Mountie suffering PTSD following Mayerthorpe massacre battles discharge from RCMP


A former Mayerthorpe RCMP officer who developed post-traumatic stress disorder following the 2005 murder of four of his colleagues is claiming his Charter rights were violated when he was discharged from the force because of his disability.

Former constable Trevor Josok was dismissed June 13, 2016, more than a decade after the tragic shooting that triggered a “disabling condition” that forced him to take a medical leave.

Josok was finally let go following changes to the RCMP Act that allow for the dismissal of an officer having a disability. If Josok’s application for a judicial review by the Federal Court is successful, it could have implications in a number of cases across Canada, his lawyer Sebastian Anderson, a B.C.-based labour rights attorney, said earlier this week.

On the afternoon of March 2, 2005, Mayerthorpe RCMP were called to James Roszko‘s property by bailiffs trying to repossess Roszko’s truck. Roszko had set his dogs on the bailiffs before speeding away.

Officers responding to the call found a substantial marijuana grow operation and a chop shop of stolen vehicle parts inside a Quonset on the property. According to Anderson, Josok was among the officers that worked the overnight shift, guarding the property until the search could resume in the morning.

Sometime during the night, unbeknownst to Josok and his colleagues, Roszko managed to sneak back onto the farm and into the Quonset.

When the end of his shift came, Josok met up with a fellow officer for coffee. When they were done, Josok went home to bed.

“While he was asleep, the other member he’d had coffee with received a call to come in and work overtime, to be engaged in the raid on Roszko’s farm,” Anderson said.

When that officer arrived at the property, he and three others entered the Quonset where Roszko was lying in wait. After fatally shooting all four Mounties — Peter Schiemann, Leo Johnston, Brock Myrol and Anthony Gordon — Roszko walked out of the Quonset and was shot twice by another officer. He then retreated into the building and shot himself in the head.

Anderson said the incident triggered serious PTSD in Josok, connected to the guilt he felt about not being there for his co-workers. He went on medical leave in September 2005.

Josok returned to work through the RCMP’s accommodation program in September 2006.

According to the court application, Josok tried to recover, but felt he was continuously given tasks that were “menial and demeaning,” and the distress pushed him to take another medical leave in November 2008.

“Overall, the RCMP’s accommodation process was very disappointing and made him feel completely defeated, demoralized and humiliated,” Josok’s application states.

Anderson said that because of the PTSD, Josok cannot bring himself to wear his uniform, but is otherwise fully able to perform police duties.

In March 2011, RCMP notified Josok it was seeking a medical discharge for him. More than four years went by, and then the RCMP withdrew that notice and issued a new one based on changes to the RCMP Act, which included an amendment allowing dismissal of an officer on grounds other than violating the code of conduct.

In his application to the court, Josok said the RCMP cited that section of the act, as well as a section of the Commissioner’s Standing Orders that allows for dismissal of a member for having a disability as defined by the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Josok will argue that the existence of that section violates section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that it should be struck down as unconstitutional.

Josok is also requesting reinstatement as an officer, and that the RCMP pay his associated costs.

Anderson said a date has yet to be set for a hearing, which Josok has requested be held in Edmonton. He said the RCMP is in the processof amending the administrative record, and that the judicial review won’t proceed until that process is finished.

The RCMP said Friday that it would be inappropriate to comment while a legal process is underway.

Monty Robinson sues RCMP for breach of duty, alleged threats to legal funding


Former Mountie Monty Robinson is suing the RCMP for ruining his career and reputation, claiming his access to legal funds was restricted to stop him from going public.

Robinson claims that misinformation released by the RCMP after the death of Robert Dziekanski lead to a media storm that ruined his promising 16-year career and destroyed his reputation.

Dziekanski, a Polish immigrant, was jolted with a Taser and died at the Vancouver airport in October 2007.

The B.C. Criminal Justice Branch laid perjury charges against (clockwise from top left) Const. Gerry Rundel, Const. Bill Bentley, Cpl. Monty Robinson and Const. Kwesi Millington in connection with their testimony at the Braidwood Inquiry. (CBC)

Robinson was one of four Mounties who raced to the airport after police received reports that a distraught man was causing a disturbance.

Robinson’s lawsuit against the RCMP claims that there was a breach of statutory duty and abuse of office.

None of the allegations has been proven in court.

Misinformation went uncorrected

The lawsuit argues that the RCMP’s failure to “correct misinformation” ramped up public scrutiny and interest in the case, and created a perception of a “cover-up” by the four officers involved.

Soon after the event, RCMP spokesperson Sgt. Pierre Lemaitre described Dziekanski as “combative” and said police used a Taser on him to “immobilize a violent man.”

Those initial reports were later proven untrue by a bystander’s video. Lemaitre’s widow is also suing the RCMP, in the wake of her husband’s suicide.

Robinson’s lawsuit singles out former RCMP Commissioner William Elliot for also making allegedly “inaccurrate and misleading” statements about RCMP training policies around the use of a Taser and levels of force.

In 2010, Elliott agreed with the public inquiry findings on the death of Dziekanski, saying the officers “fell short” and did not properly “de-escalate” the situation.

Mountie struggled with PTSD

Robinson claims the ordeal ruined his life.

As the Delta B.C. man struggled with PTSD and alcoholism, he claims he endured ongoing threats from his superiors that legal funding would be withheld if he went public with criticism. He left the force in 2012.

Robert Dziekanski holds a small table at the Vancouver Airport before he was hit with a Taser five times. The officers involved were accused of lying at a public inquiry when they testified that they hadn’t talked about what happened after the death. (Paul Pritchard/Canadian Press)

“Various representatives of the RCMP provided repeated warnings to the Plaintiff throughout this period that any public comment by him would result in immediate withdrawal of public funding for independent legal counsel,” says the suit.

Robinson was the duty supervisor the night Dziekanski died at the airport,

Dziekanski was acting erratically when the four officers arrived and he was hit five times with a Taser before he died.

Amateur video of the killing caused public outrage, and Robinson’s lawsuit claims that the RCMP’s refusal to correct misinformation initially released, made anger at the four officer’s involved much worse.

Robinson blames his superiors for the overwhelming public anger aimed at him and the other three officers — Constables Kwesi Millington, Bill Bentley and Gerry Rundel — involved the night of the death on Oct. 14, 2007.

The document filed in court on Friday said: “The RCMP’s failure to correct the misinformation disclosed on the public record created an ever increased amount of public interest.”

Robinson and the three other members involved “were subject to public hostility, death threats, and contempt while their policing careers and professional reputations languished,” the document says.

The model X26 Taser is used by police forces across Canada. ((CBC))

Robinson said he struggled with undiagnosed PTSD, alcoholism and family strain, which affected his marriage and children.

In January of 2008, he requested help paying his legal expenses and was told he would be jointly represented with the other RCMP officers involved.

That led to a long dispute because he wanted to be independently represented. He won that right after it was determined no criminal charges would be laid against him.

In the meantime, Robinson was also convicted of obstruction of justice in a fatal motorcycle accident.

Robinson alleged scapegoat

Legal documents say that days before the public inquiry into Dziekanski’s death, the RCMP released a statement that “Tasers can kill agitated subjects,” which led to the public to “reach the unfounded conclusion” that the RCMP members used “wrongful and excessive” force in the Polish man’s death.

Then in 2010, RCMP Commissioner William Elliott conducted a television interview providing “inaccurate and misleading statements” about RCMP use of force training policies.

Another RCMP official publicly apologized to Dziekanski’s mother later that year, “signaling” that the members involved in Dziekanski’s death “had engaged in wrongful and blameworthy” conduct.

RCMP Const. Bill Bentley pleaded not guilty to lying at a public inquiry into the case and won. (Darryl Dyck/Candadian Press)

The four officers were eventually charged with perjury for their testimony during the Braidwood Inquiry. None of the officers ever faced criminal charges for their actions related to the death.

Two of the officers were acquitted of perjury, despite the fact all four were repeatedly accused of colluding.

Robinson is set to appear in court on Tuesday Oct. 11 for the appeal of his perjury conviction.

If upheld, he could face jail time.

Const. Millington was sentenced to 30 months for his perjury conviction, but the judge said Robinson’s case was more serious because of his higher rank.

