B.C. Mountie’s lawyer admits messages broke RCMP code, but calls investigation biased

The decision from an RCMP conduct board about comments made by British Columbia police officers in a private group chat will have implications for officers across the country, a lawyer for a Coquitlam Mountie says.

Anita Atwal, lawyer for Const. Philip Dick, told an RCMP adjudicator Tuesday that her client admits some messages he sent over police mobile data terminals breached the force’s code of conduct.

However, Atwal said the investigation into him and fellow officers was unfair and biased, and the group chat — utilizing the encrypted messaging app Signal — was “not a work-related group chat.”

Closing submissions began this week in the misconduct case that alleges racist, sexist and discriminatory comments were made in group chats and on police computer terminals by Coquitlam constables Ian Solven, Mersad Mesbah and Philip Dick.

They face possible dismissal for allegedly breaching the force’s code of conduct, accused of discourtesy, harassment, discrimination and discreditable conduct.

Messages uncovered by an investigation revealed comments that included racial and homophobic slurs and other derogatory comments about fellow officers and members of the public.

“We say that there was a witch hunt against Const. Dick,” Atwal said. “The (conduct authority representative’s) obligations here are to see that justice is done, not to see that Const. Dick is fired.”

Atwal said the investigator assigned to look into the messages had “tunnel vision,” while only looking for evidence that confirmed allegations made against the men by a fellow officer.

“He made a number of moral conclusions about Const. Dick that tainted his work,” she said.

Atwal told the adjudicator during the virtual hearing that some of her client’s messages sent over police data terminals admittedly breached the force’s code around behaviour that is likely to discredit the force.

She said other messages were discourteous, but said it hadn’t been proven that Dick engaged in harassment or discrimination under the code.

She said in her hours-long submissions that the RCMP had no policy about group chats, and the comments at issue in the hearing didn’t impact their “duties and functions” as police officers.

She told the adjudicator that the RCMP has no “legitimate interest” in policing her client’s language in private group chats, which reflected anger and frustration on the job.

Atwal said the complainant in the case was unreliable, untruthful and not credible, and the conduct authority making the case against the three officers had failed to prove that the group chat and data terminal messages had a discriminatory “impact” as alleged.

She said Dick “readily” admitted that some of the messages were discreditable under the code, but the legal test for discrimination and harassment had not been met.

Atwal said the privacy arguments related to the private group chat on the officers’ personal cellphones “are of significant importance, not just to Const. Dick but to members across this country who have group chats with their friends who they work with.”

John MacLaughlan, a lawyer for the RCMP conduct authority representative, told the adjudicator that the complainant in the case was “trying to fit in” among fellow officers who made offensive comments that were appalling.

He said the chat group and messages did have a sufficient link with the officers’ employment with the national police force.

“A private chat group is obviously not a police communications technology unless it’s been adopted for such, but you’ve got the members who are actually communicating about police work and active files,” he said.

MacLaughlan said the comments made by the officers were “objectively wrong,” and he urged the board to find that allegations of discrimination and discreditable conduct have been proven against Dick.

“People privy to these communications did find them offensive or at minimum racist,” MacLaughlan said. “If they don’t find racism offensive, that’s them. But we know that that’s wrong.”

The hearing continues Wednesday.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 21, 2025.

Darryl Greer, The Canadian Press