Hi CRCC,

A copy of this letter can be found online, and has been posted to Facebook and X:

https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/2026-07-23_CRCC_Final_Response_Rebuttal_Officers_Confirmed_And_Frivolous_Designation_Objection.html (https://tinyurl.com/3ebthw2r)

Thank you for the July 20, 2026 response. It is the first substantive response received on these questions.

Your response states that Sherry Charant, Krista Pye, and Zachary Lechene "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." That statement is incorrect. On July 20, 2026 — the same day your letter was sent — I attended the RCMP Sheet Harbour detachment in person and confirmed all three as serving members of that detachment: Cst. Christa Pye, Cst. Kerri Chartrand, and Cst. Zachary LeShane. The names I submitted were phonetic; the officers are real, and they are RCMP members. The correction of that single factual error resolves the basis on which they were excluded.

This response is detailed because your July 20, 2026 letter provides a stated reason for each alteration to the officer list, and I am responding to each of those reasons on the record. I have also included your full response below mine, so the complete exchange is consolidated on the ongoing email thread and easy to reference.

Each section below sets out its own written requests. A consolidated summary of the outstanding questions appears at point 6.

1. Clarified names of the three officers the CRCC removed from the complaint; request that the CRCC add them to complaint 2026-1781
2. Response to the CRCC's explanation for including Cst. Geoff Matthews — request for clarification
3. Request for confirmation regarding Paul's role, CRCC Review, and the management of misconduct.
4. Using an assumed "spam" characterization to remove Commissioner Mike Duheme and Assistant Commissioner Dennis Daley — not a threshold, policy, or evidentiary basis.
5. Response to the CRCC's claim that my complaint about CRCC staff was resolved — it is not; the CRCC decided that for itself
6. Requested steps to resolve the outlined issues.
7. CRCC original Email from July 20, 2026

1. Clarified names of the three officers the CRCC removed from the complaint; request that the CRCC add them to complaint 2026-1781

The CRCC's own words. Your July 20, 2026 response states: "it should be noted that one unknown member was included on the complaint just in case the names provided by you were simply misspelled."

The CRCC therefore knew that the names I had submitted may have been misspelled. Having identified that possibility, it did not ask me, did not contact the detachment, and did not attempt to resolve it. It listed a placeholder instead. That is an admission that the identification issue was known to the CRCC and was nevertheless left unresolved before the complaint was forwarded .

The stated basis for exclusion is factually incorrect. Your response also states that these three "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." On July 20, 2026, I attended the RCMP Sheet Harbour detachment in person and confirmed the correct names of all three officers, which I had submitted phonetically to the CRCC — as I was concerned about further retaliation by this detachment: Cst. Christa Pye (reported as Krista Pye), Cst. Kerri Chartrand (reported as Sherry Charant), and Cst. Zachary LeShane (reported as Zachary Lechene), all assigned to the RCMP Sheet Harbour detachment.

Note that these two positions do not sit together. If the CRCC suspected the names were misspelled, it cannot also have determined that the individuals behind those names were not RCMP members — the CRCC would not have known who it was checking. I ask the CRCC to identify the information on which the membership determination was made, at request (b) below.

Identification was not a burden the CRCC could not meet. Consider what the CRCC had in front of it. My submission included video of those officers showing their faces. I provided the exact dates they attended. The Sheet Harbour detachment has approximately six officers, and three of them had already been named and confirmed — Justin Hall, Chad Sanford, and Jessica Welke. Identifying the remaining three officers using their faces, attendance dates, and submitted phonetic spellings would have required a single phone call to the detachment. I made that inquiry myself, in person, and obtained all three names in one visit. The CRCC did not make that inquiry and did not ask me to do so.

The referral loop. Your July 20, 2026 response says:

"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."

Cpl. Joseph Fraser was asked five simple questions on June 30, 2026. The fifth question was "To add the officers clearly and intentionally omitted by the CRCC, who do you recommend I contact to have them added to this investigation?" Joseph Fraser responded on July 6, 2026, "You would have to contact the CRCC directly through the e-mail that you have. You would quote your current intake number that was provided."

https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/2026-07-06_Cpl_Joseph_Fraser_Response_To_Five_Questions_From_2026-06-30.html (https://tinyurl.com/5h8nzpt7)

These are inconsistent statements. Joseph Fraser states to contact the CRCC; the CRCC states to contact Joseph Fraser. The complainant is directed back and forth between two bodies, each stating the other holds the authority. That contradiction stands on the face of the two documents and requires an answer.

