Judge dismisses Canada Post motion for RCMP documents seized in Caspian fraud investigation

A Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench judge has dismissedCanada Post's requestto force RCMP to hand over documents the Mountiesseized duringan ongoingfraud investigation.

The documents belong to Winnipeg contractor Caspian Projects Inc.andcontain invoices and billing information for two multi-million dollar construction projects at the centre of a nearly four-year police probe.

"Broad access to, and potential disclosure of, evidence seized by police during a criminal investigation would not adequately protect privacy interests, and could compromise investigations or taint the evidence of witnesses,"Court of Queen's Bench Judge Sadie Bond wrote in a 17-page May 28 decision.

"I find that the balancing of interests does not favour Canada Post."

The documents wereseized by theRCMPin a number of search warrants and production orders as part of a criminalinvestigation into allegations of fraud in the construction of the Canada Post mail-sorting facilitynear Richardson International Airport and the Winnipeg police headquarters downtown.

No charges have been laid as result of that investigation.

In December 2017,Canada Post went tocourt to arguefor the right to view and analyze the documents.

Duringthe hearings, Canada Postargued it should be allowedtoview and analyze the documents becausethey containedsworn evidence thatan "obvious fraud" hadbeen committed.

Canada Post's lawyer, BobSokalski,said his clients planned to takeCaspian to court to getthe money back but had not yet filed a statement of claim, which is the first step in launching a civil case.

In dismissing Canada Post's motion, JusticeBond said a legal interest in the case hasto be actual, and not perceived.

"Canada Post has not commenced any legal action against Caspian, or any other person in relation to this matter, and has provided no compelling reason for not doing so despite its assertion that the evidence discloses a plain and obvious fraud," she wrote.

Canada Post hiredCaspianandAECONin a joint ventureto build the newWinnipeg mail-processing plantin 2008.

It was completed in 2010, but the Crown corporation continued to pay Caspian for a further six years, aCBCNews investigation learned last June.

'Demonstrate an obvious fraud': RCMP

The Crown corporation's motion to obtain the documents relied heavily on affidavits filed by theRCMPworking on the investigation, in which the Mounties detailed their case to a judge to ask for the authorization of search warrants.

"The seized documents demonstrate an obvious fraud, and include invoices that are clearly identified as being the 'actual'invoices, or as being the 'inflated'invoices that were submitted for payment on the project," RCMP Const. Marc PaulAllardwrote ina 2015 affidavit.

Sokalski said the Crown corporation feared once the police investigation is over and the documents are returned to Caspian, the evidence would be lost forever.

"Caspian hasn't taken an oath to say they'll get the documents back from the Crown and don't worry, they'll be here waiting for you,"Sokalskisaid during a December 2017 hearing.

"If that documentation gets back into the hands of the people who wrote 'true' and 'inflated,' there's no guarantee it will be there when released from the secure hands of theRCMP."

Caspian's lawyer argued if Canada Post got the documents,so should his clients.

"Caspian should have the same access as Canada Post in fairness," saidlawyer Jeff Baigrieduring the December 2017 hearing."We have to have access to the documents in fairness to defend ourselves."

He saidCanada Post is on a "fishing expedition" and should not be given access to the documents,which still belong to Caspian, even though they arein theRCMP'spossession.

Lawyers for the attorneys general of Manitoba and Canada argued onbehalf of theRCMPand the Crown that any sharing of the documents would compromise the police probe.

They also expressed concerns that if the courts gave the documents to Canada Post applicant, that wouldopen the door tosimilar motions in the future.

"I'm not inclined to give effect to a 'slippery slope'argument," wrote Bond. "However, the court should not hold the door open to applicants who may have an interest that is not sufficiently concrete or crystallized."