‘Undignified and silly’: RCMP conduct board accused of bias over ‘Three Amigos’ references

The members of an RCMP conduct board sat stoic on Wednesday as a lawyer for three Mounties facing allegations of racism and sexism accused them of unprofessional behavior. The lawyer, Wes Dutcher-Walls, raised concerns about the board referring to his clients as “the Three Amigos” in emails and file names, calling it “undignified and silly.”

Dutcher-Walls urged the tribunal members to recuse themselves from the case, claiming that the term “Three Amigos” had negative connotations that could suggest bias against his clients. He suggested that the use of the term evoked images of loud tourists, a 1986 slapstick movie, and the camaraderie of the Three Musketeers.

The lawyer argued that the board members’ use of the term created an appearance of bias that extended to a broader pattern of skepticism and dismissiveness towards Coquitlam RCMP Constables Philip Dick, Ian Solven, and Mersad Mesbah. He implored the board to do the right thing and remove themselves from the case.

Code of conduct hearings against Dick, Mesbah, and Solven were scheduled to begin in Surrey this week but were postponed due to the recusal application. The RCMP is seeking to dismiss all three Mounties for their alleged involvement in private chat group conversations where they are accused of making derogatory remarks, including bragging about “Tasering unarmed Black people” and mocking a female colleague’s body.

The allegations came to light last fall after a search warrant revealed disturbing behavior by the officers. Investigators found evidence of offensive and derogatory messages in the RCMP’s internal chat logs, including homophobic and racist slurs. The court documents described the messages as “chauvinist in nature, with a strong air of superiority.”

Despite the allegations, the three Mounties have denied any wrongdoing. They sat alongside their lawyers as Dutcher-Walls and RCMP lawyer John McLaughlan clashed over the use of the term “Three Amigos.” McLaughlan argued that the term was innocuous and simply meant “friends,” while Dutcher-Walls accused the board of bias and dismissiveness.

The tension between the lawyers escalated, with McLaughlan mocking Dutcher-Walls for his last-minute recusal application. He dismissed the “Three Amigos” line of attack as a fishing expedition through the board’s files and accused Dutcher-Walls of trying to sidestep previous board decisions.

Dutcher-Walls defended his actions, claiming that the term “Three Amigos” had become ingrained in the board’s vernacular. He argued that the board’s conduct had tainted the hearing with potential bias and called for a fair and impartial resolution.

As the hearing unfolded, it became clear that the rift between the lawyers was widening. Dutcher-Walls maintained that the appearance of fairness was crucial, while McLaughlan insisted that the focus should remain on the facts of the case. The fate of the three Mounties hangs in the balance as the board members prepare to make a decision on their involvement in the case.