What Happened When Two Mounties Met at a White Spot

Two Mounties walked into a White Spot.

What sounds like the start of a joke was actually the final stages of an RCMP investigation into one of its own. Sgt. Nicole Noonan, an investigator with the force’s professional standards unit in Burnaby, went there to meet and question Cpl. Quinton Mackie, who was with BC RCMP North District in Prince George.

Mackie had been the lead investigator into historical assault allegations against a “well-known Canadian” several years earlier. The high-profile case, in which former students accused the man of physical, sexual and emotional abuse while teaching First Nations students at northern B.C. schools in the late 1960s and early 1970s, did not result in charges.

Noonan’s final report described his investigation as “comprehensive.” Mackie had not neglected his duties and had done his best to corroborate the story of childhood sexual abuse brought to the Burns Lake RCMP detachment by a member of Lake Babine Nation on July 11, 2012, it said.

“The evidence just wasn’t there,” Noonan wrote. “He did not for a second believe that he let her down at all.”

The experiences of dozens of witnesses who spoke about abuse at the schools amounted to a “strict and rigorous gym class,” Noonan determined. Their stories of being struck with basketballs and hit with sticks was “tough love” inflicted by an overly zealous physical education teacher. None of the punishment fell under the criminal code of the day, she wrote.

As Noonan took the stand last week to testify at a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal inquiry into the RCMP’s investigation, she stood by her findings.

“I’ll be very clear,” she testified. “Personally, if [the accused] had committed those offences, and it could be corroborated, then he should be arrested and charged. If Cpl. Mackie did a bad job at this investigation, he should be reprimanded and disciplined and given additional training. I have no horse in the race in either scenario.”

The current inquiry was launched after six members of the Lake Babine Nation took their concerns about the RCMP’s investigation to the Canadian Human Rights Commission shortly after Noonan’s investigation concluded in 2017. The commission referred the complaint to the tribunal in 2020. Hearings began in May and were initially scheduled to last six weeks, but new dates have been set throughout the fall to allow additional witnesses to testify.

Although the original investigation was widely reported in the media, the identity of the man at the centre of the allegations is now protected by a publication ban. He is referred to in tribunal documents as “A.B.”

As hearings got underway in Burns Lake this spring, members of Lake Babine Nation, Ts’il Kaz Koh First Nation and Wet’suwet’en First Nation testified about the abuse they experienced at Immaculata Elementary School in Burns Lake and Prince George College. It included strapping, kicking and hitting children with metre sticks — sometimes metre sticks with spikes driven through them.

Repeatedly, they also shared their fear of police, some recollecting being picked up by RCMP officers and taken away to residential school, and their belief that a complaint to the local detachment would go nowhere. “I didn’t think nobody would listen,” witness Richard Perry told the tribunal. “Nobody cared about me.”

Instead, they shared their stories with a reporter. “I trusted her,” Perry said about journalist Laura Robinson.

But the RCMP investigation, and later Noonan, blamed the journalist for “contaminating” witness statements.

Department of Justice lawyers, representing RCMP at the inquiry, repeatedly asked First Nations witnesses whether Robinson suggested what they write in affidavits or say during the hearings. The witnesses repeatedly testified that she did not. They said they just wanted their stories heard.

Noonan’s testimony provided a rare glimpse into an internal RCMP investigation — from its start, when the first officer assigned to the file neglected it, to its ending, when a senior officer signed off on its conclusions despite acknowledging perceived bias resulting from her role in the initial investigation.

Professional and self-assured on the stand, Noonan spoke about her experience investigating sex crimes, her understanding of the RCMP’s “dark history” with Indigenous communities and residential schools, and the importance of trauma-informed interview practices. She also spoke about the importance of asking open-ended questions during interviews with witnesses.

But a recording played for the tribunal showed Noonan had taken a very different approach in her interview with Mackie. As she slid into a booth at White Spot for what she described as a “conversational” interview, her tone was far more collaborative than interrogative.