Two documented contradictions. The first is the referral loop above. The second is Cst. Geoff Matthews, addressed in section 2: Cpl. Fraser's June 1, 2026 email names him among the nine officers served, while the CRCC states he was never officially added as a subject member. Both accounts describe the same file and cannot both be correct.

Inference, stated as such. My reading — and I offer it as inference, not fact — is that the CRCC cannot add subject members once a complaint has been forwarded to the RCMP, and that this is why the names were never clarified before referral. Audio, video, and transcripts were provided to the CRCC showing these members existed and were told of the sexual assault, and were told that Jessica Welke — whom the primary case number concerns — knew about it. Adding them would show a pattern across the Sheet Harbour detachment that the CRCC would then have to reconcile with its review of 2023-1031. I do not ask the CRCC to accept that reading. I ask it to answer the questions below, which stand regardless of motive.

Accordingly, I request in writing:

(a) Identify any correspondence, including its date, in which the CRCC advised me of any name or membership issue concerning these three officers prior to your July 20, 2026 response. If no such correspondence exists, state that, and explain why the CRCC neither asked me nor contacted a six-officer detachment before excluding them — having already recorded that the names may have been "simply misspelled."

(b) Identify the information on which the CRCC determined that these three individuals were not RCMP members during the relevant period, including what names were checked and against what record.

(c) Confirm whether Cst. Christa Pye, Cst. Kerri Chartrand, and Cst. Zachary LeShane were RCMP members on March 22, 2024, February 14, 2025, and February 21, 2025.

(d) Add all three, under their correct names, to complaint 2026-1781.

(e) If the CRCC's position is that it cannot add subject members after a complaint has been forwarded to the RCMP, state that in writing, and identify the body or mechanism that can do so, given that Cpl. Fraser has already directed me back to the CRCC for exactly this purpose.

2. Response to the CRCC's explanation for including Cst. Geoff Matthews — request for clarification.

I never included or intended to include Cst. Geoff Matthews, which is why I never mentioned him even a single time. Your response states that Cst. Matthews "was not officially added as a subject member" and that an unknown subject member was listed instead.

This leaves a contradiction standing that requires an answer. In his June 1, 2026 email, Cpl. Joseph Fraser lists "Cst. Matthews" by name among the nine officers and states that all active members were served — while the CRCC now states he was never officially a subject member: "Cst. Geoff MATTHEWS was only mentioned in complaint file #2026-1781, he was not officially added as a subject member on the complaint." Both accounts describe the same file and cannot both be correct.

I request that the CRCC and Cpl. Fraser reconcile this contradiction in writing by confirming:

(a) whether Cst. Geoff Matthews was served as a subject member in complaint 2026-1781;

(b) if he was served, the allegation and statutory or policy provision assigned to him, the date of service, and the source from which his name was obtained;

(c) if he was not served, why Cpl. Fraser's June 1, 2026 email listed him among the nine officers and stated that all active members had been served; and

Copy of Cpl. Joseph Fraser's email and the provisions assigned to each officer, June 1, 2026:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/2026-06-01_Provisions_And_email_From_Cpl_Joseph_Fraser.html (https://tinyurl.com/33t39ham)

For clarity on why no complaint was ever made against Cst. Matthews: the March 13, 2023 arrest is not what I complained about. I complied fully with RCMP requests that day. NSHA's own notes — now public — list no threat and no example, and instead describe me as calm, cool, and collected, and I can provide video of the arrest, along with footage recorded from the back of the police car, showing exactly that.

The arrest itself originated with NSHA, not with the attending members. When Cst. Jessica Welke called me that day to tell me I could be arrested, she stated, "I don't know why they are making me do this," and said she had called three different departments asking whether she or the RCMP had to arrest me. She advised that, as the request came from an NSHA director, she had no other choice. She also told me that if they locked me up, she would come to where I was and take a statement. She never did.

My complaint concerns that failure to act: Cst. Welke's failure to act on what had been reported to her from August 17, 2022 onward, and the same failure by other Sheet Harbour members throughout late 2022 and early 2023, as set out in the sections addressing those officers. Had any of them taken the report, the events of March 13, 2023 would not have followed as they did, and NSHA would not have been able to retaliate for the reporting of serious abuse. Cst. Matthews attended an arrest that NSHA directed; he was doing his job and has nothing to do with this complaint. That is why he was never named, and why his appearance in this file did not come from me.

3. Request for confirmation regarding Paul's role, CRCC Review, and the management of misconduct.

Who Paul is in this. Paul identified himself on October 30, 2024, as "a manager of the Commission's intake office." His email signature reads "Complaint Intake, Complaint Intake and Review Directorate." He is the CRCC official who issued the questions on R2024-005807, who received and confirmed my answers, and who held that file through the period described below.

Paul's file: R2024-005807. The sequence on that file is documented in full:

• October 30, 2024 — Paul issues a list of questions to me by email.
• May 10, 2025 — I submit a completed, detailed response to those questions.
• May 24, 2025 — Paul advises that the May 10 submission was merged into R2024-005807, that the online complaint form does not accept attachments, and that no answers were received. He asks me to resend.
• May 25, 2025 — I resend the answers as an attached 51-page document, 6,463 KB, including photographic evidence, and ask for confirmation of receipt.
• May 25, 2025 — Paul confirms receipt, notes that future online submissions should be limited to six pages, and states: "For the current case we will make an exception."
• July 18, 2025 — Paul states the allegations are "still being assessed."
• February 10, 2026 — Paul responds substantively.

From Paul's own confirmed receipt on May 25, 2025, to his response on February 10, 2026, is 261 calendar days. That figure is fixed by Paul's own words: he told me the attachment had not arrived, asked me to resend it, and confirmed receipt the same day. There can be no dispute about when the complete file was in his hands.

On the review side, on April 8, 2026, CRCC Review confirmed receipt of the RCMP's materials on or about August 20, 2025. If that was the date on which all requested relevant material had been received, the 120-business-day service standard began to run at that point, placing its expiry in or around mid-February 2026. Paul's February 10, 2026 response arrived within days of that period's apparent expiry. I do not assert the exact expiry date; I ask the CRCC to identify both the applicable start date and the resulting expiry date at request (e) below.

The Trevor Allen file. On September 16, 2024, the CRCC stated it had reached out to its Complaint Directorate to have Sgt. Trevor Allen contact me. He never did. The investigation was opened on June 1, 2025, and closed on June 4, 2025 — three days later — without the complainant ever being contacted, and with Insp. Bushell acknowledging that the investigation fell outside the mandated time frame. That process occurred at the beginning of the 261-day period during which Paul held R2024-005807 without issuing a substantive response. The RCMP degraded all trust in that process, and Paul and the CRCC compounded it. I would not have had to make detailed submissions to the CRCC if these parties had not acted as they did.

The June 20, 2026 statement. On June 20, 2026, the CRCC stated that part of the reason it removed Commissioners Mike Duheme and Dennis Daley from the complaint was:

"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."

That is the CRCC stating, in writing, that correspondence sent to a large number of recipients need not be taken seriously by those who receive it — while responding to an email sent to 127 recipients. If that reasoning holds, then the CRCC's own response was sent under circumstances that, by its own stated logic, made it unreasonable to expect the recipients to take it seriously. If that reasoning does not hold, it cannot have been a proper basis for removing two Commissioners from the complaint.

On the anticipated position that assessment carries no standard. The CRCC may respond that R2024-005807 was under assessment, that no published service standard governs assessment, and that a file under assessment generates no correspondence by design. That answer would not resolve the issue, because it would not reconcile with the position Paul took.

In the February 10, 2026 response itself, Paul wrote: "While you are certainly entitled to an update on your complaint..." He therefore acknowledged the entitlement in the same message that ended 261 calendar days of silence on it. The CRCC did not tell me that no standard applied, or that silence was procedurally normal, or that I had no right to ask. It confirmed the right and criticized me for exercising it — while also criticizing the length and detail of submissions it had itself invited on October 30, 2024, and for which it had itself granted a length exception on May 25, 2025.

