C-006 - Conduct Authority Decision 

The Appellant was off-duty and had consumed alcohol when he sought entry into a nightclub by showing his RCMP badge and falsely stating that he was conducting surveillance. He also falsely claimed that he was carrying a firearm. The Appellant was allowed into the nightclub by a manager who subsequently became uncomfortable with the situation and contacted 911. As the Appellant was leaving the nightclub shortly thereafter, the manager asked him to speak to a police dispatcher on the manager's cell phone. The Appellant told the dispatcher that he was conducting surveillance and leaving the club. As the Appellant walked back to his hotel, he was approached by two local police officers responding to the situation. The Appellant was defiant and uncooperative towards the local officers. Eventually, the two local officers and their supervisor accompanied the Appellant to his hotel room where they verified that his firearm was safely stored.

Two allegations were brought against the Appellant as a result of these events. At a conduct meeting with the Respondent, the Appellant admitted Allegation #1 which alleged that he had contravened section 3.2 of the Code of Conduct by using his police officer status to gain access to the nightclub. The Appellant contested Allegation #2 which alleged that he had been confrontational and belligerent with the local officers, thereby conducting himself in a discreditable manner contrary to section 7.1 of the Code of Conduct. The Appellant provided a written submission to the Respondent in which he contended that his actions had been neither belligerent nor confrontational as set out in Allegation #2. Following the conduct meeting, the Respondent issued a record of decision in which he imposed a financial penalty of three days of pay with respect to Allegation #1. The Respondent found that the Appellant's behaviour with the local officers had been inappropriate and he concluded that Allegation #2 had been established. He imposed a financial penalty of seven days of pay in addition to certain other measures. The Appellant appealed both the finding and the financial penalty imposed with respect to Allegation #2.

The Respondent failed to address whether the evidence supported a finding of belligerent and confrontational behaviour as specified in Allegation #2. Further, the Respondent made no specific finding in his reasons of discreditable conduct under section 7.1 of the Code of Conduct. While the Respondent's reasons were not required to be lengthy, they had to provide a roadmap from the evidence to the particular allegation of belligerent and confrontational conduct contrary to section 7.1. The Appellant's submission raised several arguments as to why the Appellant's actions could not be characterized as belligerent and confrontational. The Respondent's failure in the reasons for decision to make a finding regarding these specific elements and his failure to provide any analysis of the Appellant's conduct against section 7.1 of the Code of Conduct or a test for discreditable conduct were determinative omissions that rendered his decision clearly unreasonable.

The ERC examined whether the record supported a finding that the Appellant's conduct had been either belligerent or confrontational, as it was not necessary to establish each of the particulars in order to establish the allegation. While the evidence did not support a finding of belligerent conduct, it supported a finding of confrontational behaviour. Definitions of the verb "confront" refer to defiant and argumentative behaviour, and the record contained evidence of defiance towards the local officers. The Appellant initially refused to provide personal information, complied only after several requests, refused to speak to local officers of lower rank, demanded the attendance of a supervisor, and demonstrated argumentative behaviour. The ERC also found that the confrontational behaviour amounted to discreditable conduct pursuant to section 7.1 of the Code of Conduct. In the ERC's view, a reasonable member of the public, apprised of the Appellant's lack of cooperation and tone of behaviour, would likely conclude that the Appellant did not conduct himself in a manner expected of a member of the RCMP during his interaction with the local officers.

The conduct measure of seven days' pay imposed for Allegation #2 reflected appropriate aggravating factors, which included a lack of integrity and respect for officers of another police force and prior informal disciplinary action for similar conduct. The conduct measure imposed on the Appellant, while at the high end of the range applicable in similar instances of misconduct, was not clearly disproportionate to the pattern of discipline established by prior cases.

The ERC recommended to the Commissioner of the RCMP that, pursuant to paragraph 45.16(2)(b) of the RCMP Act, he allow the appeal of the Respondent's finding that Allegation #2 was established due to material and determinative omissions from the Record of Decision and make the finding that the Respondent should have made. The ERC further recommended that the Commissioner make a finding that the Appellant's conduct during his interaction with the local officers was confrontational and likely to discredit the Force, contrary to section 7.1 of the Code of Conduct.

The ERC also recommended to the Commissioner that, pursuant to paragraph 45.16(3)(a) of the RCMP Act, he dismiss the appeal in respect of the conduct measure imposed on the Appellant and confirm the conduct measure of a financial penalty of seven days of the Appellant's pay.

The Commissioner, or a delegate, has rendered his decision in this matter, as summarized by his office:

The Appellant appeals the Respondent's finding that an allegation of discreditable conduct, contrary to section 7.1 of the RCMP Code of Conduct, was established. He also appeals the financial penalty of seven days' pay administered on that allegation under section 3(1). The appeal is allowed on both counts due to material and determinable errors. The Conduct Appeal Adjudicator nonetheless found the allegation of discreditable conduct established on the basis of confrontational behaviour, as particularized in the allegation. It was not necessary to establish all particulars of the allegation but it was necessary to make findings with respect to those particulars and whether it amounted to discreditable conduct. The Conduct Appeal Adjudicator varied the financial penalty to three days' pay.