Finance Monthly Magazine – 2016 Global Awards edition has now been published.

GlobalAwards16-WinnersLogoFinance Monthly Magazine is pleased to announce that its 2016 Global Awards edition has now been published.
Every year Finance Monthly Global Awards celebrate the success of financial organisations and advisors worldwide who have performed in the highest level possible.
When tasked with identifying the most successful organisations and advisors from around the globe in order to produce this special awards edition, Finance Monthly’s research team has through careful consideration worked hard to assess nomination entries, and conduct extensive research involving clients and peers. As a final result we are excited to present you a publication which contains some of the most successful and trusted firms operating in the dynamic financial sector, which will undoubtedly continue to experience growth through their commitment to excellence in 2016 and beyond.

Finance Monthly would like to thank all contributors and participants in the 2016 Global Awards.
Congratulations to our winners and finalists.

For your reference please follow a link to the publication –


Rulings critical of WorkSafeBC spawn call for review

Giorgio Cima’s WorkSafeBC claim was denied, even though the organization has never interviewed him. The B.C. Supreme Court has ordered WorkSafeBC’s independent appeal tribunal to take another look.— Image Credit: Giorgio Cima

Coquitlam man Giorgio Cima hasn’t once been interviewed by WorkSafeBC, yet his claim for workers’ compensation was rejected in a case his lawyer described as “outrageous.”

Fort Nelson resident Bruce Erskine remains hobbled by a forklift accident more than eight years ago, but his WorkSafeBC claim remains unresolved.

These two cases have prompted the NDP’s WorkSafeBC critic, MLA Shane Simpson, to call for a review of the organization.

Simpson was reacting to two recent B.C. Supreme Court decisions that found the decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal— the independent body that hears appeals of WorkSafeBC rulings—were “patently unreasonable” in denying the claims made by Cima and Erskine.

“The system is far too litigious,” Simpson said. “This can go on for years…If you’re dealing with corporation to corporation, that’s one thing…but when you’re talking about individuals and their families and they’re worried about their income and families, it’s got to work a different way.”

Lawyer Sebastien Anderson, who represented Cima pro bono, said he believes many people with genuine workplace injuries that merit compensation, simply throw their hands up and walk away because they can’t afford to hire a lawyer or pay for medical experts to back their claim.

“If they don’t have a mental condition before they enter the system, they surely do shortly thereafter,” he said.


Antibiotics were flowing into the vein in Giorgio Cima’s right arm at a clinic in downtown Vancouver when his lawyer phoned to deliver some good news.

It was Wednesday, May 25, and the B.C. Supreme Court had just ruled in the 57-year-old’s favour and set aside a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal that rejected his claim.

“Finally, someone believed in me,” Cima wrote in an email to Black Press about the decision. He said it brought tears to his eyes and some hope to his family.

His supervisor at Delta’s Intact Distributors had been bullying him, Cima claims, specifically after an illness robbed him of his speech in 2012 and he began to communicate with e-mail and text messages. (Cima was previously diagnosed with the fatal neurological disease ALS, or Lou Gehrig’s Disease, but is now undergoing treatment for Lyme disease, whose symptoms mimic ALS.)

The situation came to a dramatic head on Christmas Day in 2013.

As he sat down for dinner with family and friends, he received a shocking text message from his boss, who called him a “retard” and a “crayon-eating motherf**ker.”

WorkSafeBC denied his claim for compensation, and when he appealed, the tribunal said in its ruling that the supervisor didn’t intend to “intimidate, humiliate or degrade” Cima.

He has been reflecting since the court set aside that ruling, and is hopeful he’ll soon get better news about his claim.

“I was shocked to find that an organization that should be there for workers is in fact more for the employer,” wrote Cima, who has worked in Canada for more than 25 years. “The fact that they didn’t interview me or contact me to this date supports that.”

Anderson said he agreed to represent Cima because it was “one of the most outrageous” cases he’d ever come across.

“If his case didn’t meet the standard for workplace bullying and harassment, there is no standard,” he said.


On the same day Cima was sitting inside that downtown Vancouver clinic, a Fort Nelson man heard from his lawyer about his own court case.

