Skip to main content
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
Enjoy unlimited digital access
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
Canada’s most-awarded newsroom for a reason
$1.99
per week
for 24 weeks
// //

RCMP Corporal Catherine Galliford made headlines last year with explosive allegations of widespread sexual harassment within the national police force.

Chuck Stoody/Canadian Press

The Mounties have issued a sweeping denial in a high-profile sexual harassment suit by a British Columbia officer, whose allegations have prompted other women to come forward with their own claims of abuse.

Corporal Catherine Galliford, a police spokeswoman who was the force's public face during the Air India and Robert Pickton cases, first outlined her allegations in media interviews last year. She filed a lawsuit in May.

Her allegations have prompted the RCMP to promise to tackle harassment within the force. In the months since, several other female Mounties have filed cases of their own, including one who says dozens of other officers are prepared to join her in a class-action lawsuit.

Story continues below advertisement

Cpl. Galliford's allegations span nearly two decades, during which she claims her colleagues and superiors sexually assaulted, harassed and intimidated her until she developed post-traumatic stress. She claimed she didn't come forward because she feared retribution.

But the B.C. government and Ottawa filed a joint statement of defence this week denying all of Cpl. Galliford's allegations.

Instead, the governments paint her as an alcoholic who refused treatment and rejected the RCMP's efforts to keep her away from one of the men she alleged harassed her. When she finally complained in 2011, her allegations were immediately investigated, the statement of defence says.

"These defendants deny each and every allegation contained in ... the notice of civil claim," the statement of defence says.

"If the plaintiff had concerns about conflict, harassment or intimidation in the workplace or by other members or officers at any time, she was obliged and had opportunities to make a complaint."

While the federal government represents the RCMP, the B.C. government contracts the Mounties for provincial policing and is also named in Cpl. Galliford's lawsuit.

Cpl. Galliford's suit also names Constable Marvin Wawia, Superintendant Mike Bergerman and Inspector Doug Henderson; Dr. Ian MacDonald, an RCMP-employed physician; and Constable Phil Little, who worked for the Vancouver police but was part of the joint RCMP-Vancouver missing women investigation.

Story continues below advertisement

The statement of defence denies all of the allegations involving those officers, with the exception of Constable Wawia, who was the subject of a complaint in the early 1990s shortly after Cpl. Galliford joined the force.

The two met while Cpl. Galliford was preparing to join the force. Cpl. Galliford's lawsuit claims Constable Wawia aggressively pursued her after they met. The governments' statement of defence says the pair were "co-habitating" from December of 1990 to March of 1991.

The governments acknowledge Constable Wawia was later disciplined after a complaint involving Cpl. Galliford, though the statement of defence doesn't say what the complaint was about. The statement says that after Cpl. Galliford finished her training, she repeatedly requested to be posted to the RCMP's B.C. headquarters, despite the force's concerns the two officers should not be working together.

Eventually, Cpl. Galliford married another officer stationed in British Columbia and she was transferred to North Vancouver.

The statement of defence says health-care staff within the force first heard concerns about Cpl. Galliford's alcohol consumption in late 2004 and early 2005.

She was referred to a treatment program and agreed to what is known as a "relapse prevention agreement," but the statement of defence says she continued to drink. Because of Cpl. Galliford's refusal to participate in treatment, her case became a disciplinary one, the statement says.

Story continues below advertisement

"The plaintiff has failed to follow medical advice in respect to treatment, and in this way caused or contributed to any medical conditions or problems she had or now has," the statement says.

The governments deny Cpl. Galliford's claim that a medical report provided to an RCMP doctor diagnosed her with post-traumatic stress. Rather, the report merely asked whether she had the condition, the statement says.

None of the allegations contained in either Cpl. Galliford's lawsuit or the government's statement of defence have been tested in court. Cpl. Galliford's lawyer could not be reached for comment.

B.C. Justice Minister and Attorney-General Shirley Bond issued a statement distancing the province from the lawsuit.

"While I am aware that a statement of defence has been filed in BC Supreme Court regarding the civil action of Ms. Galliford, the province is not directly involved in this matter," Ms. Bond said in her statement.

"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."

Story continues below advertisement

Since Cpl. Galliford went public, several more women have filed similar lawsuits.

Your Globe

Build your personal news feed

  1. Follow topics and authors relevant to your reading interests.
  2. Check your Following feed daily, and never miss an article. Access your Following feed from your account menu at the top right corner of every page.

Follow the author of this article:

View more suggestions in Following Read more about following topics and authors
Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

If you do not see your comment posted immediately, it is being reviewed by the moderation team and may appear shortly, generally within an hour.

We aim to have all comments reviewed in a timely manner.

Comments that violate our community guidelines will not be posted.

UPDATED: Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies