MOGHADDAM ET AL. COMPLAINT AGAINST COMMISSIONER BRENDA LUCKI1. Whereby, the following are the complainants herein (collectively, “thecomplainants”):Complainant 1: Shahin MOGHADDAM, citizen of Canada, personallyand on behalf of the Estate of his wife, Shakiba FEGHAHATI,deceased or as Personal Representative of his wife, ShakibaFEGHAHATI deceased;AND on behalf of the Estate of his son, Rosstin MOGHADDAMdeceased or as Personal Representative of his son RosstinMOGHADDAM deceased;Complainant 2: Mehrzad ZAREI, citizen of Canada, personally and on behalfof the Estate of his son, Arad ZAREI deceased or as PersonalRepresentative of his son, Arad ZAREI deceased;2. Whereby, the above-named deceased family members were Canadiancitizens;3. Whereby, the complainants were established to be the legitimate legalrepresentatives of their above-named family members in Zarei v Iran, 2021ONSC 3377 (CanLII), hereafter Zarei v. Iran.https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2021/2021onsc3377/2021onsc3377.html4. Whereby their above-mentioned family members were victims of numerouscrimes, including but not limited to, a terrorist act, conspiracy to commitmurder, offence involving an explosive or other lethal device, andobstruction of justice, as a result of missiles shot against them while theywere passengers of a civilian airliner on January 8, 2020;5. Whereby the perpetrator publicly admitted to the actus reus, ie the act itself,and were found liable in Zarei v. Iran, the admitted perpetrator being theorganization called the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (“IRGC”), led byAli KHAMENEI, the Supreme Leader of Iran, and senior commanders,Mohammad BAGHERI also known as Mohammad-Hossein AFSHORDI,Hossein SALAMI, Seyyed Abdolrahim MOUSAVI, and Amir AliHAJIZADEH;6. Whereby the perpetrator only denied the mens rea, or intention behind theact, claiming the act to have been a human error.7. Whereby the obstruction of justice by the destruction of evidence by the IRGChas been widely reported, including by the government of Canada,government of Ukraine, and numerous North American reporters whowitnessed the site of the plane’s wreckage;8. Whereby the above-named complainants retained expert evidence andsubmitted a claim in the Ontario Superior Court (Zarei v. Iran).9. The experts found that the acts of the accused could not have beenaccidental, and were intentional.10. The judge of the Ontario Superior Court, Justice Edward Belobaba, uponreviewing the expert evidence, found that the acts of the accused were, on abalance of probabilities, intentional, and constituted acts of terrorism underSection 83.01(1)(a) of the Criminal Code R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, as amended.SUBECT MATTER OF THE COMPLAINT11. Whereby, the complainants were provided with a letter from theCommissioner of the RCMP, Brenda Lucki (“the Commissioner”), by email, onor about July 7, 2021, stating that the Commissioner would not open acriminal investigation against the perpetrators; (Appendix A)12. The statements of the letter of July 7, 2021, in their entirety are the subjectmatter of this complaint, including that:A question was also raised on whether the decision to not commence orlead a domestic criminal investigation in Canada was an RCMP decision. Itis indeed our responsibility to make these decisions, though we consultwith legal counsel and other advisors on the potential viability of obtainingphysical evidence, access to witnesses and consider related issues. In thiscase, it was the RCMP that decided Ukraine was the most competentauthority to lead a criminal investigation into the downing. This is becauseUkraine had greater rights to access the crash site, to the wreckage, andto witnesses and victims in other countries.FACTUAL AND LEGAL FOUNDATION OF THE COMPLAINT13. The following facts are undisputed and reported widely by credible mediasources. They are accepted as credible and summarized in Zarei v. Iran asfollows: The actual events of January 8, 2020 are not in dispute. The grim chronology, asset out in numerous international reports and media investigations, can besummarized as follows. Ukraine International Airlines Flight PS 752 (a Boeing 737-800) was shot down bytwo Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (“IRGC”) Tor M-1 missiles shortly afterdeparting Tehran for Kiev. The first missile hit at 6:15 a.m., the second about 30seconds later. Engulfed in flames, Flight 752 turned to return to the airport andcontinued flying for another four minutes. Then it crashed. All 167 passengers (55Canadian citizens, 30 permanent residents and 53 others on their way to Canada)and 9 crew were killed. After several days, the IRGC publicly admitted responsibility for the crash, blaminghuman error. The commander of the IRGC Aerospace Force said a defense systemoperator mistook the passenger jet for a cruise missile. Iranian media offered twoexplanations: that it was a mistake made by a junior IRGC officer operating themissile system or the result of electronic warfare by the U.S. Army that caused themissile system to see the Boeing 737-800 airplane as a U.S. cruise missile.14. Any criminal investigation, therefore, will be necessarily narrow, focusingsolely on whether the act of violence was intentional or accidental;15. To determine whether it was intentional or accidental requires expertevidence to assess the plausibility of the accused’s claim that it was anaccidental act;16. The government of Ukraine and Canada, as well as experts retained by thecomplainants, have agreed that the acts could not have been accidental;117. The cited reports, including that of Ukraine, Canada, and the United Nations,point to lack of credibility of Iran’s theory, gaps of information, anddestruction of evidence by the IRGC.18. In reviewing the evidence, the Ontario Superior Court pronouncedjudgement, concluding that, on a balance of probabilities: I find on a balance of probabilities that the missile attacks on Flight 752were intentional and directly caused the deaths of all onboard. I further find on abalance of probabilities that, at the time in question, there was no armed conflictin the region.1 For analysis of the expert reports, as well as the UN and Canada’s dismissal of Iran’s “human error” theory, seeparagraphs 40-44 of Zarei v. Iran. For Ukraine’s dismissal of the theory, see:flightps752.comUkraine rejects Iran’s claims that human error caused PS752 downing“As of now, Ukraine cannot