THE RCMP BADGE & UNIFORM ISSUE

Born and raised in Edmonton, in 2000 I retired as a detective with the Edmonton Police Service and relocated to Medicine Hat, where I became a paralegal and court agent. As of June 2024, I now have approximately 49 years of experience before the Alberta courts. Additionally, I have been collecting military and police memorabilia for over 50 years. I am also now a columnist for the Sun City Sentinel.

In early April, I decided to downsize my collection and consigned a vintage RCMP bandmasters tunic with sash, and an RCMP forage cap to Kirsten Boldt, owner of Infinity Antiques, here in Medicine Hat. Kirsten, in turn, put these items online to sell.

The RCMP became aware of this sale and decided to get involved. On April 10, and on the instructions of the RCMP 'K' Division Sergeant Major, the local detachment commander attended Kirsten’s store and seized my RCMP items. When I learned what happened, I demanded their immediate return.

It became apparent this act by the RCMP was not an isolated incident, and primarily stemmed from their response to some of the recommendations made by the Nova Scotia Mass Casualty report. In 2020, the instigator of that tragedy, dressed in the working uniform of an RCMP member and driving a replica RCMP cruiser, went out and murdered 22 people, including one RCMP member.

One of the recommendations made was for the RCMP to better manage their uniform, badge, and insignia control and disposal policies to prevent improper or criminal access. It appears that the Mounties went a little overboard. Not only are their own members now very restricted on what RCMP items they may keep and retain, but the RCMP also approaches the families of retired members who pass away and request the return of any RCMP badges, insignia, or uniforms they may have.

If the RCMP learned of any online auctions or otherwise, or any RCMP items being offered for sale, the Warrant Officers Unit in each division, which includes a Sergeant Major (only 8 in Canada) who is the boss, steps in to act. This usually involves a cease-and-desist letter, but it can also involve the RCMP buying certain items back to remove them from the public realm. In this matter, we also have a warrantless seizure, which, to me, is quite serious, especially when done by Canada's national police agency.

There are also many concerns about these cease-and-desist letters, as the RCMP appears to base their position on suggested trademark infringements dealt with by the Trademark and/or RCMP Act. However, I suggest the possession and sale of RCMP items have nothing to do with trademark violations, and the RCMP knows or should know this.

We should also recall the decision of the RCMP back in 1995 when they turned over all marketing rights of their image to Disney. They claimed they wanted Disney to protect them from being abused in the commercial marketplace. Many Canadian businesses were outraged that the RCMP went to a US-based entity like Disney to do this, which then led to many jokes about the RCMP being a 'Mickey Mouse organization'. This of course did not help to promote their image.

By 1999, the RCMP decided not to renew their contract with Disney, stating they believed they had enough knowledge and experience with commercial licensing to protect their image on their own. Marketing and licensing rights have since been handled by the RCMP Foundation.

Protecting the RCMP image, however, has and continues to remain a serious concern for the RCMP, and to me, raises questions about whether they are primarily a police agency, which I always assumed they were supposed to be, or an entity that existed to market and promote business interests.

After communicating with the RCMP Sergeant Major in Edmonton, I was told the RCMP wanted more time to review my matter. This was surprising, as I believed that what the RCMP did was outright theft and any rookie police officer, with half a brain would know that.

It was difficult for me to understand why senior RCMP management, including the Sergeant Major, with all the available resources they had, including that of having access to somewhere around 2500 lawyers at the Department of Justice, couldn't agree that what they did to me was wrong.

A deadline was set to resolve the matter, but the RCMP requested an extension. Concerned about the situation, I extended the deadline to Tuesday, May 28, 2024, which was approximately forty-eight days after the seizure. This date was chosen strategically, as it aligned with a day when a court application could be heard if filed soon. The expectation was that at the least the RCMP should be able to make a proper decision by that time.

On May 8, I heard nothing to assist speeding along the `RCMP review process’, so I filed an application requesting an Order of Replevin (the return of the seized property), a declaration that I did nothing illegal or improper when selling or attempting to sell the RCMP uniform with badges and insignia, another declaration confirming that the seizure of the property was a Section 8 Charter breach relating to a violation of my rights respecting search and seizure, and costs.

Ms. Boldt and I both filed affidavits supporting my application. Copies were provided to the Sergeant Major at "K" Division and served on the Department of Justice in Edmonton. I was soon after contacted by a lawyer with the Department of Justice, who confirmed he had been assigned to represent the RCMP. It soon became clear this matter would not be resolved with the return of my seized property with any apology.

