In their final word, families of N.S. shooting victims call commission 'rudderless'

Would have. Could have. Should have.

The final written submissions for the Mass Casualty Commission are replete with suggestions, demands and recriminations over how the events of April 18 and 19, 2020, and their aftermath, could have been handled differently.

The shooting rampage in rural Nova Scotia left 22 people dead as well as the gunman, who was eventually killed by police. The public hearings into the mass shooting, which began in February and ran until September, has already heard many of the assertions raised in the written submissions. 

Lawyers representing families of 21 of the victims used their final words to the commission to repeat their concerns about issues like communication regarding the police response.

There are two recurring themes on that topic: that the RCMP did a poor job of warning the public as the gunman, Gabriel Wortman, went on his rampage, and that there wasn't enough information provided to the victims' families or other members of the public in the immediate aftermath about whether their loved ones had survived.

Lawyers for the family of Gina Goulet, the gunman's last victim, went so far to say that had police done a better job of warning the public, she might have survived.

The families, through their lawyers, also voiced skepticism about whether any recommendations the commission makes for improving the performance of the RCMP will be implemented. They cite the failure to act on recommendations stemming from past mass-casualty events in Mayerthorpe, Alta., and Moncton, N.B. In both of those cases, all the victims were Mounties.

Lawyers from Patterson Law, the firm that has represented most of the families, were critical of the commission itself. They said it sometimes appeared "rudderless," delving into subjects that were not directly related to the April 2020 rampage. They pointed out that the commission came about in large part because of intense lobbying by the families, who later felt marginalized by some of the proceedings.

"It is important to note that the victims and survivors of crime must not be infantilized by the police or protected from information in the guise of being 'trauma informed,'" Patterson Law wrote.

Their submission says the families questioned why some witnesses — particularly Wortman's spouse, Lisa Banfield, and senior Mounties including Staff Sgt. Brian Rehill and Cpl. Rodney Peterson — were accorded special treatment when they testified, which the lawyers say precluded more effective questioning.

By denying them the opportunity to question Banfield directly, some of the conspiracy theories surrounding her role that weekend got more traction, the lawyers say.

The families also feel the trauma-informed lens was not applied equally, the submission says.

And in dissecting the Mounties' perceived shortcomings that weekend, Patterson Law noted: "It cannot be forgotten that the perpetrator was ultimately thwarted by an empty gas tank and coincidence, not by master strategy."

The special interest groups that were granted standing at the commission used their final submissions to advance their causes one last time.