Dan Burritt, Vancouver, B.C. (News 1130) – The RCMP has issued a sweeping denial of claims of sexual harassment by a well-known BC Mountie.
But, Corporal Catherine Galliford says she is glad the force is finally responding. Last year, she went public with accusations she was harassed on the job for years, leading her to developing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and coping with alcohol.
She sued the force in May of this year and her claims sparked a wave of complaints from other female Mounties and a push by the force and its new Commissioner, Bob Paulson, to root out problem behaviours and officers.
But in a joint statement, the BC and federal governments, acting on behalf of the RCMP, deny all of Galliford’s claims, instead painting her as an alcoholic who refused to get treatment.
Galliford insists she’s pleased the force is coming forward with something. “It’s fortunate for me the RCMP has come out with a statement of claim. I’m quite happy about that,” says Galliford, “because I’m kind of waiting in the wings all of the time, that’s how it feels.”
She explains she went to a doctor working for the RCMP years ago because she was drinking a bottle of wine a night to cope with the stress of the suspected harassment.
“He said, ‘You’re an alcoholic,’ and I said, ‘Okay.’ So I did everything he asked me to do. But he wouldn’t address the harassment in the workplace. And I kept on saying, ‘I can’t go back in there.’”
Galliford told the physician she would sign a “relapse prevention agreement.” “And I said to him, ‘but can you provide me with a harassment-free work environment?’ And they couldn’t.”
Asked if she is sober today, Galliford says she is trying. “I’m hit and miss, but I was never like one of those weird drunk people. But my coping mechanism was, ‘You know what, Catherine? If you feel like you’re having a panic attack, have a beer.’”
Neither Galliford’s claims nor the statement of defence by the governments have been proven in court.
Meanwhile, BC Justice Minister Shirley Bond issued a written statement saying the province is not directly involved in Galliford’s civil claim.
“Per legal procedure under the Police Act, the Province is named as defendant and these litigation matters are solely led by the federal Department of Justice. Additionally, the recently signed memorandum of agreement for RCMP policing provides that the Province is indemnified in these situations. The province may become directly involved where BC police who are not members of the RCMP are involved and in that case the province would state its position.”
[Source]
Hey jonnyG, that is for a court to decide. But, if you had any involvement in your time with the force with the PPSC and how they handle any lawsuit you know that it has absolutely nothing to do with right or wrong. Its the cheapest route out of the suit and blame be damned. Having been sued more than once and having the claims settled when we were 100% in the right was very disheartening. Because its the govt that pays they call the shots. So instead of exonerating the members like the Force wanted, a settlement was reached with no blame assigned or admitted, and money for “expenses” for the accuser and a gag on the outcome. A very familiar story to those who have gone the route.
That is my fear in these cases, expediency over justice which of course will satisfy nobody. Full airing of the complaint and if necessary dire consequences for the ones not being truthful on either side. That’s what I would like to see.
Good point about the courts. The problem is this kind of banter should be saved for the courts.
Yes, I am aware of how the PPSC operates. I know things such as dog bites would be settled out of court, even though the “subject” or “suspect” (Not client) was fleeing arrest and ignored commands to stop or be bit by a dog in full prey drive.
Apart from the principal and vindication, all the lawyers knew that all you had to do was threaten to litigate and they would get a pay off. I think it would have been cheaper in the long run to spend a bit of money rigorously defending these types of cases, then set the precedent that frivolous litigation is not worth the time.
In this case I would really like to see what is underneath once the rhetoric on both sides is peeled away. Finding the truth. That’s what I’m all about.
This denial was not only concocted by the “white shirts”, but one better- their lawyers…. Denials like this have nothing to do with the truth, and everything about trying to keep the defendant from taking them to the cleaners.
There is nothing I hate more than people who lie and make up stories about harassment to get a free ride. Detracts from the real complainants.
Problem is, the outfit has zero credibility in my book in their denials. The force habitually denied problems exist, and write them off as personality conflicts, emotional problems or anything else to discredit complainants when large sums of money were NOT on the line. Why should we believe them now that money is on the line?