Judge rules Friday on whether RCMP protected slain, wounded officers' safety

A ruling is expected Friday in the trial of theRCMP related to the shootings of 2014, when three Moncton Mounties lost their lives at the hands of gunman Justin Bourque and two others were wounded.

As the trial drew to a close in July, after weeks of testimony, Judge Leslie Jackson said he would carefully weigh arguments presented by both sides in what's considered a precedent-setting case.

• RCMP 'played the odds' with officer safety and it proved fatal, Crown argues
• Trial of the RCMP: What we've learned so far

Though the question of whether frontline RCMPofficers were sufficiently armed hascome up beforeafter the Mayerthorpe, Alta., tragedy in 2005, for instance this was the first time the national police force was actually sent to trialaccused of failing to keep its officers safe.

"You have to understand the RCMP were always perceived to be untouchable," said Gilles Levasseur, law professor at the University of Ottawa.

Whatever the decision Friday,Levasseur said,it will send an important message to police forces across the country.

"It's giving a clear indication to the rest of Canada,to the police authorities, that there's a minimum requirement,"he said.

The trial, which began in April, heard from 30 witnesses, including responding officers, giving the public its first real look since the shooting at what it was like on the ground that night.

Many of them explained, often through tears, howthey could have taken down Bourquewith better weapons, before he got to all five Mounties.

High-powered carbines, and why theMonctonMounties didn't have them in June 2014, were at the centre of testimony, with the Crown alleging the organization "grossly mismanaged" the issue and "playedthe odds" with officer safety.

At the end of it all, the RCMP's former top boss made a surprise appearance and disputedstatements of all the officers who testified.

Bob Paulson saidhe wasn't convincedbigger guns for all officers should be part of policing in Canada.

He also alludedto budget constraints the force was under, a point the defence has triedto stress throughout the trial.

'Above and beyond reproach?'

For Brian Sauv, co-chair of the National Police Federation, a non-guilty ruling would be "a sad state of affairs" for the membership and the families affected by the tragedy.

"They will see it as the government of Canada, and theRCMP, are not being held accountable for safety measures that they could have implemented," Sauv said.

"So, are they above and beyond reproach? That's dangerous territory to get into."

Sauv hopes the case will be a wakeup call for the organization.

"TheRCMPhas for years been run on a shoestring budget," he said. "And that shoestring is extremely frail. We don't have the resources to continue on with the mandate we've been given.

TheRCMPis charged with violating four provisions of theCanada Labour Code, each one carrying a maximum fine of $1 million.

Levasseur said he "would not be surprised" if there were convictions, though de doubted the maximum penalty would be applied.

The four charges are:

• Failing to provideRCMPmembers with appropriate use of force equipment and related user training when responding to an active threat or active shooter event.
• Failing to provideRCMPmembers with appropriate information, instruction and/or training to ensure their health and safety when responding to an active threat or active shooter event in an open environment.
• Failing to provideRCMPsupervisory personnel with appropriate information, instruction and/or training to ensure the health and safety ofRCMPmembers when responding to an active threat or active shooter event in an open environment.
• Failing to ensure the health and safety at work of every person employed by it, namely:RCMPmembers, was protected.

No individualRCMPmanager or supervisor is named in the charges.