Accordingly, I request in writing:

(a) Confirm the date on which Paul, or the Intake Office, received my complete answers to the October 30, 2024 questions on file R2024-005807, and identify every substantive response issued to me on that file between that date and February 10, 2026.

(b) Identify the service standard, if any, that applies to the Intake Office's assessment of a file such as R2024-005807, state whether it was met, and state whether the CRCC considers 261 days reasonable. If no service standard applies, state that in writing, and reconcile it with Paul's written acknowledgement on February 10, 2026, that I was "certainly entitled to an update on your complaint."

(c) Identify the policy, if any, that establishes an acceptable frequency for a complainant to request a status update, and identify the policy under which my requests for updates every two weeks were found to be improper — given that the entitlement to an update was confirmed in writing on February 10, 2026.

(d) State whether the number of recipients copied on my correspondence was a factor in the handling of file R2024-005807 between May 25, 2025, and February 10, 2026. If it was, identify the policy or statutory provision that permits it. If it was not, state the reason no substantive response was issued during those 261 calendar days, and identify what steps were taken on the file during that period and on what dates.

(e) Identify the date on which the 120-business-day service-standard period for file 2023-1031 began to run and the date on which the 120th business day fell. Confirm whether the CRCC treated August 20, 2025 — the date on or about which it received the RCMP's materials — as the start date. If not, identify the date used and explain why. State whether the CRCC considers the service standard to have been met.

(f) Identify the position of the CRCC official to whom the Program Officer who wrote the April 8, 2026 email reports, and confirm whether Paul held any supervisory role in relation to the review of file 2023-1031.

4. Using an assumed "spam" characterization to remove Commissioner Mike Duheme and Assistant Commissioner Dennis Daley — not a threshold, policy, or evidentiary basis.

Your written position is that correspondence sent to 100+ recipients "presents... more as spam than communication with serious intent" and that "it is not reasonable to expect the recipients of such transmissions to take the correspondence seriously." The current email chain, which you just responded to, contains 127 recipients. The CRCC's continued substantive responses are inconsistent with using the number of recipients as evidence that the correspondence lacked serious intent. Section 45.53(2)(b) permits the CRCC to refuse a complaint that is, in its opinion, trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith. The section establishes no numerical recipient threshold.

The submissions to the CRCC also refute the premise directly. I hold delivery confirmations from Dennis Daley, which have been provided to the CRCC, establishing that the correspondence reached the RCMP's email system. The CRCC therefore cannot simply assume that it was blocked, undelivered, or unavailable for review. The RCMP called me about the thread on September 17, 2021 and confirmed they could see it, as your own summary records. RCMP members showed up through 2022 regarding the emails, while their internal documents, obtained through FOI, show they read the emails in late 2022 and found no threats. How can the RCMP respond and retaliate to those same emails, yet have them be considered spam? The CRCC's statements, set against the RCMP's documented actions, show that the RCMP treated the same correspondence selectively — responding to or acting upon it in some circumstances while characterizing it as undeserving of serious consideration in others.

And consider what the CRCC's own role requires. If a member of the public sent the RCMP something genuinely serious — such as a person intending to do harm — and the RCMP ignored it because of the number of recipients, the CRCC would reasonably find that the RCMP should have responded. That is precisely the kind of neglect the CRCC exists to catch. Yet here the CRCC has invented the spam framing itself, to excuse the RCMP, rather than testing whether the RCMP should have acted. Worse still, by treating that framing as reasonable, the CRCC has handed the RCMP an official excuse to point to in such circumstances. The placement of that reasoning in Assistant Commissioner Dennis Daley's mailbox is not hypothetical: the delivery confirmation establishes that it was sent there. Its potential use as a justification in other cases is a foreseeable risk created by the CRCC's own wording.

Furthermore, I reported sexual assault, election interference, and national security matters including a CSIS case number directly to the RCMP Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner for Nova Scotia, while requesting that multiple officers report this to their commanders — Brenda Lucki, Mike Duheme, and Dennis Daley. Reporting of that nature cannot reasonably be characterized as frivolous solely because of the number of recipients. The content itself engages the duties whose neglect is alleged. The RCMP is free to push such matters down the ranks — but that routing is a decision, and your own reasoning confirms it: you state the RCMP "has an internal reporting system when they deem incidents should be reported through the chain of command." A deeming is a decision, and a decision made through an internal reporting system should generate an identifiable record. If a routing decision was made regarding my reports, I request that the record of that decision be identified and produced. If no such record exists, the CRCC must explain whether any assessment occurred, who conducted it, when it occurred, and on what information it was based.

The CRCC's futility argument rests on an untested assumption about what would have happened to the reports after receipt. It predicts that they "would... have simply been sent back to the detachment level to be considered and potentially investigated" without identifying any record showing that the reports were assessed or routed in that manner. And the CRCC's own statement that the material could have been considered and potentially investigated directly undercuts its characterization of the complaint as trivial or frivolous. The escalation question was only ever about who investigates — the CRCC has converted a routing opinion into a merits refusal.

I also note what the spam reasoning actually is: a factual inference about how the correspondence was received and processed, made in the RCMP's favour without investigation at the screening stage, and contradicted by the existing record set out above. The CRCC effectively treated the central disputed issue — whether the commanders received, reviewed, or disregarded the reports — as resolved by assumption, and used that assumption to refuse the process that would have tested it.

Officers will cite conflict of interest regarding investigating their commanding officers, and defer to the CRCC — as HRP did on August 2, 2022, when their Chief and previous commanding officers were involved. In the case of the RCMP and the CRCC, Sgt. Jeff Stevens was first assigned to investigate 2023-1031. We first spoke on September 27, 2023, when he answered the phone as Corporal; on December 12, 2023, he answered as Sergeant. Under sections 5(2) and 7(1) of the RCMP Act, the statutory authority to promote members other than officers rests with the Commissioner but may be delegated to another RCMP member. I do not assert that either Dennis Daley or Mike Duheme personally considered or approved Sgt. Stevens's promotion. The point is structural: assigning a subordinate officer to investigate allegations against senior officials within the chain of command responsible for his employment and advancement raises at least a potential or perceived conflict, regardless of who formally approved the promotion. Sending allegations against commanders "back to the detachment level" places subordinate officers such as Sgt. Stevens in exactly that position. This is precisely why the CRCC should determine whether an independent Commission investigation, or another investigation free from the identified chain-of-command conflict, is required to protect the officers, the commanders, and the integrity of both the RCMP and the CRCC.

Consider the simplicity behind the complaint. If Commissioner Duheme and Assistant Commissioner Daley did not know, then this is an easy case for the RCMP and the CRCC: simply ask them and record the answer. Given the seriousness of the reported evidence and the accompanying CSIS case number, the CRCC should welcome their answer on record to ensure the integrity of the CRCC Review process. However, given how the CRCC has approached this: if it is found that Dennis Daley and Mike Duheme did in fact know of this issue — that it was reported to them, or that they read the email — then the CRCC will have protected them from a question it never asked, on the strength of a fact it assumed. That is the whole of my objection.

I do not accept the s. 45.53(2)(b) designation, and I preserve my objection to it in full.

Accordingly, I request in writing:

(a) Identify the policy, guideline, or published resource establishing the number of recipients at which correspondence to the RCMP is treated as spam, or ceases to require a response. If no such policy exists, state that in writing.

(b) State whether the CRCC verified, before adopting and relying on the spam characterization, that the correspondence was received and read by the RCMP — and reconcile that characterization with the delivery confirmations from Assistant Commissioner Daley provided to the CRCC, with the RCMP's September 17, 2021 call confirming they could see the thread, and with the RCMP's own internal documents obtained through FOI showing that the emails were read in late 2022.

(c) Identify the record of any decision by which my reports to Commissioner Duheme and Assistant Commissioner Daley were directed to the detachment level. If no such record exists, state whether any assessment or routing decision nevertheless occurred, identify who made it and when, and explain the basis on which the CRCC predicted that the reports would have been returned to the detachment level.