agree with the fact that the plane was shot down due to human error. We are convinced that this issue should be resolved as part of a criminal investigation with the establishment of all the facts.” The plaintiffs have established that the shooting down of Flight 752 by thedefendants was an act of terrorism and constitutes “terrorist activity” under theSIA, the JVTA and the provisions of the Criminal Code, as discussed above.”19. It is the duty of members of the RCMP who are peace officers, which includesthe Commissioner, as their most basic duty under Section 18 the RCMP Act:(a) to perform all duties that are assigned to peace officers in relation to thepreservation of the peace, the prevention of crime and of offences against thelaws of Canada and the laws in force in any province in which they may beemployed, and the apprehension of criminals and offenders and others whomay be lawfully taken into custody (emphasis added);20. It is the responsibility of every member of the RCMP, including theCommissioner, to respect the rights of all persons, maintain the integrity ofthe law, law enforcement, and administration of justice; 221. The Commissioner, like all members of the RCMP, must also perform itsduties promptly, impartially and diligently, in accordance with the law andwithout abusing her authority.3 Therefore, although the Liberal governmentof Canada may be unclear as its political intentions with the IRGC, the RCMPmust nonetheless fulfill its obligations to be impartial, respect the rights of allpersons, and prevent crime and offenses against the laws of Canada.22. The RCMP’s discretion to decline opening an investigation is not limitless,and the decision must be made rationally on a subjective and objective basis:R v Beaudry, 2007 SCC 523. The RCMP’s discretion, as in all administrative decisions, must be exercisedreasonably, such that the exercise of its discretion is justifiable, intelligible,and transparent.Canada (MCI) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 at para 65THE COMPLAINT24. The complaint is not about national security;25. In the case at hand, there is a strong public interest to:• deter criminal acts against Canadian citizens, according to the RCMP’sprincipal duty under Section 18 of the RCMP Act;• secure and preserve evidence of or relating to an offence on behalf of thevictims, in collaboration with experts as well as the Ukrainian authorities,and• pursue justice before domestic courts as well as the InternationalCriminal Court;26. Declining to act on behalf of victims to investigate would thwart thesejustifiable public interests.27. And whereas the IRGC has been legislated to be added to Canada’s terroristlist, it is in the public interest to determine the terrorist tendencies of theIRGC;28. And despite the Commissioner declining to open an investigation, thegovernment of Canada has made an official statement that the RCMP isengaged in criminal investigations against the IRGC to determine if it is aterrorist organization, stating:“our national security and law enforcement agencies are actively engaged inmonitoring the activities of these groups, and gathering the evidence required tosupport a determination of listing as a Terrorist Organization.”https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=432-0072329. The contradiction between the statement of the government of Canada thatthe RCMP is investigating the terrorist tendencies of the IRGC, versus theCommissioner’s statement that it is not, signifies bad faith and/ordiscrimination, partiality, ultimately unjustifiable use of police discretion, andthe Commissioner’s neglect of the RCMP’s duties to prevent unlawful acts ofterrorism and violence against Canadian citizens.30. And the Iran government’s destruction of evidence means Ukraine does nothave any particular advantage over Canada;31. And in any case, that Ukraine and Canada have concurrent jurisdiction toinvestigate the matter before their domestic courts and at the InternationalCriminal Court;32. Whereas the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s Office justifies the opening of acriminal investigation in the following way, directly contradicting thereasoning of the Commissioner in her letter:The investigation of this crime is carried out in absolute conditions ofextraterritoriality, without having access to the remnants of the planewreckage and without the possibility of questioning the witnesses andother persons in the case in the territory of Iran. At the same time, all thatdid not become a hindrance to the advancement of the investigationtoward establishing the objective truth.https://www.gp.gov.ua/ua/b_73733. And whereas the Ukrainian government does not have jurisdiction to pursuejustice for the 55 Canadian nationals;34. And the Ukraine has only lost 11 citizens compared to the 55 Canadiancitizens;35. And the Ukrainian authorities have solely relied on expert reports to maketheir findings, and the only issue to be investigated is the intentionality of theact, the identity and act itself having been established;36. And Canadian and Ukrainian investigators have the ability to share theirfindings:37. The RCMP Commissioner has failed to follow her duties under the RCMP Act,and acted unreasonably or partially under political influence;38. The RCMP Commissioner has compromised the integrity of the CriminalCode, opening it to opportunism and abuse.RESOLUTION SOUGHT39. As a result of the above, the Complainants seek a Canadian criminalinvestigation into the downing of Ukraine International Airlines FlightPS752 on January 8, 2020.40. Furthermore, in order to maintain the public trust and reinforce the highstandard of conduct expected of the Commissioner as a member of the RoyalCanadian Mounted Police, the Complainants request an investigation intothe Conduct of the Commissioner as it relates to her decision on FlightPS752 and all the circumstances surrounding that decision, as provided bythe RCMP Act:40(1) If it appears to a conduct authority in respect of a member that themember has contravened a provision of the Code of Conduct, the conductauthority shall make or cause to be made any investigation that the conductauthority considers necessary to enable the conduct authority to determinewhether the member has contravened or is contravening the provision.41. The Complainants seek to ensure the Commissioner is held responsible andaccountable for her decision and for the totality of her conduct in relation toFlight PS752.