But Bruce Erskine, 63, didn’t view his win as good news.

Back in 2008, he was run over by a forklift driven by his boss at Skinner Bros. Transport in Fort Nelson.

“I thought he cut me in half,” Erskine recalled of the forklift knocking him to the ground and its tire crushing his left foot as his leg was pulled under the counterweight.

WorkSafeBC denied his claim for compensation, he said, because a doctor chalked his injury up to soreness from pushing an ATV weeks earlier and not the forklift after an initial X-ray suggested his foot was merely strained.

But eight months later, Erskine’s foot still hadn’t healed.

It wasn’t until 2014, four specialists later, that a different type of X-ray revealed an injury that another doctor attributed to the forklift accident.

He appealed to the tribunal, but the body refused to admit the new medical evidence, saying Erskine was not credible.

In May, the court ordered the tribunal to take a second look, saying that line of reasoning was “patently unreasonable.”

But the judge didn’t bring him any closer to his goal of getting WorkSafeBC to review how its staff handled his case and revoke their credentials.

The words of a WorkSafeBC claim manager many years ago infuriate him to this day.

“He told me on the phone, ‘If we had to look after people like you, we would be bankrupt overnight,’” he said. “They think they can walk over and step on people.”


Scott McCloy, spokesperson for WorkSafeBC, said he was unable to comment on the two cases, noting that both legal matters are ongoing.

WorkSafeBC and its staff “work hard to get decisions right the first time,” he said, and both the appeal tribunal and B.C. Supreme Court are in place “to ensure justice can be done.”

McCloy denied that WorkSafeBC is an adversarial system, and said it’s actually an “inquiry-based system.”

He said sometimes facts are obvious, but in some cases “issues are highly complex. Often people try to make them simple, but they’re not.”

Find this article at:

Man Who Boss Called ‘retard’ Wins Review of Claim


A man, who wrestled with the sudden onset of a debilitating speech impediment and then received a profanity-laced text message from his boss that described him as a “retard” as he sat down with family for Christmas dinner, has won his B.C. Supreme Court bid to have his rejected WorkSafeBC claim reconsidered.

“This is one of the most outrageous cases I’ve ever had,” said veteran lawyer Sebastien Anderson who represented Giorgio Cima pro-bono after learning about the circumstances. “It was just so wrong what had happened to him.”

Cima, a married father, was working as a sales representative for Delta’s Intact Distributors in 2013, when he developed a slurred speech disorder that progressively worsened to the point it was difficult for people to understand what he was saying.

But his employer accommodated his speech disorder by allowing him to communicate with his boss, peers, customers and suppliers via e-mail and text messages.

Following the onset of the speech disorder, Cima alleged that his supervisor “treated him like a child and spoke to him in a condescending manner.”

Cima said that his supervisor would “repeatedly use phrases like ‘what you don’t understand is’; ‘do you understand?’; ‘do you comprehend what I am saying to you?’”

A work colleague “often reminded the supervisor that the worker was losing his voice not his intelligence,” a B.C. Supreme Court ruling said. Cima did not return to work following an upsetting e-mail he received from his supervisor on Christmas Day in 2013.

The supervisor texted: “Merry Xmas a buddy! Not every flower can say love, but a rose can. Not every plant survives a thirst, but a cactus can. Not every retard can read, but look at you go, little buddy!! Today you should take a moment and send an encouraging message to a f**ked up friend, just as I have done. I don’t care if you lick windows, or f**k farm animals. You hang in there cupcake, because you’re f**king special to me, and you are my friend. Look at you smiling at your phone, you crayon eating mother f**ker! Merry Christmas.”

Anderson, Cima’s lawyer, said Cima received the text message just as he was sitting down with his wife, daughter and friends for Christmas dinner.

“He burst into tears, and he immediately began to fret about returning to work,” Anderson said.

Cima also began to suffer from headaches, poor focus, anger, humiliation, sadness, depressed mood and poor sleep.

Two weeks later, Cima was diagnosed by his family doctor with a major depressive disorder as a result of the text message.

Cima applied for Workers Compensation Board benefits, but that claim was denied despite the fact Cima was never interviewed by WorkSafeBC and that WorkSafe never paid for a promised assessment by a psychologist.