(d) Confirm whether Sgt. Jeff Stevens was promoted from Corporal to Sergeant between September 27, 2023, and December 12, 2023; identify the statutory or delegated authority under which that promotion was approved, including any delegation under section 5(2) of the RCMP Act; and state whether the CRCC considered any actual, potential, or perceived conflict arising from his assignment to investigate file 2023-1031.

(e) Confirm in writing whether the s. 45.53(2)(b) refusal is final, and identify the applicable mechanism for its review.

(f) State whether the CRCC’s spam characterization turns on the visibility of recipient addresses or on the number of recipients irrespective of visibility. If the former, state whether identical correspondence sent by blind copy (BCC) would have attracted the same characterization and explain the basis for the answer. If the latter, identify the provision under which the number of persons a complainant informs bears on whether a complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith within the meaning of s. 45.53(2)(b).

5. Response to the CRCC's claim that my complaint about CRCC staff was resolved — it is not; the CRCC decided that for itself.

On July 20, 2026, the CRCC stated, "...where your concerns were acknowledged but it was also explained that the overall issue had been resolved..." At no stage did I state, indicate, or agree that my concerns regarding the conduct of Carole, David, Paul, and the CRCC in general were resolved. Nor is it clear from your wording whether "resolved" means that I agreed the matter was resolved or that the CRCC determined it was closed. Those are different propositions, and I ask the CRCC to state which it means at request (a) below.

The CRCC's position — that the body whose staff are the subject of the complaint reviewed itself, declared the matter "resolved," and then stated, "This will be the CRCC's final response on this matter" — is precisely the conduct I am attempting to complain about. The CRCC has applied to itself the same model of institutional self-review that its external oversight role is intended to address in the RCMP context.

That the concerns remain unresolved is further evidenced by the matters set out in sections 1 and 2 of this response: the removal of three officers without any clarifying question being put to the complainant, and the appearance in this file of an allegation attributed to Cst. Geoff Matthews that I never made. I do not restate those matters here; they are documented above.

There is then the entirely reasonable question: why did the CRCC not, at the time I made my initial request to file a complaint, advise me to contact the Office of the Minister of Public Safety or any other body with jurisdiction over complaints concerning CRCC conduct? If there is no external administrative mechanism through which a complaint against the CRCC may be made, then the CRCC's assessment of its own staff is effectively final within its own complaint process. That is a structural problem, and it is why I am asking for the governing policy rather than an opinion.

For the record, the CRCC's statement that "This will be the CRCC's final response on this matter" leaves the following documented position: the CRCC has declined to provide the policy governing complaints against the CRCC, has declined to provide the policy governing telephone contact with complainants, and has declined to state in writing that no such policies exist. The seriousness of the underlying file — including the matters reported under CSIS Case Number Attachment5566 and the allegations documented in the sections above and in the record already provided to the CRCC — is not diminished by the CRCC's characterization of my correspondence.

Accordingly, I request in writing:

(a) State whether "resolved" means that I agreed the matter was resolved or that the CRCC determined it was closed. If the former, identify the correspondence in which I so indicated.

(b) Identify the CRCC official who reviewed the complaint concerning Carole, David, and Paul; identify that official's position; describe that official's reporting relationship to each individual complained of; and identify the official who made or approved the decision that the matter had been resolved.

(c) Provide every policy, procedure, guideline, directive, or documented practice governing complaints against CRCC staff. If none exists, state that in writing.

(d) Provide every policy, procedure, guideline, directive, or documented practice governing telephone contact between the CRCC and complainants. If none exists, state that in writing.

(e) Identify the body or office to which a complaint about CRCC conduct may be directed, and state why that route was not identified when I first requested to file such a complaint.

(f) Confirm whether "This will be the CRCC's final response on this matter" applies to requests (a) through (e). If it does, confirm that the CRCC is declining to answer each request and identify the policy or legal basis for that refusal.

6. Requested steps to resolve the outlined issues.

On the three Sheet Harbour officers. The stated basis for their exclusion — that they were not RCMP members during the relevant period — is factually incorrect, and correcting that error requires no exercise of discretion. Cst. Christa Pye, Cst. Kerri Chartrand, and Cst. Zachary LeShane are members assigned to the RCMP Sheet Harbour detachment, as I confirmed in person on July 20, 2026. I request that they be added to complaint 2026-1781 under their correct names.