An enormous volume of records

Noonan testified last month that the file she was handed in October 2016 was unique in several ways.

It was the first time, in more than 100 public complaints she’d previously investigated, that a complaint was made by someone other than the alleged victim.

Instead, the complaint was filed by Robinson. The journalist had published a story about the allegations against A.B. in the Vancouver newspaper the Georgia Straight in September 2012, leading to a highly publicized defamation case against her. A.B. eventually withdrew his lawsuit and Robinson lost her countersuit in 2015.

Neither lawsuit featured testimony from the former students of A.B. who alleged the abuse. The current hearings are the first time they have testified about their experiences.

In March 2016, Robinson wrote to Canada’s then-public safety minister Ralph Goodale asking for an inquiry. She had two concerns: The first was that Mackie had neglected his duty to properly investigate the abuse allegations. She also alleged he had misrepresented evidence during the trial for her countersuit. Her letter explicitly asked that the RCMP not investigate her complaint.

Robinson’s complaint was forwarded to BC RCMP’s North District. After a series of delays — including the first officer assigned the complaint neglecting it owing to a “miscommunication” — the file was handed to Noonan. She testified that she didn’t know Mackie previously and had the capacity to take it on.

The investigation involved an enormous volume of records, she said, and took up most of her time for the next eight months.

“I really thought [Robinson] might have a legitimate complaint and I wanted to make sure I got to the bottom of it,” she said. “She was alleging that [Mackie] should have done, or could have done, more to corroborate the victim’s allegations.”

Noonan met with Robinson over several days, taking a lengthy statement. She reviewed files from the sexual assault investigation and a secondary, spinoff investigation into broader allegations of abuse at Immaculata. She read witness statements and listened to their recorded interviews. She took written statements from two RCMP officers. And as her investigation neared its conclusion, she interviewed Mackie.

Restricting the scope of the investigations

Mackie had spent 18 months investigating the initial sexual assault allegation. As more witnesses came to light, including dozens who provided affidavits for Robinson’s statement of defence in the defamation case, the RCMP decided to split the file.

Mackie continued on the sexual assault file. But he also oversaw two officers who undertook the secondary file into broader allegations of abuse. These two officers asked witnesses three questions: Did you attend Immaculata? What years/age? Can you tell us about your experiences with all the staff and during your whole time there?

Among the witnesses shuffled to the secondary file were former students taught by A.B. after he moved from Burns Lake to Prince George College in 1970.

In one affidavit, a man wrote that A.B. had picked on him because he was small, banging his head against a door and throwing him down a flight of stairs. But the officers declined to take his statement. “The scope of this investigation was restricted to Immaculata Day School,” a note under his name reads.

Another witness alleged in an affidavit that when she was a 13-year-old girl attending Prince George College, A.B. followed her into the gymnasium’s equipment room and groped her. Her evidence was also considered irrelevant.

“She has never lived in Burns Lake nor ever attended Immaculata Day School,” the investigators noted.

In addition to overlooking the stories from Prince George College, the investigating officers failed to ask more detailed questions, said Karen Bellehumeur, lawyer for the complainants. In the case of Richard Perry, when he spoke about “the muscle man” who abused him, they never asked for a name, she said.

A note on the file said that Perry’s statement “lacked detail such as a suspect name.”

“Shouldn’t they have asked him specifically, ‘Who did this?’” Bellehumeur asked Noonan.

Noonan described best practice for interviewing victims as open-ended, non-leading questions. She said that witnesses may not have been explicitly invited to speak about A.B. but were given the opportunity.

“I personally probably would have asked more clarifying questions,” she said. “On the other hand, a lot of the time, we’re hoping that they can provide a free recall.”

‘I had drawn some conclusions’

Noonan’s final step before penning her report was to interview Mackie at the White Spot. They settled into a booth in the noisy restaurant on May 31, 2017. Despite the background chatter on a recording played for the tribunal, Noonan testified that the location was “very private.”

