Good morning Scott Jewers,

The CRCC are in receipt of your emails sent on July 14, 2026, and July 16, 2026.

It is noted that you indicated that you made reports/statements to several individuals, including Sherry Charant, Krista Pye and Zachary Lechene. However, these three members were not included as subject members on your complaint file #2026-1781 because they aren’t/weren’t RCMP members during the time frame in question and, thus, they are not subject to Part VII of the RCMP Act which deals with public complaints. Therefore, these members will not be re-added. That being said, it should be noted that one unknown member was included on the complaint just in case the names provided by you were simply misspelled.

It is noted that you wished to include RCMP Commissioner Mike Duheme and Assistant Commissioner Dennis Daley as subject members on complaint file #2026-1781. However, the CRCC refused your allegations against these members per sec 45.53(2)(b) of the RCMP Act and, as such, these members will not be re-added. Below is what was expressed to you in the Apr 14/26 letter that accompanied your copy of complaint file #2026-1781:

“You wished to include RCMP Commissioner Mike Duheme and Assistant Commissioner Dennis Daley as subject members of this public complaint. You also alleged that members of the RCMP failed to escalate your concerns to RCMP Commissioner Duheme and Assistant Commissioner Daley. While you stated that you never had any direct contact with Commissioner Duheme and Assistant Commissioner Daley, you also stated that you repeatedly asked other RCMP members, to escalate your concerns to one or more of them. You said that since at least 2021, numerous posts were made on Facebook making direct requests for escalation and tagging RCMP Nova Scotia and RCMP Canada directly. You added that the RCMP stated in September 2021 that they were aware of and monitoring the complaint thread. You therefore appeared to be making an allegation of "neglect of duty" on the part of the officers you asked to escalate your concerns, as well as against RCMP Commissioner Mike Duheme and Assistant Commissioner Denis Daley as you never received any response from them to your requests or the main email thread. The CRCC has refused the related allegations against all of them as frivolous pursuant to s. 45.53(2)(b) of the RCMP Act.

Depending upon the date in question, you have sent your main email thread to numerous individuals/entities, sometimes numbering in excess of 100. When one communicates in such a manner, it is not reasonable to expect the recipients of such transmissions to take the correspondence seriously. In such circumstances one immediately wonders which of those individuals the correspondence is actually intended for. Such transmissions present themselves on the surface more as spam than communication with serious intent. Furthermore, based upon the CRCC’s examination of this complaint, the issues that you wanted escalated to RCMP Commissioner Duheme and Assistant Commissioner Daley would, in the CRCC’s opinion, have simply been sent back to the detachment level to be considered and potentially investigated. The RCMP has an internal reporting system when they deem incidents should be reported through the chain of command to upper management. It is not because a member of the public simply asks that their criminal complaint be escalated to the RCMP Commissioner or other members of the RCMP’s senior management, that one should expect the RCMP to acquiesce to the request. Operating in such a manner would be highly inefficient.”

In terms of your questions of who Cst. Matthews is, why this officer was added, and on what basis was a false arrest allegation attributed to your complaint, including on which document this allegation is based, who added it to the file and when, the following explanation was provided by Paul on your copy of complaint file #2026-1781 sent to you on April 17, 2026 (Note Cst. Geoff MATTHEWS was only mentioned in complaint file #2026-1781, he was not officially added as a subject member on the complaint):

“While Scott JEWERS did not name Cst. Geoff MATTHEWS of Cole Harbour Detachment as a subject member of the current complaint, Scott JEWERS did appear to allege that his apprehension that occurred on March 13, 2023 was improper.  According to the final report completed by the RCMP for file 2023-1031, Scott JEWERS was apprehended on March 13, 2023 under the Involuntary Psychiatric Treatment Act. In that case, Cst. Geoff MATTHEWS of the RCMP's Cole Harbour Detachment reportedly assisted the Mobile Mental Health Crisis Team (MMHCT) and transported Scott JEWERS to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Halifax where Cst. Brenda SMITH of the Halifax Regional Police took over custody of Scott JEWERS until he was assessed by a physician. Within the complaint correspondence received from Scott JEWERS, he alleged that mental health-based retaliation was used as part of a calculated strategy by authorities to silence him and build a false narrative to shield officers, particularly those involved in his apprehension in August, 2022.  On page 51 of correspondence received from Scott JEWERS on August 6, 2025, he stated in reference to the content of the RCMP's final report for file 2023-1031, "This is false, deliberately vague, and constitutes a clear attempt to distance the RCMP from their direct involvement in a retaliatory psychiatric intervention that took place on March 13, 2023.”  For this reason, the Commission has decided to accept an allegation against from Scott JEWERS that the RCMP improperly participated in the events of March 13, 2023, which included his apprehension.  Rather than naming Cst. Geoff MATTHEWS as a subject member however, an unknown subject member has been listed.  Scott JEWERS clearly identified subject members for his allegations throughout his public complaint submissions but never listed Cst. Geoff MATTHEWS despite knowing his name and reported involvement in his apprehension.”

In terms of your question on what policy basis were you denied the ability to file a complaint regarding the handling of your file by CRCC staff, and who made that decision, it must be noted that your concerns were raised to management and it was their input that led to the response you received on April 28, 2026, where your concerns were acknowledged but it was also explained that the overall issue had been resolved. The CRCC’s mandate is to take complaints against the RCMP. If you have concerns regarding the CRCC or the public complaint process, you may wish to refer your concerns to the Office of the Minister of Public Safety. This will be the CRCC’s final response on this matter.

In terms of your request for a phone call from a member of CRCC and the reason and policy for not receiving one, it must be noted that public service agencies, including the CRCC, are not legally required to call members of the public simply because a callback was requested. Callbacks by CRCC staff are subject to agency resources and whether the inquiry can be or has been resolved via email or an online portal. In your instance, a telephone call has not been provided by a member of the Intake unit as the request has been deemed non-applicable; your concerns regarding the CRCC’s handling of your complaints has been recorded and the overall issue has been resolved, as outlined in the April 28, 2026, email sent to you. Also, in terms of your complaint file 2026-1781, it is currently under investigation by the RCMP, as such, if you wish to provide further details or clarification, including the addition or removal of subject members, you should contact the Public Complaint Investigator on file #2026-1781.

Kind Regards,

Complaint Intake, Complaint Intake and Review Directorate

Civilian Review and Complaints Commission for the RCMP / Government of Canada

www.crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/

Bureau de réception des plaintes, Direction de la réception des plaintes et des examens

Commission civile d’examen et de traitement des plaintes relatives à la GRC / Gouvernement du Canada

www.crcc-ccetp.gc.ca/