B.C. RCMP officer ordered to resign after driving drunk, pointing handgun at civilians

The RCMP logo is shown in Edmonton on Wednesday, Feb. 5, 2025. (Jason Franson / The Canadian Press)

An RCMP officer who was posted to Williams Lake, B.C., has been ordered to resign from the force after a conduct board hearing found he had operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated and pointed a handgun at two members of the public.

The discreditable conduct occurred in the early morning hours of July 1, 2022, while Const. Olavo Castro was on extended medical leave, according to the conduct board decision in the case.

Conduct board member Kevin L. Harrison issued the decision on July 22 of this year, but it was not published online until Wednesday.

‘Flashing the firearm’

According to the document, Castro veered his Ford F350 pickup truck across a road, pulling up next to two men, identified in the decision only by the initials J.E. and W.B.

Castro disputed that he drove out of his way to get close to the men, but Harrison concluded he had done so.

The officer would later tell a fellow Mountie investigating the case that he had consumed seven beers before leaving his home for the Williams Lake Stampede, and police would find another beer open “in plain sight in the truck’s console.”

Harrison found that Castro had veered toward the men and “nearly hit” J.E., prompting him to raise his arms in what he described as a “what the f**k” gesture.

This, according to the conduct board member, is what led to the confrontation between the men, during which Castro asked “do we have a problem here?” and pulled out a handgun.

While the officer denied pointing the weapon at the men, Harrison concluded that he had done so “in a general way.”

“After considering all of the evidence, I find that the subject member removed the firearm from a place of concealment in the pouch (of his hoodie) long enough for Mr. J.E. and Mr. W.B. to realize he had a firearm before returning it to the pouch,” Harrison’s decision reads.

“I find that ‘flashing the firearm’ appropriately describes those movements. The important fact is that the subject member accosted two civilians with a firearm for no apparent reason.”

Police would later seize a “Smith & Wesson M&P 9 handgun” with a round in the chamber from Castro’s truck, according to the decision. The weapon is a restricted firearm and Castro did not have proper authorization to transport it.

The presence of the gun “concerned Mr. W.B. enough that he felt it necessary to push Mr. J.E. out of the way so he could intercede and calm the situation down,” the decision reads.

After W.B.’s intervention, Castro drove off toward the stampede grounds and J.E. and W.B. made their way toward an on-duty police officer who was engaged in a traffic stop nearby, so that they could report what happened.

‘Discreditable conduct’

The on-duty officer radioed his colleagues, advising them to look out for a man in a newer model, silver Ford diesel pickup truck who had flashed a handgun.

Around 2 a.m., an officer working near the entrance to the beer garden at the stampede grounds observed Castro driving such a vehicle and asked him to get out, informing him that he was being detained for pointing a firearm.

This officer also noted signs of impairment and saw the open beer can inside Castro’s truck, according to the decision.

Castro provided a breath sample, which registered a “fail” reading, then declined to provide a second sample, reasoning that he knew it would be another “fail” and he “did not want to waste anyone’s time.”

He received a 90-day driving prohibition and his truck was impounded for 30 days.

The conduct board decision indicates Castro later pleaded guilty to possession of a restricted firearm and received a suspended sentence with 12 months of probation.

Harrison concluded that both the impaired driving and the confrontation with W.B. and J.E. amounted to “discreditable conduct.”

‘Loss of employment’ necessary

When considering the appropriate sanction to impose on Castro, the board member noted that Castro had been diagnosed in May 2022 with “PTSD, alcohol-use disorder, cannabis-use disorder and persistent depressive disorder.”

“I accept the diagnoses,” the decision reads. “I also accept that the subject member had ‘hit rock bottom at this point in his life.’ Nevertheless, his medical conditions do not absolve him of culpability for his actions.”

Harrison deemed Castro’s mental health and life circumstances to be a mitigating factor, along with his stated remorse for his conduct.

However, the board member also found Castro’s “lack of forethought” to be “unacceptable.”

“The subject member was unable to explain why he engaged Mr. J.E. and Mr. W.B. in the first instance or why he did not extract himself from the situation once he was faced with what he perceived to be Mr. J.E.’s aggressive actions,” the decision reads.

“He had a means of escape. He further provoked Mr. J.E. by brandishing the firearm and showing it to him. This matter would not be before me if the subject member had simply driven by or driven away.”

Castro’s representative during the conduct proceeding argued that he should face a financial penalty of 30 days’ pay, forfeit 15 days of annual leave, be ineligible for promotion for three years, work under close supervision for up to a year, attend counselling and write a letter of apology to J.E. and W.B.

The conduct authority – essentially the equivalent of the prosecution if this were a criminal case – asked Harrison to order Castro’s dismissal from the force.

The board member concluded that “loss of employment” was a necessary consequence in this case, but stopped short of dismissing Castro outright. Instead, Harrison directed him to resign within 14 days of the decision, adding that if he did not do so within that period, he would be dismissed.

“In the absence of the mitigating factors of the subject member’s recognition of his misconduct and his duty-related mental health issues, the public interest demands his outright dismissal,” the decision reads.

“However, when those mitigating factors are brought into consideration, I do not think that the public interest is adversely affected by directing the subject member to resign from the force. The main consideration is that he will no longer be a member of the RCMP.”