“The audio would give the impression that we didn’t have privacy. However, it was an optional, voluntary interview and this was the easiest way to meet with him and get him to provide me a statement,” Noonan said.

The interview lasted 35 minutes. A review of the transcript shows that Noonan spoke just over 40 per cent of the time, frequently embedding answers into her questions and finishing Mackie’s sentences. As he spoke, she sometimes weighed in, saying “Excellent,” or “Fair enough.”

“I had drawn some conclusions,” she testified at the tribunal.

During the interview with Mackie, Noonan frequently offered those conclusions, inviting Mackie to correct her if she was wrong.

As the interview with Noonan began, Mackie described the woman who reported the sexual assault as being “fairly consistent” in her statements. But moments later, Noonan contradicted him, asking, “Did you find any corroborating evidence to support her allegations even if she is sort of a vulnerable, inconsistent type of witness?”

Noonan repeated the error in her final report.

At the hearing, Noonan testified that “inconsistent” was “probably a bad choice of words,” adding that lack of corroboration would have been more accurate. Bellehumeur pointed to several people with whom the victim shared her story that could have acted as disclosure witnesses but weren’t interviewed by the RCMP.

Jonathan Bujeau, counsel for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, also referenced Bill C-127, which removed the need for corroborative evidence in historical sexual assault cases in 1983.

“I just know from my own experiences that if I cannot corroborate and prove what someone has told me, then I’m not successful in getting the prosecution from my Crown,” Noonan said.

In her interview with Mackie, Noonan also suggested that the physical and verbal abuse described by witnesses had occurred “in a school disciplinarian context,” to which Mackie agreed, saying he “broke down the timing” of the allegations and determined the discipline was “acceptable practice” under the criminal code at the time.

But that wasn’t the case, Bellehumeur argued.

“I’m just suggesting to you that this really isn’t true, that the law around that area was not assessed and addressed. It was just determined, without research, that this was acceptable behaviour,” Bellehumeur said to Noonan. “Don’t you agree that there was not an appropriate assessment and addressing of that issue?”

Noonan said she did not agree.

Section 43 of Canada’s Criminal Code, known as the “spanking law,” dates back to the late 1800s and provides parents and teachers with a legal defence of “lawful correction” or “reasonable chastisement.” It was narrowed in scope by a 2004 Supreme Court of Canada decision but remains in effect. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action include a call to repeal Section 43 entirely.

Witnesses testifying at the tribunal hearings have described abuse that included their hair being pulled, being forced to eat soap and being severely beaten for no apparent reason. Perry described being chased home from school by A.B., who was trying to hit him.

On the tape played at the tribunal, as Noonan summed up her understanding of the investigation to Mackie, she suggested that witnesses were “interviewed in an open context kind of setting.”

“But, again, correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but they were asked about their time at either school, either Immaculata or Prince George College, in a very general, non-leading type of way,” she said. “Then [A.B.’s] name was introduced into these interviews if they hadn’t brought his name up themselves, is that correct?”

Again, contradicting the notes taken by the officers he supervised, Mackie agreed. He told her there was “no allegation brought forward” from Prince George College.

“Just to be clear, were there people lining up at the police station to report abuse or sex assaults or anything else in Prince George or Burns Lake?” Noonan asked.

“None,” Mackie replied.

At the tribunal hearing, Bellehumeur pointed to Cathy Woodgate’s visit to Burns Lake RCMP to provide a statement. Woodgate, who attended Immaculata, had muscular dystrophy and died before the tribunal began, alleged that her small stature and disability made her the target of abuse by her physical education teacher, A.B.

“[Woodgate] went to the police station, made the allegations and nothing further happened,” Bellehumeur told the tribunal. “But did you see that she ever had any followup? Did anyone get back to her about whether charges were going to be laid or a followup interview with her regarding her allegations?”

Noonan said she wasn’t aware of any followup.

