Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff alleged psychological harm due to the mishandling of a traumatic workplace incident by a supervisory RCMP officer.

• The claim was framed in tort, primarily alleging negligent infliction of mental suffering.

• The defendants sought summary dismissal and alternatively to strike the claim, arguing no viable cause of action.

• A core issue was whether the Province of British Columbia could be liable for internal RCMP management decisions under the Police Act and Provincial Police Service Agreement.

• The court found the plaintiff raised triable issues, especially in light of existing precedent (Sulz v. British Columbia).

• Both defense applications were dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff at the ordinary scale.

Facts and outcome of the case

Melanie Chatterton, a civilian member and dispatcher with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), filed a Notice of Civil Claim on October 5, 2021, alleging psychological harm caused by how her supervisors responded to a traumatic incident at work. On October 10, 2019, while dispatching officers to a call involving a possible squatter, one of the responding officers was shot. Chatterton reported back to work the next day and managed the dispatch for the unfolding situation for 11 hours. Following this, she experienced severe stress and panic, which culminated in her inability to work after October 15, 2019.

She sought support from her superiors, specifically requesting to attend a debriefing session related to the incident, but was denied by her district manager, Tracy Arnold, who allegedly dismissed her concerns and required her to attend “active shooter” training instead. Chatterton claims this decision exacerbated her psychological trauma. She was later diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and generalized anxiety disorder and was medically discharged in 2021.

In response to her civil claim, the defendants—the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General of British Columbia and the Attorney General of Canada—applied for summary judgment under Rule 9-6, asserting there was no genuine issue for trial. Alternatively, they sought to strike her claim under Rule 9-5(1)(a), arguing the pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action and fell solely under federal jurisdiction concerning RCMP management.

The court rejected both applications. Justice Chan found that the plaintiff’s pleadings, while rooted in a workplace context, clearly alleged the essential elements of a negligence claim. The court emphasized that it could not be said beyond a doubt that Chatterton was bound to lose. It also ruled that existing precedent (particularly Sulz v. Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General) supported the plaintiff’s position that tort liability can extend to internal RCMP conduct, despite the federal-provincial division of control under the RCMP Act and the Provincial Police Service Agreement.

As a result, both the summary judgment and motion to strike were dismissed. The plaintiff was awarded costs of the applications on the ordinary scale. No damages were awarded at this stage, as the decision was limited to pre-trial applications. The case will proceed to trial unless resolved earlier.