Former RCMP intelligence director Cameron Ortis sentenced to 14 years for breaching secrets law

Open this photo in gallery:

The actions of former RCMP director Cameron Ortis undermined Canada’s reputation in the international intelligence community and potentially put lives at risk, an Ontario Superior Court justice said Wednesday in sentencing him to 14 years in prison for breaching the country’s secrets act.

Justice Robert Maranger, delivering the first sentence for specific charges under the Security of Information Act, said Canada’s reputation among its Five Eyes partners “may never be the same.” The Five Eyes is an intelligence alliance that consists of Canada, the United States, Britain, Australia and New Zealand.

Justice Maranger said the sentence is by any objective measure a severe penalty in Canadian criminal law and, in his view, one that is “fit and just” and addresses both the gravity of the offences and Mr. Ortis’s moral responsibility.

“I have concluded that a total period of imprisonment of 14 years is the appropriate disposition,” he said. “With pre-trial custody credit of 2,400 days, there remains seven years and 155 days to be served.”

In November, a jury found Mr. Ortis guilty of four counts of violating the secrets act. He was also found guilty of breach of trust and unauthorized use of a computer.

“The journey to a verdict was a long and complex one, particularly as it related to what evidence could and could not be presented at trial for reasons of national security,” Justice Maranger said.

“Those issues and others, including what I have decided here, will no doubt be revisited by higher courts than this one. That likelihood is always amplified when something in the law has never been done before.”

Mr. Ortis was found guilty of breaching the Security of Information Act after he communicated with police targets, including Vincent Ramos, who owned a B.C.-based company that produced encrypted cellphones used by organized crime.

Wesley Wark: With the Cameron Ortis trial, the Canadian judicial system passed an extraordinary test

During the trial, the Crown said that classified information shared with the police targets could allow them to evade efforts made by law-enforcement officers.

The agreed statement of facts said that from at least 2014, the RCMP, along with Five Eyes law-enforcement and intelligence agencies, investigated money-laundering activities conducted by entities believed to be associated with Altaf Khanani.

Mr. Khanani, a Dubai-based owner of money-services businesses and head of an international money-laundering network, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering in October, 2015, and was sentenced to 68 months in U.S. prison.

Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc would not comment Wednesday on the sentence Mr. Ortis was given but called the charges and conviction “extremely serious.”

He said the fact the jury came back with its findings reflects the justice system’s ability to “hold to account those that decide to breach some of the most fundamental obligations they have.

“We think the court system and the police investigative system in this particular case worked very well.”

Justice Maranger delivered the decision to a packed courtroom in Ottawa while Mr. Ortis, who was once one of the highest-ranking civilian members of the RCMP, sat in a prisoner’s box with ankle cuffs.

He said the task of sentencing an individual is a heavy burden on a trial judge, even in matters where the road is well travelled. He pointed out, however, that Mr. Ortis’s case is without precedent.

“The sentence under these specific [Security of Information Act] counts will be the first,” he said.

“To compound the problem, Cameron Ortis is somewhat of an enigma. In my time as a trial judge, I have never encountered an accused described by Crown witnesses in the manner that they described Cameron Ortis,” explaining that Mr. Ortis was “praised in no uncertain terms by his coworkers for his work ethic and intelligence.” He pointed to testimony from retired RCMP deputy commissioner Todd Shean, who testified that he held Mr. Ortis in high regard.

“That said, [Mr. Shean’s] sense of betrayal and raw emotion were palpable when shown examples of what Cameron Ortis had done,” Justice Maranger said.

He added that while there have been suggestions of a possible financial incentive for Mr. Ortis’s crimes, “in truth there was no tangible evidence of a motive.”

“He was never paid anything by anyone,” he said. “The ‘why’ here, in my mind, remains a mystery.”

At his trial, Mr. Ortis maintained his innocence and testified in his own defence.

Jon Doody, one of his defence lawyers, told reporters after the sentencing that his team was disappointed and had hoped for much lighter sentence. They had proposed a total term of incarceration of seven years.

They intend to appeal both the conviction and the sentence, Mr. Doody said.

He pointed out that Justice Maranger said there were no findings of fact made by the jury that Mr. Ortis had exposed the identity of an undercover agent, so it is quite a stretch to suggest he put an individual’s life at risk.

As for Canada’s relationship with its Five Eyes allies, Mr. Doody said he had no doubt it had been affected by the situation with Mr. Ortis, but Canada remains an active member of the alliance.

The Crown had sought two consecutive sentences of 14 years – a 28-year prison term.

Crown prosecutor Judy Kliewer said at the time that if the court found 28 years too long, 22 to 25 years would still be appropriate.

Speaking to reporters outside the courthouse Wednesday, she said Mr. Ortis betrayed the RCMP, our domestic intelligence partners and the Five Eyes community. In failing to abide by his oath to protect sensitive information, she added, he effectively compromised the trust Canada has earned in protecting information.

“Without that trust, Mr. Ortis’s conduct resulted in every Canadians’ security being jeopardized,” she said.

As for the longer sentence the Crown had sought, Ms. Kliewer said the Crown will take the judge’s reasons and consider them before determining whether to take further action.