The RCMP refused to admit any wrongdoing and proposed an order stating they would return the seized items, I would not be entitled to any further relief and there would be no costs.

So, there it was. The RCMP would kindly return my property that they had improperly or unlawfully taken, I would receive no declaration stating I had done nothing improper or illegal, and I would not be compensated at all. That wasn’t good enough.

I very much understood that such a declaration which I wanted, would involve a Court of Kings Bench order that would be very significant as it would confirm or clarify the rights of collectors and dealers of antique and/or police memorabilia across Canada.

I also noted the RCMP did not file any affidavits in response to my application.
A lawyer friend of mine suggested they couldn't because they knew they had made a mistake and didn't want anything on record. When our court date arrived, it was a regular docket day and I waited to be called. The presiding justice was the Honourable Justice, Dallas K. Miller. Once my case was called, it became clear it would take longer than usual, so it was postponed.

At around 11:49 am, my case was called again, and it only took about 8 minutes to resolve. Counsel for the RCMP suggested his proposed order should be accepted. I responded and presented my version. It was a no brainer that my request to have my property be returned be done, and that was agreed, and so that part of the order remained.

However, when it came to the declaration stating I had done nothing improper or illegal when attempting to sell my RCMP items, the RCMP didn't want that included. I had explained in my affidavit that I needed that declaration because I didn't want the RCMP to come back later and seize more of my RCMP property that I wanted to sell.

Justice Miller seemed to understand my reasoning and stated, "Well, I understand the reason Mr. Montgomery wants those items in the order. I kind of get that. Paragraph 3 might be a little problematic from Mr. Montgomery's side – although, in fairness, I have not heard any argument, but I have read through the material".

He further stated, "I think it is fair to include paragraph 2. So, if there is no agreement on whether paragraph 3 should be included or not, and there is no agreement on costs, I am not sure I can decide on those two issues without more formal arguments. I may schedule a special hearing". Since it seemed that paragraph 2 was included and to avoid having to come back to court for a special hearing, I agreed I could live without the Section 8 part in number 3.

Next, counsel for the RCMP stated, "Yes. You know, ultimately, Sir, I think we could live with, you know, consenting to return the items that were seized; two, the declaration that the applicant wasn't doing anything improper. And if 3 ultimately states that there are no costs awarded, I think we could live with that. "Justice Miller acknowledged that I wanted costs and asked how much I was asking for. I then explained, "Well, Sir, with all due respect, this is a significant matter in my view. We're dealing with Mr. Montgomery versus an organization that has 31,000 employees, a $4.2 billion budget per year, and access to 2,500 lawyers through the Department of Justice...". Justice Miller interrupted and asked, "How much do you want for costs?" I replied, "$5,000.00" and the Court responded with "Oh" and "I think that is kind of rich”.

Justice Miller then added, and pointed out to RCMP counsel, "It does seem like your clients’ actions were a bit high-handed, would you agree?" RCMP counsel then responded, "I think ultimately we'll be providing better guidance to detachments on these matters going forward". In my case, I won’t be holding my breath but I will be trying to alert every police collector and antique dealer in Canada as to what happened here.

Justice Miller concluded, "Yes. And I suppose there may be some ambiguity in the law, but still, it seems a bit excessive." The final order directed that my property be returned forthwith; it included a declaration that I had done nothing illegal or improper when selling or attempting to sell an RCMP uniform with badges and insignia, and also ordered the RCMP to pay me $750.00 in costs. On June 7, a courier package was received from the Department of Justice, which included a $750.00 cheque. On June 11, 2024 the RCMP returned my items.

At left are Ken Montgomery and Kirsten Boldt showing off the returned property which will now be going back on sale. I believe it’s worth noting that since the Nova Scotia tragedy, the RCMP has made concerted efforts to restrict uniform items being available to the public, and even its own members, which of course is their right. However, I believe this Court of King’s Bench decision now confirms that doesn’t mean they can bully the general public to comply.

I also note there has only been one case since the Nova Scotia tragedy where a person wearing an RCMP uniform murdered another person. This case occurred in 2021 at Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, where RCMP Sergeant Bernie Herman, who, while wearing his RCMP working uniform, used his service revolver to shoot and kill his lover. He was recently convicted of manslaughter and is awaiting sentencing.

Click on the links for the Court Order and Transcript
And remember, you read it here first.