FEDERAL COURT BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION

Prior to signing the MOU, the RCMP explained to the CRCC that the existing backlog of interim reports would need to be addressed before the RCMP would be in a position to meet the 6 month timeframe for responses to interim reports moving forward.14 The RCMP is generally meeting the other timeframes set out in the MOU, with the exception of the time required to respond to interim reports.15 11 O’Ma. [...] In the present case, this factor militates against the Court exercising its discretion to decide the application.58 A decision by the Court on the merits of the application would have no practical effect on the rights of the parties. [...] Contrary to the assertion of the CRCC, there is no evidence that the Commissioner’s response was delayed by the NPCD “second-guessing the CRCC’s findings” or by “essentially re-litigating the findings of fact and law found by the CRCC”.95 Rather, the evidence confirms that internal consultation within the RCMP by the NPCD regarding interim reports from the CRCC is a necessary and usual practice.96. [...] The Applicant states that it is “somewhat comforting” to learn of the efforts taken to increase the capacity of the NPCD.99 For its part, the CRCC noted the “RCMP is finally taking steps to meet its obligations” and to “the credit of the RCMP NPCD, it has undertaken significant staffing measures since 2019 to address the backlog of RCMP Commissioner’s responses.”100 In the circumstances of this ca. [...] With respect to the first step of the CLA framework, the Applicant has failed to establish that the amount of time taken by the Commissioner to respond to the interim report substantially impeded it from the meaningful exercise of freedom of expression.113 As previously stated, the Applicant was at all times free to engage in meaningful public discussion and criticism related to the merits and sub.