RCMP face lawsuit from Nova Scotia woman over alleged harassment

All she says she wanted was to go to work and do her job.

But a Nova Scotia woman who used to work for the province says that was made impossible by the actions of a former RCMP officer whom she alleges sexually harassed and assaulted her multiple times between 2004 and 2005.

The woman, who cannot be identified because of a publication ban, launched a lawsuit against the RCMP in 2008.

Woman volunteered with RCMP

And while a trial won't happen until November 2017, her lawyer will be in Nova Scotia Supreme Court Thursday asking a judge to rule the RCMP should have taken responsibility for an officer it knew, or should have known, harassed women.

At the time in question, the woman was a clerk for the province's alcohol and gaming division, which shared a floor in a Dartmouth office building with the RCMP's casino gaming investigation unit, where she also volunteered to help with clerical work.

The two offices were in close proximity and there was regular intermingling among staffs who would pass through common areas, according to court documents.

'You blame yourself'

One of the officers in that space was former Cpl. Daniel Kelly, who died in 2014.

The plaintiff, who at the time was dealing with the breakup of a marriage, said she would approach Kelly for advice and information about legal questions and was often met with "touchy feely" behaviour, according to the allegations in court documents.

'You just kind of shelve it'

She tried to overlook the behaviour, but it would continue. She alleges Kelly reached down her shirt one day at work.

"You just don't believe that that actually happened to you," she said in an interview. "You blame yourself for all of this and then you just kind of put it off to the side because you just think, 'I have to work here.' And you just kind of shelve it."

Officer breached code of conduct

The last straw was when she went into Kelly's office one day and he exposed himself to her, she said. Eventually she shared with her boss what was happening and filed a complaint.

Court documents show an internal RCMP investigation concluded there wasn't enough evidence to file charges, but found sufficient basis to conclude Kelly breached the RCMP code of conduct by making sexual advances, soliciting favours and exposing himself.

Couldn't go back to work

He was permitted to retire in lieu of being disciplined. Other people in the office interviewed for the investigation said Kelly would regularly cross the line with his sexual comments and behaviour.

The woman tried going back to work, but said she found herself unable to deal with anxiety. She hasn't worked since 2006.

The lawsuit is her way of speaking out, she said.

"It's taken away my self-esteem. It's taken away my confidence. It made me scared to open up to anybody outside my own household. I don't trust anymore."

Duties didn't require RCMP interaction

Lawyers for the federal Justice Department argue the RCMP do not owe the woman a duty of care because none of the alleged assaults happened in the course of the work she did for the RCMP.

In their submission they say the plaintiff had no job-related duties that required direct contact with RCMP members, yet she continued to socialize with Kelly. The submission makes the case the province, as the woman's employer, bears some blame for the situation.

The original lawsuit also named the province and Kelly; the province was removed because it was shielded on account of an open workers' compensation claim, and Kelly was removed after his death.

The woman's lawyer, Mike Dull, said the RCMP's mandate is to protect the public. Making the case it had no duty of care is troubling, he said.

"Frankly, we say that the RCMP had that responsibility to protect the females that they worked with from a known sexual harasser," he said.

"And so if they say, like they are in this case, that they don't owe a duty of care or responsibility — to do anything about those male officers — to women who are in the shared work environment, it begs the question: who do they owe a duty of care to, who do they owe a responsibility to?"