Your response directs requests to add or remove subject members to the assigned Public Complaint Investigator. Cpl. Joseph Fraser directed me to the CRCC for that same purpose on July 6, 2026. I am therefore providing this letter to both bodies and request that whichever body holds the authority exercise it. If neither body has that authority, I ask that this be stated in writing so that the procedural gap is documented on the record.

On the CRCC's own conduct. Your response indicates that concerns regarding the CRCC or the public complaint process may be referred to the Office of the Minister of Public Safety. I intend to make that referral and provide the complete correspondence record. That referral does not withdraw or replace the requests set out above, which are directed to the CRCC and remain outstanding.

Outstanding questions. Each of the following is asked directly and in writing. Where a question is set out with greater specificity in sections 1 through 5, the fuller formulation in the applicable section governs.

1. On what date, and in what correspondence, did the CRCC advise me of any name or membership issue concerning Cst. Christa Pye, Cst. Kerri Chartrand, and Cst. Zachary LeShane before its July 20, 2026 response? If no such correspondence exists, explain why the three officers were excluded on the basis of a membership determination without any inquiry being made to me or to a detachment of approximately six officers.
2. On what information did the CRCC rely in determining that these three individuals were not RCMP members during the relevant period, including the names checked, the records against which they were checked, the date of each check, and the official who conducted or approved it?
3. Were Cst. Christa Pye, Cst. Kerri Chartrand, and Cst. Zachary LeShane RCMP members on March 22, 2024, February 14, 2025, and February 21, 2025?
4. Was Cst. Geoff Matthews served as a subject member in complaint 2026-1781? Cpl. Fraser's June 1, 2026 email states that he was among the members served, while the CRCC states that he was never officially added as a subject member. Which account is correct?
5. What number of recipients causes correspondence or a complaint to be characterized as "spam," and what policy, guideline, statutory provision, or published resource establishes that threshold?
6. Was any assessment or routing decision made regarding my reports to Commissioner Duheme and Assistant Commissioner Daley? If so, identify and produce the record of that decision. If no record exists, state whether an assessment or routing decision nevertheless occurred, identify who made it and when, and explain the basis on which the CRCC concluded that the reports would have been returned to the detachment level.
7. Is the refusal under s. 45.53(2)(b) final, and what mechanism is available to seek review of that refusal?
8. What policies, procedures, guidelines, directives, or documented practices govern complaints concerning CRCC staff and telephone contact between the CRCC and complainants? If none exist, confirm that in writing.
9. On what date did Paul, or the Intake Office, receive my complete answers to the October 30, 2024 questions on file R2024-005807; what substantive responses were issued to me on that file between that date and February 10, 2026; what service standard, if any, applies to the Intake Office's assessment of such a file; and does the CRCC consider 261 calendar days reasonable? If no service standard applies, reconcile that with Paul's written acknowledgement on February 10, 2026 that I was "certainly entitled to an update on your complaint."
10. On what date did the 120-business-day service-standard period for file 2023-1031 begin to run, and on what date did the 120th business day fall? Did the CRCC treat August 20, 2025 — the date on or about which it received the RCMP's materials — as the start date? If not, identify the date used and explain why. Does the CRCC consider the service standard to have been met?
11. Who reviewed the complaint concerning Carole, David, and Paul; what is that official's position; what is that official's reporting relationship to each individual complained of; and who made or approved the determination that the matter had been resolved? Does "resolved" mean that I agreed the matter was resolved, or that the CRCC determined it was closed?

My requests regarding Commissioner Mike Duheme and Assistant Commissioner Dennis Daley remain preserved on the record.

Everything stated can be independently reviewed at:
www.TheWolfAndTheNeuralNetwork.com

Complete CRCC correspondence:
https://thewolfandtheneuralnetwork.com/HTMLDocuments/All%20CRCC%20Follow%20ups.html#April82026FromCRCCReviews
https://tinyurl.com/3u93hmj6

Scott Jewers
902-220-9106

=========================================================================

=========================================================================