As Noonan’s interview with Mackie drew to a close, she asked him one last question. It was about a potential character witness who reached out to Mackie several times during the investigation.

In a detailed email to Noonan shared with the tribunal, the woman, an intimate partner of A.B.’s after he left northern B.C., described A.B.’s “sadistic character” and said she experienced “similar abuse” during their three-year relationship to that alleged by his former students.

A.B.’s former partner told Noonan she believed Mackie was “not interested in any evidence that corroborated the allegations” and that he was “effectively covering up any substantial information that would taint [A.B.’s] reputation.”

Noonan asked Mackie about the woman, noting that she had “reached out to [Mackie] because Laura Robinson asked her to” but had not known A.B. during his time in Burns Lake or Prince George.

“She’s not really a witness,” Noonan offered. “I just wanted to make the point that she reached out to you, you didn’t go looking for her, nobody disclosed her name as somebody that you should speak to.”

Mackie agreed. “She basically wanted to be a character reference as to how mean of a person [A.B.] actually was, which again was really of no consequence to what my investigation was,” he said.

After the recording ended, Bellehumeur pointed to Noonan’s previous testimony about best interviewing practices. “You talked about contamination of a witness if you’re not asking open-ended questions, right? Leading questions contaminates their evidence, doesn’t it?” she asked.

Noonan agreed it could.

“You were giving all kinds of answers and leading questions throughout this interview with Officer Mackie,” Bellehumeur said.

‘Perception of bias’

But the decision about whether Mackie had failed in his duties wasn’t ultimately up to Noonan.

Instead, it was up to Chief Supt. Lesley Bain, who was assistant district officer for BC RCMP’s North District and three rungs above Mackie in the chain of command. Bain was involved throughout Mackie’s investigation, taking part in discussions about the case with other senior officers, giving directions to Mackie and signing off on briefing notes that went all the way to the RCMP commissioner in Ottawa.

One of those briefing notes was also sent to A.B. and his legal team two days after the sexual assault was first reported in July 2012, newly disclosed RCMP records show.

When Robinson expressed concern about Bain being the decision-maker on her complaint, her concerns were ignored.

In a December 2016 email, Noonan shared Robinson’s concern with a senior officer. That officer copied Bain on her response. Bain forwarded it to BC RCMP’s then-deputy commissioner Brenda Butterworth-Carr, suggesting someone else take over the file.

“We’ve gone to great effort to remove any perception of bias for the investigation, my recommendation is that we do the same for the decision-maker,” Bain suggested.

A month later, Butterworth-Carr responded. “As per our conversation, until we receive a written request with documented rationale from the complainant, my preference is that you remain as the decision-maker,” she said.

In June 2017, Noonan completed her report and sent it to Bain. It was up to Bain to make a final determination and provide to it Robinson.

By early 2018, that hadn’t happened. In an email, Noonan pressed for someone of higher rank to ask North District for an update, noting that the document appeared to be held up in a series of approvals. “This letter is four months old and still hasn’t been sent to the complainant (or the member),” she wrote.

On Feb. 8, 2018, Bain sent her decision to Robinson. Mackie had conducted a “systemic, thorough and well documented investigation,” it said. The decision repeated discrepancies from Noonan’s interview with Mackie, calling the sexual assault complainant “inconsistent” and saying that no other witnesses contacted police to offer a statement.

There was no evidence to support the complainant’s sexual assault allegation, the decision found, adding that the accused was “a newlywed and a new father” at the time of the alleged assault.

“All of the people that Ms. Robinson claims were not interviewed by the RCMP, in fact, were,” it incorrectly stated, including former Prince George College students. But their stories did “not substantiate criminal code charges, no matter how Ms. Robinson wishes to present them.”

While testifying earlier in the tribunal hearings, Robinson expressed her frustration at the investigation’s outcome.

“The person who worked with Cpl. Mackie on the investigation… said that there were no problems,” she testified. “This was an unfortunate example of why we can't allow the RCMP to investigate themselves.”