Cima was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, on Jan. 28, 2014. His employer discontinued his pay in April of 2014.

Cima appealed the denied claim to the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal, but a review officer found that “while the supervisor’s actions were ‘in bad taste’ and an exercise of poor judgement and unprofessional, they did not constitute bullying and harassment, because the review officer was not persuaded that conduct was intended to, or should reasonably have been known would intimidate, humiliate or degrade the worker.”

Anderson argued in court that if what happened to Cima “doesn’t meet that standards (for harassment/bullying), there simply is no standard.”

On Wednesday, the B.C. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Cima.

“Given that I have found certain conclusions drawn by (Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal) to be patently unreasonable, I am remitting this claim back to WCAT to be reconsidered on the merits.”

Justice Barbara Young ruled that Cima should first be interviewed, and then assessed by a board psychologist or psychiatrist “if the Board intends to challenge the opinion of (Cima’s family physician). That assessment may shed some light on whether or not the event was traumatic or a significant stressor.”

Anderson noted that Cima’s case was also dismissed by the Human Rights Tribunal.

Find this article at:

Please download full court decision here

RCMP Deputy Commissioner Dubeau misrepresents Privacy Commissioner’s findings!

On Friday, 19 February 2016, Deputy Commissioner Daniel Dubeau, RCMP Chief Human Resources Officer, distributed an e-mail to all RCMP Member’s e-mail addresses prior to the airing of Global’s “16X9” program about the RCMP’s serious breach of the Privacy Act. In his e-mail, Deputy Commissioner Dubeau misrepresents the Privacy Commissioner’s findings with respect to the RCMP’s breach of Members’ mental health records.

Dubeau states, “In other words, the internal disclosure of personal information constituted a consistent use pursuant to the Privacy Act.” However, that is NOT what the Privacy Commissioner said. Here is exactly what the Privacy Commissioner said about the internal disclosure of RCMP member’s personal information

The RCMP is of the opinion that the use of the complainants’ personal information contained in the progress reports was consistent with RCMP PPE 808, which allows for information to be shared with a ‘Commanding Officer, Appropriate Officer, or the police of local jurisdiction in order to ensure the safety of the public, including RCMP members.’ The RCMP did not provide any further information to support this claim.

There is no evidence to suggest that the use was for the purpose of ensuring the safety and security of the public or of RCMP members. In order for this to be considered a consistent usage, the RCMP would have to demonstrate in the case of each of the complainants that there were serious concerns that they might cause harm to themselves as a result of Dr. W’s treatment, or that they presented signs indicating they may cause harm to others. The RCMP has not established that any of the complainants exhibited this type of behavior.

The RCMP is also of the opinion that RCMP PPE 808 allows for personal information in the bank to be used for “research, planning, evaluation and audit and statistical purposes….

We consider the review of the progress reports by RCMP psychologists to be a consistent use of personal information contained in RCMP PPE 808. While we do not agree that this usage fits within the definition of “research, planning, evaluation and audit and statistical purposes,” we are of the opinion that the quality control function is consistent with the goal of ensuing that there is an adequate treatment plan in place to help members return to work or to continue in their jobs…

Given the sensitivity of the personal information at issue in this matter, we consider this to be a serious privacy breach. We therefore encourage the RCMP to provide all of its health services professionals in “E” Division with enhanced privacy training in order to ensure that they are aware of their obligations under the [Privacy] Act.

We also have concerns about the description of consistent use for RCMP PPE 808 where it states that ‘This information may also be used for research, planning, evaluation and audit and statistical analysis…’ it is unclear as to the specific uses of the sensitive personal information held in this bank that are anticipated by this statement. We strongly encourage that the RCMP revise the InfoSource entry for RCMP PPE 808 and its associated polices to limit and clarify the uses of the sensitive information of its members held in that PIB. ” [our emphasis added].

According to the Privacy Commissioner’s ruling, the “acceptable internal disclosure” is limited only to the RCMP Psychologists in the Health Services Office, not to other administrators or operational line managers!

