Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• RCMP members allege that 557 days of audio conversations were recorded without consent or court authorization during Project J-Trinity between October 2017 and early 2020

• Causes of action include negligence, the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, and breach of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

• Section 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act potentially bars civil claims where a pension or compensation has been paid or is payable for the same injury

• Neither Plaintiff has applied to Veterans Affairs Canada for a disability pension related to the Alleged Privacy Breach, leaving the applicability of section 9 unresolved

• Subsection 111(2) of the Pension Act mandates a stay of proceedings pending exhaustion of the administrative disability benefit scheme before the Veterans Review and Appeal Board

• The Court granted the Defendant's motion and stayed the Action until the Plaintiffs' pension entitlement for the alleged injuries has been fully determined by the VRAB

The privacy breach at the heart of the case

Sergeant Marco Vachon and retired Corporal Stephane Raymond, both members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, brought a proposed class action against the Attorney General of Canada. The Plaintiffs alleged that between October 2017 and early 2020, during an organized crime investigation known as Project J-Trinity in New Brunswick, Canada's agents recorded 557 days of radio conversations between the Plaintiffs and other RCMP members without the participants' consent and without the benefit of a court order. These recordings allegedly contained highly personal information, including private conversations about family matters, personal health, and non-operational discussions among colleagues. The Plaintiffs also assert that the RCMP later provided the recordings to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada and other RCMP members and public service employees.

The proposed class and the causes of action

The proposed class encompassed all RCMP members who were directly affected by the alleged privacy breach during Project J-Trinity in New Brunswick between 2017 and 2020 and who were alive as of March 18, 2023. The Plaintiffs asserted three causes of action: negligence or systemic negligence involving breach of a common law duty of care; the tort of intrusion upon seclusion; and breach of the protection against unreasonable search and seizure under section 8 of the Charter. They claimed injuries including distress, humiliation and anguish, pain and suffering, loss of self-esteem and feelings of degradation, loss of income, loss of enjoyment of life, an impairment of the capacity to function in the workplace, and a permanent impairment in the capacity to earn income. As a result, the Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief, common law damages including punitive and exemplary damages, and damages under subsection 24(1) of the Charter.

Earlier proceedings and the Dugas decision

The action was originally commenced by Statement of Claim dated November 22, 2023, on behalf of Sergeant Marco Vachon and Corporal Pascal Dugas. On May 8, 2025, the Court issued its Order and Reasons in Dugas v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FC 842, granting the Defendant's motion and striking the Amended Statement of Claim. The Court found that the Alleged Privacy Breach formed part of the factual foundation for Corporal Dugas's pension application and the resulting payment of benefits to him as compensation for his development of PTSD, such that section 9 of the CLPA afforded the Crown immunity from his claim. However, as Sergeant Vachon had not had the benefit of an assessment by VAC of his entitlement to pension compensation for exacerbation of his PTSD as a result of the Alleged Privacy Breach, there was currently no such compensation being paid or payable to him that might engage the application of section 9, and the motion to strike failed in relation to his allegations. The Amended Statement of Claim was nonetheless struck in its entirety due to other pleading deficiencies, but Sergeant Vachon was granted leave to amend. The Court also dismissed the Plaintiffs' certification motion. Subsequently, the claim was further amended, including to substitute a new Plaintiff, retired Corporal Stephane Raymond, resulting in a Third Amended Statement of Claim dated October 2, 2025.

The statutory framework: section 9 of the CLPA and subsection 111(2) of the Pension Act

Section 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act provides that no proceedings lie against the Crown or a servant of the Crown in respect of a claim if a pension or compensation has been paid or is payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund or out of any funds administered by an agency of the Crown in respect of the death, injury, damage or loss in respect of which the claim is made. Operating in conjunction with this provision, subsection 111(2) of the Pension Act provides that an action not barred by section 9 shall, on application, be stayed until the plaintiff has made a good-faith pension application for the same disability and a decision to the effect that no pension may be paid has been confirmed by an appeal panel of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

The Plaintiffs' position and the Court's assessment

The Plaintiffs opposed the stay, arguing they had not applied for pensions related to the Alleged Privacy Breach and that their claims—rooted in privacy rights and section 8 of the Charter—were distinct from physical or service-related injuries typically compensated under the Pension Act. They relied on McQuade v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 173, and Canada v Greenwood, 2021 FCA 186, to argue the stay request was premature. They also pointed to O'Farrell v Attorney General of Canada, 2016 ONSC 6342, where a stay under subsection 111(2) was declined. Justice Southcott found that McQuade and Greenwood actually supported the Defendant's position, as both cases highlighted the lack of a sufficient evidentiary record—exactly the kind of record that a pension application and adjudication process would produce. The Court also found O'Farrell and the Marsot decision upon which it relied not persuasive in the case at hand, as those cases turned on the conclusion that the required pension application and adjudication had already taken place. The Court further noted that, as explained in the Dugas decision referencing Lafrenière v Canada (Attorney General), 2020 FCA 110, and Sarvanis v Canada, 2002 SCC 28, the application of section 9 is not governed by the characterization of the damages claimed in an action but rather by the characterization of the event giving rise to it, meaning the Plaintiffs' attempt to distinguish their claimed injuries and causes of action from those to which compensation under the Pension Act typically responds may not necessarily assist them in escaping the application of section 9 of the CLPA.

The ruling and outcome

Justice Southcott of the Federal Court granted the Defendant's motion and ordered that the entire action be stayed in accordance with subsection 111(2) of the Pension Act. The stay remains in effect pending a final decision by the Veterans Review and Appeal Board regarding the Plaintiffs' entitlement to a disability pension for the injuries alleged in the action, whether that decision is positive or negative. The Defendant, the Attorney General of Canada, was the successful party on this motion. No costs were awarded to either side, consistent with Rule 334.39(1), as neither party claimed costs of the motion. No exact monetary amount was ordered, granted, or awarded, as the ruling addressed only the procedural question of whether the action should be stayed and did not reach the merits of the underlying claims.