them, in the course of issuing his report on the death of Robert Dziekanski. They appeal from the order of Mr. Justice Silverman dismissing their petitions for judicial review in which they sought to quash the Notices of Misconduct, to prohibit and enjoin the Commissioner from making such findings, and, in the alternative, to receive further particulars of the potential findings that could be made against them.
The roots of this appeal lie in the events of October 14, 2007. In the early hours of that day, Mr. Dziekanski, a new arrival to Canada, died in the International Lounge of the Vancouver International Airport. His death followed the deployment of a conducted energy weapon by a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, one of four officers who responded to a call from the airport for assistance.
After discussion of the Braidwood Commission and the Notices of Misconduct that Commissioner Braidwood issued on April 30, 2009, Madam Justice Saunders dealt at length with the legal issues raised by the three RCMP constables in the case: William Bentley, Kwesi Millington, and Gerry Rundel.
She also found no problem with the decision of Mr. Justice Silverman of the B.C. Supreme Court, who had dismissed the constables' earlier request to have the Notices quashed. She then concluded, with the agreement of the Honourable Mr. Justice Chiasson and the Honourable Mr. Justice Groberman:
I would dismiss the appeals and all applications to adduce new evidence.
Crawford Kilian is a contributing editor of The Tyee.
2
Login or register to post comments
frances
2 years ago
Who's paying?
I suspect the officers involved are not paying their own legal bills, but rather the taxpayer is, through some provision in the officers' employment contract. Otherwise, as ordinary citizens, they could not afford this ongoing litigation. Here is a division in our society between those who can milk the gov't tit for their own benefit, and the rest of us proles who are SOL.
DPL
2 years ago
since all three of the
since all three of the judges agreed that the cops didn't have a leg to stand on, the idea of asking the Supreme Court of canada to rule isn't that likely unless they consider it a sort of precedence to hear four cops lie throught their teeth