We strongly encourage RCMP Members to seek advice from Executive Board Members of the Mounted Police Professional Association or from a lawyer practicing in the fields of employment and privacy law before consenting to disclose their personal health information to the RCMP, including the RCMP’s Health Services Office (who actively participated in the disclosure in the above-referenced case).

Global’s “16 X 9” features a story on the RCMP’s unlawful breach of RCMP Member’s Privacy

Privacy BreachOn Saturday, 20 February 2016 at 7:00 pm (Local Time) Global’s Award Winning “16 X 9” program features a story on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s unlawful disclosure of RCMP Member’s psychological counselling records and the lawsuit seeking damages for those whose privacy rights were breached. The breach was authorized by Senior Members of the Chain of Command leading all the way to Commissioner Paulson’s office! Sadly, not one individual who was responsible for the breach has been held accountable.

In the meantime, click here to see the preview of the Global 16 X 9 story.

Discriminatory Facebook posting breaches Human Rights Code

Racial discriminationIn Perez-Moreno v Kulczycki, Vice-Chair Kershaw of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal held that the Respondent’s Facebook posting constituted discrimination contrary to the Ontario Human Rights Code.


On 1 August 2012, Perez-Moreno intervened in an argument at work between Kulczycki, a co-worker, and an individual with whom Perez-Moreno was in a relationship.

Vice-Chair Kershaw found that, on 3 August 2012, the Kulczycki referred to the Perez-Moreno as a “dirty Mexican.” In addition, Kulczycki was found to have told other employees, “now that Mexican (sic) is not going to give me anything.”

Perez-Moreno argued that Kulczycki’s posting and comments were derogatory, humiliating and damaging to his character, work and personal life and he claimed that they had a negative emotional, social and mental effect upon him.


Perez-Moreno alleged that Kulczycki’s posting and comments constituted discrimination on the basis of race, origin, ancestry and citizenship contrary to Section 5(2) of the Ontario Human Rights Code.


Vice-Chair Kershaw found that Kulczycki’s posting and comments were vexatious and constituted harassment within the meaning Section 10(1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, which defines harassment as “a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably be known to be unwelcome,” on the basis of race, place of origin, ancestry and citizenship.  The Vice-Chair held that Kulczycki’s conduct constituted unlawful discrimination in the employment since it related to an incident that occurred in the workplace.

Vice-Chair Kershaw ordered Kulczycki to provide proof within 30 days that she had completed the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s on-line training course, “Human Rights 101.” She also directed Perez-Moreno and Kulczycki’s employer to consider whether human rights training may benefit all if its employees.


This decision has a couple of unusual aspects.  First, it involves a human rights discrimination case between two co-workers; rather than the more usual employee-employer type of complaint.

Secondly, internet users often believe that their postings are unregulated and beyond the reach of the “long arm of the law”–along the same line of mistaken belief in moto, “What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.” This case serves as an important reminder that such beliefs are little more than “false hope.”

Finally, even the employer in this case did not escape “honorable mention” as a result of the less than honorable conduct of its employees.


RCMP Class Action re Breach of Privacy

RCMP’s Unlawful Disclosure of RCMP Members’ Health Records

As you may know, we recently commenced legal proceedings under the BC Class Action Proceedings Act with respect to the RCMP’s breach of the federal Privacy Act concerning the RCMP’s unlawful disclosure of confidential health records of a number of RCMP Members. A copy of the Notice of Civil Claim is available on the RCMP Class Action page (see the menu above).

As of 5 November 2015, service of the Notice of Civil Claim has been completed with respect to the following Defendants:

 Attorney General of Canada;
 BC Attorney General and Minister of Justice;
 Roland Bowman;

 Craig Callens;
 Paul Darbyshire;
 Bard Hartl;

 Daniel Dubeau;
 Ray Bernoties;
 Judy Lepage;

 Bob Paulson; and 
 Maxine Schwartz.

We are in the process of attempting to serve the remaining Defendant.

We continue to receive Intake Forms from other Members claiming to be similarly affected from across Canada. We will commence reviewing and investigating the Intake Forms that we have received within the next week. If you have reason to believe that the RCMP has disclosed your medical records to a third-party without your knowledge or consent, please complete the RCMP Class Action Intake Form (there is no cost to you for completing and submitting the Intake Form).